Joe Calzaghe vs Carl Froch

Calzaghe is the better fighter, Calzaghe is quicker and faster than Froch in both his movement and the throwing of punches, Calzaghe can throw a 1000 punches a fight from all sorts of angles.
Calzaghe has ring craft and nous, he can box or have a scrap, he always finds a way to work his opponent out and win, they dont come more determined than super Joe Calzaghe.

Calzaghe beats Froch by a wide UD margin.

 

No will he heck, almost half the time he'll confuse carl with his angles and footwork as well as overwhelm him with volume.

No I agree, but based on his career thus far it's slicksters i'd worry about and not volume punchers.

I don't think mikel outpunched him. The two andre's were too quick in different ways, both proved athletic superiority one on the back foot and one on the front.

I see nothing in froch to suggest he would definitely lose to joe. However if we're to discuss the mid 90's joe who could punch it might be different but then again he wouldn't be as experienced to deal with getting hurt.

It's a toss up fight but with the coin in the air i'd call carl.

 

Fine. It's one of those fights like Leonard-Hagler that is divisive. However, I have scored this one 3 times and never had it even being close. The truth of the matter is that Calzaghe almost had Hopkins out in the 10th with his volume, pace, and clout, and that Hopkins had to resort to the most egregious fake job in modern times, cashing in a career's worth of good will from the ref to get the breather he needed to save face. He was going to get stopped, plain and simple. Calzaghe was landing a lot and connecting with increasingly emphatic blows.

Hung like a horse?

 

When has Joe ever been on the ropes taking punches?

 

I was going to say Froch is just too ****ing slow, but then i remembered the close fight with cigar store indian Robin Reid.A truly slow man.

Still, Calzaghe should win clearly.Froch is the kind of boxer who exposes the ones that aren't relaxed natural fighters.Calzaghe's slop might make it close, but he should be too comfortable, mobile and versatile for Carl.

 

If 1 man called you a horse you'd call it foolish; if 3 men called you a horse you'd call it a joke; if 20 men called you a horse you'd call it a conspiracy; if 100 men called you a horse get down on your hands and knees and wear a saddle.

 

I think of ward as more of a slippery sharp shooter than an awkward volume puncher.

The key difference being head movement and reaction time. I think that whilst carl didn't have the tools to back up ward, he would back up joe. Maybe not to the ropes but enough to divert him from strategy and initiate an exchange and when that happens we'll see carl land 3 big hooks whilst joe lands 5 or 6 slaps. It'll be a matter of what you like best I envision.

 

I think it's clear to see Kessler did outpunch Froch. That's exactly what he did. Froch gave him that awkward jabbing look early on and it didn't sit well with Kessler.

I met Kessler on holiday last year and tried to get this across He seemed pleased that I enjoyed the fight, even if he didn't know why I was screaming at him.

I'm a man who takes big stock in opposition faced. But using my own eyes, I can see Joe is a class just above Carl Froch. It's the difference between Yaqui Lopez and Conteh, Saad and Spinks. Good enough to compete, not good enough to win.

 

Ward is most definitely not a 'sharp shooter' IMO. Just not what I think of.

More an athletic mauler.

 

It is refuteable though, ward had success. I think ward would beat any smw not named jones jr. I think ward is much better suited to infighting with carl than joe is.

As surprising and unpredictable as joe is, you can say the same for carl. What you can also say is throwing 100 punches a round leaves a lot of openings, a risk taker like carl who doesn't mind leaping in squared up with a piston attack, will capitalise on those openings.

Where you see a class gap, I do not. They have a common opponent in mikel. I had both winning with joe winning clearer. But that's not enough to point to a class gap as mosley-forest-mayorga etc etc demonstrates.

A bigger indication is the level of competition, the obstacles one overcomes and the challenges on sets themselves. All these point towards froch being of a higher level in my opinion.

Joe had a great finish to his career but for long stretches he was pampered, protected and a huge favourite.

Carl has dove in at the deepend after setting himself above domestic level. I think carl has a better resume and has the stylistic advantage.

I love to debate fantasy fights and where you think it's strange I pick carl, I think it's extraordinary you dismiss him.

If I was to list greats in this division i'd put carl ahead of joe by a whisker.

When picking here I pick carl ahead of joe by a whisker.

I really struggle to see joe keeping froch at range. I see it being a devolution into a good old fashioned tear up and under those circumstances, in this division, I pick carl over anyone.

Wins over magee, reid, pascal, taylor, kessler, abraham, johnson and bute have shown his class. Losses to two andres show his limit.

If we all agreed it would be a **** forum and whilst I hugely respect your opinion, I aint buying what your selling today.

Froch 8-7 calzaghe. That's my final answer :

 

His style is ugly but his punches as well timed and precise. I've not looked up his punch stats but I bet his accuracy is above average. He picks his shots well and whilst he is freakishly strong for his frame I don't think it detracts from what an excellent puncher he is.

I see different in froch-mikel. I thought froch outjabbed mikel and landed the better shots in more of the rounds. (Although the nose breaker by mikel was sickeningly good!)

Joe is brilliant and his style is hard to beat in the division's short history. I just don't think he has the beating of the cobra prime for prime.

I think he's better and greater and more proven as a smw.

Whilst admittedly we don't know joe's level in the division, I certainly wouldn't pick him to beat either andre.

Then again slick athletic types are are my fad atm and I struggle to see them losing full stop. I.e. If asked to pick on pea v duran i'd pick pea in a heartbeat.

I've diverged here. Basically I call bs on this supposed class gap between carl and joe.

 

Current Hopkins vs Carl Froch would be a cracking match. Honestly, I wouldn't favor Froch too much. Certainly, four years ago I'd have favoured Hopkins, now I'd have to go with the British native, but without much certainty.

 

I've always said Calzaghe would beat Froch wide because of his movement, speed and Froch being easy to hit. But last night made me give Froch a chance in this fight. He has the counter right that bothered Joe, a great jab, greater power and unorthodox angles. His punches are straighter and longer than Joe's who slaps and punches short and a little wide at times

Joe is not Bute though, he's a far superior ring general and wouldn't fold like a tent like Bute did

I now think this is a close fight, I may be getting blinded by last night's performance mind you, it was an amazing performance, I still favour Joe but now in a close 7-5 type fight

McGrain I disagree about Calzaghe outjabbing Kessler persee, it wasn't his jab it was his movement and angles more than the quality of the jab