Froch or Calzaghe? Who retired with the better resume?

wins on their resume? or overall?

 

probably froch tbh.

 

Froch without a doubt but a lot of that was contributed to the super six not to mention it was a lot easier to unify

Had Calzaghe been able to fight Brewer/Mitchell for their WBA/IBF belts his career would have sky rocketed along with tackling the WBC strap from Woodhall/Reid.

Sadly Joe didnt really do enough to enhance his career until the Lacy fight came along and move up to 175 earlier but that was his own doing mostly. Still his resume isnt garbage like most would have you believe,

Eubank - Reid - Woodhall - Brewer - Mitchell - Lacy - Bika - Kessler - Hopkins - Jones

Pascal - Taylor - Dirrell - Kessler (L) - Abraham - Johnson - Ward (L) - Bute - Kessler - Groves 2x.

Their resumes are pretty close, its just that Froch fought one tough fight after another whilst Calzaghe did fight occasional "tune up" bout

Regardless id still rate Calzaghe above Froch due to the Kessler performances and the fact Calzaghe was able to unify the division and rightfully become known as the #1 . . . . not second best

 

easily froch.

 

Calzaghe. Better CV and better legacy.

Froch's resume consists of losses to Kessler and Ward as well.

 

Calzaghe had his best fights towards the end, then retired, cementing his legacy. Froch fought a pretty much unknown Brit in his last 2 fights, doing nothing for his legacy.

 

whom calzaghe never fought away or ward, so they are not problems compared to joe.

besides joes legacy and cv being obviously worse by a fair degree.

 

That's according to a known Calzaghe hater.

In reality, Froch has never become the kingpin of his division. He's not on Calzaghe's level neither legacy wise or prime for prime.

 

I've gotta say even, Calzaghe beat older versions of Hopkins and Jones jr but Jones was still very capable and Hopkins, well look what he's done since then. Eubank was out of prime true but he wasn't exactly a shell. Kessler is a great win, he has a decent resume the rest, not brilliant but decent.
Froch is more for consistency, he fought a goddamn murderer's row for countless years since becoming champ. If only he'd stuck around for Triple G or DeGale... then again we can say that for any great. Even taking on Golovkin and making a fight of it at his age would've elevated his resume further.
Knocking Groves out kinda cancels out missing the DeGale fight for me, so can't hold that against him. Losing to Ward is fine, Kessler redemption adds a lot of substance, would've liked a ''straightener'' as he likes to say.

 

Calzaghe easily. Retired undefeated, a ton of defenses, beat Hopkins and took Kessler's zero.

Froch has nothing on that and took an L to a worse version of Kessler.

 

its seems that I wrote a fact you cant reply to so you resort to that comment. that's ok mate.

in the way that joe went from wbo titlist to unifed champ for a few months after Kessler, and then ran from the other titles?ran, that is, emphatically, from carl froch.

real kingpin, who had no intention of defending kesslers old titles. wat a joke of a comment.

don't see froch running from his duties until he was ready to retire.