Froch VS Calzaghe Poll

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Irish84, Aug 29, 2009.


  1. bluebird

    bluebird Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,940
    2,697
    Apr 17, 2009
    Calzaghe biggest wins... Hopkins,Jones,Kessler,Eubank,Bika,Reid

    Froch biggest wins...Taylor,Pascal..? help me I'm stuck.
     
  2. Irish84

    Irish84 Mr Full Member

    622
    0
    Aug 28, 2009
    The question was regarding calzaghes first 20 defences and froch first

    not a question about who has faced the better opposition
     
  3. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    Of course you are :nono:rofl
     
  4. Bad_Intentions

    Bad_Intentions Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,367
    31
    May 15, 2007
    :lol::yep
     
  5. MaliSlamusrex

    MaliSlamusrex Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,249
    1
    Nov 10, 2008
    your getting insulted because your wasting my time.

    Hopkins,Jones, Kessler, Eubank,,Reid, Mitchell, Woodhall, Brewer and Veit were world champions so what your basically saying beating 8 former world champions is nothing. i am not sure who thats insulting, Calzaghe, his opponents or boxing itself.

     
  6. I'm comfortable even if you don't exist.

    Au Contraire. When a new poster joins, and their only contribution (I use that in a loose, broad sense of the word), is to write what can only be described, by the most objective of people, as trash; THAT is known as trolling. You're welcome to try and prove me wrong, I have a good set of lungs.

    Indeed, it does however, serve as a useful facillitating scenario for my argument. However - it is relative, as both fighters you mentioned, Froch and Taylor, are competitors of this tournament/competition. This tournament/competition is in the division that Calzaghe ruled, and made his 20 defences, and features another former Calzaghe opponent - one who is the overwhelming majority favourite to win outright. Calzaghe won that comfortably.

    I apologise.

    I have not presented Taylor as "sub world class", I brought forward perspective that Taylor isn't the world class superstar fighter that many people are attempting to subscribe to. He is fast, gifted, athletic HOWEVER he has significant flaws, and one that allowed a significant faction of posters on this very site to predict ACCURATELY how the fight would go. I remember McGrain's analysis being spot on - posted around a month before the fight.

    On the other hand, a) What round did you pick Lacy to KO Joe in? b)
    (TBC)
     
  7. No threat whatsoever. Many posters here at the time of the fight will happily attest that ESB was near unanimous in a Lacy victory.


    Calzaghe made 21 defences. Just to keep you in the loop, the one thing worse than stupidity/ignorance is repeated stupidity/ignorance.

    Who was Froch's best opponent prior to the time of the Taylor fight? In hindsight - Pascal. At the time? Reid. A shot version of a fighter Calzaghe beat in Reid's prime. Even if we go back to Pascal - he's probably on the same level as Chris Eubank (at time of the Calzaghe fight), or maybe Brewer/Mitchell.

    At the end of the day - if you believe that Taylor is as good as Calzaghe's first 20 defences (or even 21, now that you are somewhat more enlightened), then that is your opinion - something that you are entitled to. You're wrong, but that is your perogative to be so.
     
  8. bluebird

    bluebird Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,940
    2,697
    Apr 17, 2009

    And the answer is still the same, Taylor had lost twice to a one dimensional fighter, had tough fightswith Cory Spinks and Kasim Ouma, drew with the smaller Winky Wright and then moved up a division. How is beating this man better than 20 Calzaghe title defences? Taylor is nothing special.
     
  9. joe6991

    joe6991 Member Full Member

    232
    0
    Jun 7, 2009
    this has to be a joke? froch only won the taylor fight in the last seconds and with it being in america does it really matter? he is only known and liked in nottingham, calzaghe is welsh so fighting reid and woodhall in england is nearly the same as froch being an unknown, disliked fighter against taylor. the super six subject is quite stupid too.. it never happened when calzaghe was around so he cant be slated for not doing it while froch is. joe also beat the guy who is the favourite to win that tourney. joe didnt fight the greatest fighters that cant be argued with but there were a few ones that had recently been champions which is all taylor was(moving up in weight too) so any neutral should be able to think logically enough to see that one defence that was nearly froch's last isnt better than 20 of calzaghe's that include a few world champs
     
  10. Irish84

    Irish84 Mr Full Member

    622
    0
    Aug 28, 2009
    Iron Fist Joe:

    Thanks for posting all the opinions of people who didnt know who Calzaghe was. If you had any inclination of who calzaghe was before the lacy fight you knew that he was at least in a 50/50 chance. I predicted Joe would win and do it easliy.

    your apology is hollow as you have directed insults again in this post

    You talk of objectivity but show no sign of it.

    You can start a discussion thread if you wish to discuss other aspects of their careers.

    My question was regarding calzaghes 1st 20 defences, and froch first.

    posters have continually strayed from this point of discussion.

    To wander beyond that point of discussion shows a lack of desire to engage in it.

    Objectivity would mean no direct or underlying insulting/sarcastic/petty remarks are present and i think this is the best way forward to discuss a point.
     
  11. Trendkiller

    Trendkiller 420 Full Member

    684
    0
    Apr 20, 2008
    spot on
     
  12. Trendkiller

    Trendkiller 420 Full Member

    684
    0
    Apr 20, 2008
    jesus, what a ****in tool.
     
  13. Like most people who know they don't have a real argument, but simply want to "stir the pot", you ignore any response, and say "strayed from this point of discussion". I've gone into considerable detail to inform you, and enlighten you to the reasons why you're wrong. You either know it, or are oblivious - I don't particularly care, but you're blatantly IGNORING every point made to you, only to say it's irrelevant. You criticise my lack of objectivity? Where is yours? Give reasons, spell it out what makes the single defense against Jermain Taylor, who was 1:1 above 160lb at the time of the fight, is better than a Calzaghe who was 43:0 by the time he fought Kessler. Retired with a record of 44:0 at 168lb's. The only opponent Taylor beat above 160lb is Jeff Lacy.

    The scenario's are as follows:

    1. Jeff Lacy is such an incredible win for a fighter, that it's worth more than 20 defences. Except one of those 20 include an unbeaten Jeff Lacy. So that doesn't work.
    2. Jeff Lacy was green for the Calzaghe fight, and was prime when he fought Taylor. Possible, but it's also possible that my ***** may grow an extra 5" in the next few years. I'm not putting money on it.
    3. Being destroyed by Calzaghe, and suffering a rotator cuff injury actually improved Lacy to such an extent - he was a far better fighter when he fought Taylor. No.
    5. Fighting on US soil is a significant disadvantage to foreign fighters, as the USA secretly sabotage foreign fighters in a bid to give their fighters the best chance possible to win. Possible, but again - until my ***** grows an extra 5", not happening.
    6. Losing to Pavlik is such an incredible achievement that it's worth 43 consecutive wins without a loss. Nothing needs to be said with regards to this.
    7. You're trolling, know you're trolling, and have no real response, nor argument for this. You have no points to bring forward, and your only defense is to disregard everything as "strayed from point of discussion".

    Ironic that one of your final sentences to me was:
    I've shown more than a willingness to engage, I've cited theoretical, actual and written examples. What have you shown?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8il4ebEitE
     
  14. Irish84

    Irish84 Mr Full Member

    622
    0
    Aug 28, 2009
    My point was very simple and was made in the previous posts.

    Basically Jermaine Taylor is a better and more accomplished fighter than all of the first of joes first 20 defences.

    you did stray from the point of discussion, that is obvious, an example is you bringing up the super six issue which had nothing to do with the question at hand

    so this point i did ignore as it had nothing to do with why this thread was started.

    i didn't state i had objective points (that you are asking for) i was merely pointing out that a lot of your post was unobjective even though you were claiming to me that you were very objective.

    but your "objective" points:
    1 - jeff lacy was good and calzaghe beating him means something - its hardly objective - thats just you opinion and my opinion is that it doesnt - and a a lot of the boxing world isnt sure whether lacy was just hyped or became shot after joe but thats just a matter of opinion
    2 - fighting abroad makes no difference to fighters - again i disagree, and there are probably some very clear statistics regarding this issue, but again only opinion
    3 - your speaking about joes 43-0 record when this has NOTHING to do with the discussion (again chagning the point - this is not a comparison of their whole careers)

    Finally, your latest post was again riddled with insults and sarcasm, rather pointlessly so.
     
  15. MrPR

    MrPR Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,197
    34
    Mar 23, 2009
    Cause Taylor is a proven elite fighter...Calzaghe 20 defenses werent agianst no PROVEN elite fighters