froch, hopkins, taylor, pavlik, kessler, calzaghe - rank them 1 to 5?

1. Calzaghe
2. Hopkins
3. Kessler
4. Froch
5. Taylor

 

Usuallt im the last person to defend tommy or someone like that but uhhh dude your not in a country. your in a forum. so many different countries here dude. Taylor did win most of the fight yeah but he still lost and got KTFO and by froch of all people.

 

I called you an idiot because you ranked a fighter above a guy who just KO'd him. Boxing does not work like that, otherwise history totally changes.

If you took your point of veiw then you would never see a fighter who is down on the cards win. It does not make any sense.

And me calling you an idiot for having an opinion which, does not make any sense, is not the same as an insult which is frankly one of the crappest that you could have thought of.

It is a free country, however, this is a forum. Its not come on post what you think and **** off without being challenged about it. Particularly when it makes no sense.

Your a guy with under 20 posts saying things which make no sense, i assumed you were a troll.

If not i apologise, but please, something better than a mom joke next time, that **** is just corney.

 

I would place Hopkins at 3 and Froch at 4

 

Fair enough...no hard feeling, I'm actually very knowledgable about boxing...so let me try a different approach then.

Ok Froch K.O. Taylor last night, but what if he didn't and Taylor survived...would you have given the fight to Froch? Froch won because he out will and out stamina Taylor but he definately is not the better boxer.

Taylor proved that he a class above, even in defeat. Taylor has a better chance of lasting against Bute, Kessler, Karoslay, etc than Froch does because he has boxing skills but lack stamina.....Froch has no technique, hands to low, relies on his chin and heart...great, that will beat the weak-will boxer maybe half of the time (Taylor) but what happens when he faces a fighter who can match him heart for heart, chin for chin plus they can actually box...he will lose everytime.

This fight was a spitting mirror of Bute-Andrade...one fighter outclassing the other one but the fighter with heart almost pulled it off. Having heart is not boxing, having heart is having heart....boxing is boxing.

Can any of you say that Andrade is the better boxing than Bute? and going into the 12th, did any of you consider Froch the better boxing than Taylor? Taylor gassed and Froch hurt him for that but when Taylor hurt Froch, Froch wasn't gassed, Taylor used technique and Froch own flaws ( hands low, chin up, slow jab) against him and score the knockdown

Taylor is the better of the two but Froch has more heart...big difference...and so Taylor is ahead of Froch on my list.

P.S...Mommy jokes work just fine for me...lol..no hard feeling

 

The better boxer is the one that wins. I'd favour Froch in a rematch after seeing how last night went down. Taylor has fundamental flaws (and dodgy stamina), he is more skilled than Froch but you cant call someone a better 'boxer' than someone who just beat him. The aim of boxing is to win, by whatever method!

 

The fight was not so onesided that it was the spit of Bute vs Andrade.

Basically all the things your sauing are fine, Taylor is a better boxer and he is, but there are two issues I have.

1. You rank boxer's on who is the better fighter not the better boxer. Jake LaMotta is not a great "boxer", but he is one hell of a fighter. You cannot base rankings on who is the better boxer, it becomes very subjective then.

Its the same sort of thing you can't rank fighters on who you thought won a fight or the course of boxing history would change. Froch proved himself to be a better fighter than Taylor as proved by the fact he knocked Taylor out.

2. Taylor does not adapt in fights, he fights the same way in every bout, he would get massacred by any of the divisons best unless he can stop them early and since he has not stopped anybody in 4 years that is not going to happen.

Froch has a better chance of beating the best fighters simply because he is tough and rugged and strong.

At the end of the day you dont box, you fight. Taylor is not a figher.

:good

 

i like this list, but i would have froch and taylor tied.

 

Calzaghe
Kessler
Hopkins
Pavlik
Taylor
Froch

I didn't see Froch-Taylor yet.

 

Dont know why people would rank Froch over Pavlik.

 

Calzaghe
Hopkins
Kessler
Pavlik
Froch
Taylor

 

p4p pavlik>kessler

 

1. Calzaghe
2. Hopkins
3. Kessler
4. Pavlik
5. Froch
6. Taylor

 

thats a big negative

 

Exactly right, right now. All time, I'd certainly put Hopkins well above Calzaghe, however.