Joe Calzaghe vs Carl Froch

I havent read the entire thread but this depends on what is meant by "home". Calzaghe fighting in London versus a foreigner is as good as fighting at home. This he did far too often during the middle part of his career.

 

Calzeghe wins a clean decision ... too fast and elusive ...

 

As much as i hate Calzaghe and believe he was overrated. He beats Froch, wholly because Froch is slow. Thats the only thing which holds him back imo, if he was faster hed have a much better chance.

However i respect Carl 'who havent i fought' Froch more than Joe 'Whose he ever beat' Calzaghe.

 

I think when ranking fighters it's up to you.

The judges already get to judge the fights. That's not always an accurate representation of the quality/attributes/general application of style on any given fight for any chosen fighter.

When I'm ranking a guy it's 'what did they prove'. I'm not overturning results per se, more giving a fighter kudos for what he showed me rather than what the officials told me.

Hopefully you see where I'm coming from. Not a case of 'did he really win' but 'did he show me more than the other guy'.

That's essentially why my criteria is a smooth blend of resume, achievement and attributes.

-Who did they fight?
-When did they fight them?
-How did they fight them?

Carl Froch gets credit from me for his performance in the Kessler fight anyway, even if I had Kessler a clear winner every time I watched it, even as a fan of Froch.

To elaborate further, whilst that proved Froch's worth even in a losing effort, Cobb Vs Holmes doesn't raise Tex's stature as a fighter in my eyes at all, but it certainly raises the respect I give him when his chin is brought up.

I'm looking for everything when I watch fights, maybe why I get so little enjoyment out of the current scene, too cynical

 

I watch the same way, Flea.

 

Yeah i'm with flea here. I rate the man's performance in my eyes much more than the numbers a judge crunches.

Impressing the judges is enough for a man to wield his career to it's utmost potential. Impressing them means everything in the current, impressing me means nothing.

That being said, I could not, for example, credit paul williams for his performance against lara considering I had it a domination by erislandy.

As flea said best, don't be a sheep. When offering my own viewpoints I have to follow my own analysis, anything else would be hypocrisy at it's worst.

 

Agree lads, essentially I'm just trying not to waste my own time.

In a close fight that could go either way, you'd assume both men would impress you enough to get a nice amount of kudos either way. For me, taking everything into account, even if I'd scored the first Floyd-Castillo fight for JLC, I wouldn't necessary deem Floyd as the 'loser' or see it detract from my general opinion of him. It's just a healthy way of picking up on each man's nuances and application.

Sometimes however, Even a fight I consider a comfortable win can also show me flaws/deduct marks on overall standing. Easy example, Oscar-Trinidad.

Essentially I take things on a fight-by-fight, fighter-by-fighter basis. Judge each fight with a clear head. You might not see the good work the opponent is doing if you're just looking out for fighter A because you're a fan of his/you're swotting up on him.

Anyway, as always, a stoned ramble from me. In short, I'll never give Julio Cesar Chavez credit for earning a draw with Whitaker.

 

It just wouldn't be the classic forum without your stream of conscious haha

 

I rate the guy who figures out a way to win, not according to some abstract aesthetic criteria but according to the judges. Not every fight is pretty. Not every match-up, even of two great fights, creates a good product for everyone. However, true champions find a way to get the W out the situation.

Calzaghe always found this. Froch, at time, has been befuddled, outworked or out thought.

 

So you credit williams with earning the victory against lara?

Or chavez with earning the draw with sweet pea?

Judging each round independently as a 3 minute fight I see no way either of the above can be the case.

 

Obviously in extreme cases, no. However, in most cases, yes. In the end, I do defer to those at ringside who watch the action unfold as a complete narrative, without biased replays or announcing.

Judging every round independently as a 3 minute fight, I saw the Chavez Whitaker bout as closer than most. It really displays that the 10 point must system, or how it is used by most judges, can be inadequate. The whole idea that you must score a KD or have round of bludgeoning a la Froch-Bute rd 3 to get a 10-8 is overboard. Whitaker won his rounds much bigger than the ones I had Chavez eking out, but if you are pure boxer you are not rewarded like a pure puncher, so he only got 10-9 in those frames. If the system were more flexible, I think we would see some more interesting, and perhaps more accurate, scoring.

 

I totally agree with this post, while I believe Joe wins h2h I do believe Froch deserves a higher rank in the history books.