Is Carl Froch the Best British Supermiddleweight ever?

Only live opponent Joe ever fought was Kessler.

Easy to look good against pensioners and roadsweepers.

 

atsch

 

Would Joe have been clearly losing to Taylor - No chance in hell
Would Joe have struggled with Direll? - No chance in hell
Would Joe lose to Kessler in Denmark - No chance in hell

Would Joe have been losing on points to Groves(on two occasions, needing knock-outs to win) - No chance in hell.

 

Would Joe have taken his first defense in the US ? no

Would Joe have taken part in a tournament where he wasn't a cert to win ? no

Would Joe have signed to fight Kessler away from the UK ? no

Would Joe have been losing to the likes of Groves on two occasions ? no cos Joe would never have fought an up and come fighter who would have given him a challenge.

Now f u c koff and stop annoying me with weak arguments.

 

but but but Joe was scared of planes!

 

Mine ain't weak arguments, I pointed out facts and the scorecards to you.
Froch was losing to Groves twice
He lost to Direll(At home)
He lost to Kessler
He lost to Ward
He was going to lose to JT before a lucky knockout(At home)

That should be 6 clear defeats on his record.
Joe only come close to losing once, In Hopkins backyard.
That was only close due to a knock-down.
The rest of the fight, Joe played with him.

As for your own weak argument.
I'll answer them all.

"Would Joe have taken his first defense in the US?"

Why would Joe need to travel to the US to defend his title when he was already the man at SMW?
The Champion gets home advantage. That's always been the case.

"Would Joe have taken part in a tournament where he wasn't a cert to win ?"
Joe never had to enter a Tournament, he was already recognised as the man at 168
That Super-six was devised to find the next guy at 168lbs after Joe retired.
Kessler was the heavy fave for the Tournament before it began.
Now, if I was Joe and Kessler was the heavy fave for a Tournament Joe would be overwhelming fave instead, due to the fact he already beat Kessler quite handily in their fight in Wales.

"Would Joe have signed to fight Kessler away from the UK?"
Would he need to?
That's like saying Ward needs to travel to beat Froch in England.
Ward would beat Froch again. Joe would beat Kessler in Denmark if it made financial sense.
It never did.

"no cos Joe would never have fought an up and come fighter who would have given him a challenge."
Joe beat undefeated Kessler
Joe beat undefeated Lacy
If that's not taking on "Up and coming" challenges I don't know what the hell is.

"Now f u c koff and stop annoying me with weak arguments."
Sorry, E-warrior. I'm sorry for your anguish at me painting Froch in a bad light.
Please forgive me. :?

 

cal**** forgets -
-reid arguably beat him.
-Mitchell had calzaghe down and in trouble, until in the same round zaghes ref stepped in straight after a Byron slip to award the fight to joe. Byron might well have had joe that fight, that round in fact.

I'd have froch ahead of joe in terms of peak "top level" acheviements, since he won one of the big three titles before joe and defended em more times than joe.

in contrast, Calzaghe has more minor acheviements than froch and for a longer duration.

is eubank above joe, that's a better debate.

 

based on him losing to injured Kessler at home until Kessler injury resurfaced midway and joe was able to capitalise?
no way you can claim no chance in hell based on that.

I'd say mikkel had a good chance to take joe in Denmark, hence the no rematch ever from joe. an uninjured Kessler can keep on racking up points versus joe without pausing for his damaged hand, and with an extra bonus from local judges, its fair to say he takes the win.

 

froch can be penalised for facing ward in hi backyard and losing, after all joe never faced sven or the best smws n their backyard EVER, so he never proved he can do what froch failed to do.

if you count it against him then you are clearly biased towards joe cal, and you devalue your appraisal system and thus your opinion - don't do yourself that injustice.

 

You really are an uneducated clueless cnut.

Where in britain did Froch fight Taylor ?
Froch won evry round from the 6th against Taylor, so how the fcuk did he get lucky ?

How was Joe "the man "at 168, who did he beat to claim that position ?

Joe was the WBO champ who'd beaten nobody and never left Wales except for the odd excursion into other parts of the UK and his hometown of London. Kessler was WBC and WBA Champ.

Before you try acting the cnut on a boxing forum, try doing your homework ********.

 

bob

 

well joe was the man after beating Kessler, but he showed no interest in defending tougher opposition that kesslers titles dictated, joe only wanted more bums to defend against so the bigger titles defences did not interest him.


so joe was the man from the moment he beat Kessler to perhaps a few weeks after that win, when he was clearly not going to attempt a defence of kesslers big three title. joe was the man at smw for a few weeks at best, and arguably for just a few seconds since he never intended to defend kesslers titles at all.


whereas Kessler was the man at smw for some 3-4 years, having defended some of the big three titles for 3 years, for in excess of joe's tiny (actually non-existent) stint.

in many ways Kessler can be argued to be greater than joe at smw. he certainly won some of the three major belts a decade before joe did, Kessler was 10 years ahead of joe in that.

 

Froch is not even in the top 5, Benn would have put the ***** on Saturn.

 

no