Yeah I'd have a few issues with that list but I find debating lists/top tens etc etc of fighters pretty pointless. Everybody has their favourites and you end up going round in circles with somebody downgrading a fighter for things that they then ignore when marking up one of their favourites. Although I suppose if you are comparing Froch and Calzaghe then at least they do have one common opponent at the top level in Kessler. In that regard, it took Froch 24 rounds to get his nose in front of a less fresh version of Kessler than the one Calzaghe won clearly and more comfortably against by the end of 12 rounds.
How is it heavily bias? Show where what was written is bias. You cannot say where, what I wrote is not correct
Calzaghe fought the likes of Eubank, Reid and Woodhall in England, Veit in Germany, Roy Jones and Hopkins in America all away from home in world title fights, Calzaghe beat loads of world champions, Calzaghe won every fight he ever had including unification fights against prime unbeaten champions in Lacy [the new Mike Tyson they were calling him and Calzaghe ruined him for the rest of his career] and Kessler [in front of well over 50,000 people]. Calzaghe has a better record than Froch and head to head Calzaghe would beat Froch at any stage of their championship careers, Froch wouldn't even win a round.
Calzaghe fought and beat better fighters, ANYBODY who really knows boxing knows this is the truth. Calzaghe actually fought proven super-middle weights like 6 former world champions on the bounce. Carl Froch gets credit for his loses or being beaten up. Joe Calzaghe errrmmmm oh yeh never lost!
pity joe only at home beat a one armed Kessler, so he doesn't qualify. But the Poll doesn't lie. forchs resume >>> calzaghes until calzaghe takes some tough fights t add the one or two smw ones he had - which he never will do now and tbh never intended to either. Calzaghe WANTED weak opposition, that's what not wanting tough fights means. What a **** approach for a so called world champion.
In terms of talent it goes to Calzaghe but Froch has a better Resume and at the end of the day a fighter should be judged by who he fights.
Also how can anyone make a case for Calzaghe when he openly said he didn't want tough fights, he is no atg in world boxing.
Lacy or Bute - Bute the better win, people were saying he would beat Froch and even Andre Ward. Woodhall or Magee - Woodhall better win. Mack is a better win than Sobot, thornburry, Juan Carlos Giménez Ferreyra, Jimenez, pudwill, McIntyre, Ashira, Salem. Joe's Kessler win is better than Carl's Kessler win. Taylor or Manfredo - Taylor Abraham or Mkrtchyan, Veit - Abraham. Hopkins or Pascal - Hopkins. Bika or Johnson - case to be made either way. Roy Jones win was a cowardly win just because of the remarks Joe made earlier in his career. You can manipulate the wins to make each fighter look better, the one fact is Joe ducked a **** load of fighter and Carl ducked no one.
Head to head prime joe takes green froch who had no plan B back then, but I would bet on prime froch, with more in his armoury, to ice postprime Joe Cal, explaining why Joe ran once Froch became a force.
Calzaghe clearly for me, a 2 weight champion, never beaten also Froch has never beaten anyone as good as Hopkins or the Kessler Calzaghe beat, reality is Froch has never achived what joe did and thats become the number 1 SMW.
come on mate! it would be unfair to expect Mikkel to 1. break his hand before going into the Froch fight so as to make him an equal to the one Joe faced, or 2. concede to fighting him in the UK as Joe did. BUt going on your hypothetical.....lets say Kess did break his hand in the Froch fight in Denmark, Froch would have outpointed him (since he was pretty much there already anyway, barely losing the fight). SO that would be Froch beating Kessler BOTH HOME and AWAY, which is clearly and blatantly TWICE as good as Calzaghe managed or would even dare since he ran from a Denmark rematch with Mikk. That is, IF you want the same Kessler that Joe fought, as YOU specifically asked for. Not only that, going on equal terms with Joe's Mikkel means Froch fighting Mikkel at home the first time too instead of in Denmark - and we already know Froch definitely beat MIkkel in the UK/at home. So you appear to have proved with your post that Froch outdid Calzaghe not just in a singular manner, but in more ways than one. SO did you really want Froch to fight the same Kessler that Joe fought?
The win Froch has over Kes was in the UK secondly why would joe rematch a guy he beat clearly and decisively, Kessler was in his prime or near when he fought joe the won carl beat was past prime and coming off a almost career ending injury, what are you talking about Carl lost in Denmark to a fighter joe beat well, seriously people need to realise Froch isn't and never has been on Calzaghes level Froch isn't the best SMW in the world Joe was, also Joe moved up and beat the best at LHW when Froch does that then we can talk.
exactly my point. my point, not yours,. you've not answered that point either. prime with a damaged hand is not prime, but maybe it is to you. don't say what are you talking about, thats no answer! ... answer the point don't run away like calzaghe does. take your time mate.
Just answer me this has Froch ever beaten anyone as good as Hopkins, has Froch ever been number 1 SMW in the world like Calzaghe, if not then Calzaghe ranks higher
Calzaghe is clearly the better fighter with a far better ability to adapt in a fight. I love Froch and the blood and guts battles that he has been involved in but there are weaknesses that Calzaghe would exploit and win a clear decision.