Joe Calzaghe vs Carl Froch

This.

 

How do you decide whether a case is extreme or not?

Chavez never won 6 rounds.

I just put more stock in my opinion than theirs I guess.

 

Not at all, Froch lost the biggest fights of his career, Joe won his. Joe faced a stronger level of opposition, and beat them all, Froch didn't. I'm a fan of both, but Joe C is clearly greater H2H and on legacy.

 

No, Calzaghe spent most of his time fighting people like pete manfredo and jeff lacy, Froch is undergoing and has been for some time a process of facing the top fighters in his division and clearly has a better resume, but as I say Calzaghe does a UD job on Froch, the in and out flurrying foot and hand speed plus stamina that trumps froch's is too much.

 

For me it isn't even a question, no matter how severe my disagreement, as long as one resides I follow my own judgement.

Upon which should we put more stock? For example I was there live when afolabi knocked out enzo.

In the arena it looked like enzo was pushing his **** in and on the verge of stopping ola. Watching back on tv, you can see the discomfort on enzo's face whenever ola lands and you can see his power waining as the rounds progress. You can see ola setting him up for a fall. That wasn't clear live.

Tv has the benefit of camera angles and replay plus has the advantage of not getting caught up in the outstanding hype that accompanies a live viewing.

I'm not saying you put too much emphasis on how it appears live, there's plenty of merit there. I'm just saying it isn't an overt concern of mine.

I'm fine putting my own scorecard from my couch above the scorecard's of those sat ringside.

 

I just put more stock in their opinions than yours.

 

My opinion shouldn't even be stockworthy to you. What should be is your own.

I'd have thought you'd put more stock in your opinion that theirs.

 

Nope. :-(

 

Joe probably did face a stronger level of opposition.

You can dispute it.

But you can't seriously dispute that Joe BEAT a stronger level of opposition.

 

In the opinion of a sizeable majority, including two judges, the commentators and around 75 % of ESB posters, Calzaghe did prevail over Hopkins.

When you factor in that BHop needed to fake low blows just to make it to the final bell, the performance difference is even clearer.


10-2, 9-3 and 8-4 are all within reason.

Ouside of that, you're in the twilight zone.

Did I mention that all of the judges, the ref, Kellerman, Stewart etc were American and had no reason to be biased towards the Welshman ?

 

As I've said before, in the arena it looked like Froch was bossing the Dirrell fight. It was like he was landing every jab.

On TV, it was apparent that was not the case.

 

The TV/Ringside issue has always been a bit trumped up for mine.

It gets exposed when you see even the people at ringside give vastly different opinions to each other.

What's important is not so much the 'spatial' angle one views a fight from, but rather the 'philosophical' angle one views a fight from.

If you understand a person's values, you'll understand their scorecards, whether they view the fight from inside the fighter's back pocket, or the other side of the moon.

BTW, lmnfao@the length of this thread.

 

I don't understand the relevance of this post.