Joe Calzaghe vs Carl Froch

Better control of range than Hopkins? Doubt it.

They are quick, but Calzaghe would outscrap both no problems.

 

Well that's the thing Calzaghe became toothless against Hopkins and both are allot quicker than Hopkins as Taylor proved, who ofcourse performed far better against a younger Hopkins in 2 outings than Joe managed

Calzaghe did show he looked bad against back foot counter punchers (Hopkins/Bika), so Dirrell especially gives him problems

Against I think he can beat both but they are potential upsets, Calzaghe certainly isn't an unbeatable force and he has plenty of holes in his own game, especially defensively

 

Calzaghe isn't invincible but he was clearly past his best (form and weight) by the time of the Hopkins fight, and in any case, Bernard has a ton more grit and caginess than the other two, which is what really made Calzaghe toothless.

 

I disagree that Bernard made Joe toothless. Joe kept coming forward, using his jab, in the latter half of the fight he was landing the better shots, and overwhelmed Bernard to the point that he had to fake low blows, in one of the most disgraceful incidents of the modern era. As much as Bernard likes to talk about how 'old school' he is, if that was an 'old school' 15 round fight he would have lost so clearly that this wouldn't be up for debate (I scored 115-112 to Calzaghe).

 

I favour both andre's over joe. Plus another of froch's victims might spring an upset.

 

Noone is denying this mcgrain.

However when i'm giving my opinion on a fighter, i'm not gonna give credit to he who looked to be landing as opposed to he who was landing.

I don't award titles, I don't pay the purse fee, I don't do anything of any consequence within the boxing world, they aren't trying to impress me and nor should they.

But when giving my own viewpoint I follow my own scoring. It isn't that difficult to understand.

I don't stop froch from successfully defending his wbc title to dirrell, I merely choose to credit dirrell with a winning performance away from home in his first real fight.

 

The key difference is I don't seek consensus opinion, I embrace the subjective nature of the sport.

I saw an interview with steve bunce and iran barkley, the two were discussing the disgraceful decision to award the wbc mw title fight to duran.

The truth is anytime anyone disagrees with a result it's directly contrary to the reality.

The argument that fighter a has a better resume than fighter b because he beat fighter c who beat fighter b is only as valid as the decision itself.

When I watch a fight I feel totally capable of producing a confident scorecard. 3 men disagreeing from ringside doesn't change that.

 

Surely by going solely off your own scorecard it suggests a problem unless you've seen and scored every single fight?

 

Of course that's all that matters in determining a winner.

But it isn't all that matters when forming my opinion.

Where you see a flaw, I just see a difference of opinion. I'm not trying to convert anyone but who giving my opinion I have to go off what I see to be true.

Bringing us back full circle to kessler, listing it as a negative for froch and a positive for joe purely based on 3 men means nothing to me. Listing the different strategies involved and subsequent successes of each man is something i'm much more interested in.

"he convinced the judges therefore was better on the night" isn't a line of thought i'm particularly interested in. Sure there's merit, it's just not what i'm interested in regarding the sport.

 

Of course, but what has that got to do with how I interpret the fight?

My rankings mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Far less than the official decision rendered. So let me get on with it

 

Obviously Wyatt Earp saw a foul, he was the official so Fitz definitely hit Sharkey with a low blow, no need to take anything else into consideration.

? Or is that a different argument entirely McGrain?

I always thought you judged a fight on your own criteria, don't remember you leaning to this P.O.V before. :think

 

I think I would favor Froch in this match up. He is excellent against southpaws. Good jab and right cross. He could keep Calzaghe down. Calzaghe is good maybe even a great fighter but nowhere near as good as some claim.