It's undeniable now... Joe Calzaghe > Froch

yeah its joe i am talking about. read it.


if you have massive dyslexia problems then no worries i forgive u you (if not then u are a ttoal terad).

 

...whereas as this post is about Joe AND Carl. see the difference? ty, np mate.

 

I have posted the link several times in thsi thread go and read it but you need to join the Sun website now.

 

But there was a reason to fights bums like Thornbury, Salem, Ashira, Sobot, Juan Carlos Giménez Ferreyra, Mger Mkrtchyan throughout his career.

 

would it be the same reason Joe offered froch a fight when forch was regional but was not interested and claimed forch had done nothing, once froch had rose above national level.

 

Apparently, this is what also happened with Pavlik.

Frank W and a lot of other people wanted Joe to fight Pavlik after the Hopkins, instead of taking a fight against Roy. But Joe said that he wasn't interested, because Pavlik had done nothing.

But he then admitted that they'd tried to fight Pavlik a few years earlier, and nothing had come of it.

 

That was always the case, i could never understand how people gave Froch a chance Calzaghe would have done a Lacey style job on him, Joe's combinations, speed, stamina would have cause Froch fits. Calzaghe is an ATG British fighter IMO top 5 ever! Froch never was on his level. Also people saying Calzaghe wouldn't have fought Groves, his biggest fights came at the end of his career with Kessler, Hopkins, ect. Going over to Vegas and beating BHOP was a tougher fight then fighting a Groves. Don't forget Groves up until Froch was unproven if it was Calzaghe fighting Groves and he won then i guarantee everyone said's he fought an unkown instead of fighting a BHOP or Kessler. Also people saying Joe fought nobody who did he duck, Johnson, Ottke as if the likes of Glen Johnson has a hope against Joe Calzaghe.

 

you are saying something about when Joe was 35. I am not sure why you are saying it, cos I'm not.


froch 37 at time of groves fight, and he was found wanting at that age.

joe 37 fought oldies exclusively, which in retrospect and given frochs struggle with GG, could be seen as wisdom.

 

the difference is 35 and 37, I believe.

the correct comparison is Kessler with Ward, and Jones/Hopkins with Groves.

your move.

 

are you being serious ?, like this was ever a question.
joe is a true atg NO question while froch is a tough journeyman that was fortunate enough to win a couple belts. he has never been close to the best of his division, i would argue never been top 3 in said division.

one of the most overhyped fighters of the last few decades. he is a tougher albeit more skilled version of marg and marg sucks. always had sucked

 

the difference is two years. I think that's significant, lots of fighters lose some top fineries between 35 and 37. That's why its a retiring age bracket. why don't you agree with them?

Are you saying Joe was prime when he fought bhop and roy?
I certainly dont agree with your view, he was definitely postprime by then.


but you are welcome to your view, don't expect many to agree with you, including Joe C, Bailey etc etc.

 

Good summary but would be tempted to maybe move Carl up to a b - a b miunus seems too harsh

 

Froch a tough journeyman??

Next joke.

 

Joe had predicted in the press Groves had the potential to upset Froch. He predicted too Ward would beat him again.
Back 6 years ago, he asked Froch to face Kessler, because "he knew who was going to be the winner" of that one.

Joe is Froch's daddy.
Always has.
Always will.

You mad, bro ?

 

Carl froch is not a world champion never has been and never will be

If andre ward beat mikkel kessler for the world championship an then kessler beats froch then ward beats froch.........How can carl froch be the world champion?......:huh




carl froch ain't beat nobody...... Look at where there career and health is right now:deal