Joe Calzaghe vs Carl Froch

Of course you do, Luf.

You're a math teacher, and that requires a certain modicum of reason.

(Most days, anyway).

 

If you're going to adopt your own scores, you lose some level of consistency, especially on a section of the forum that relies to a considerable degree on the judgment of others who watched and scored fights from yesteryear that you can never see as they weren't filmed.

Comparisons are made frequently that are based mostly, if not wholly, on the official scorecards.

So you end up with a hybrid, consisting of some official scores and some of your personal scores.

And in doing so, you affect the consistency of the enterprise.

 

I can't see there's much consistentcy in a sport that rules Escalera the winner over Tyrone Everett.

 

Official scores themselves aren't consistent as they're from different viewpoints of different people under different rulesets with different preferences.

An official score is just an interim until i've looked further into it.

When watching a fight and scoring it to fighter a, I don't see why i'd ever credit it as a victory to fighter b.

As flea said, should I be denied the everett was the best in his division simply because 3 men scored a fight to escalera.

The beauty of boxing is that we can all watch a fight ourselves and make our own judgements.

I'm in the minority thinking that froch beat kessler, but regardless, I still think froch beat kessler.

 

The only way the Classic Forum can promote its own agenda is to create myths and rules that suit the desired narrative. This is nothing new.

 

Bull****. I don't stand for the classic forum. And using my example, how could favouring Escalera in that fight be fair? If anything that would be the agenda.

I do think there's a difference between close fights and all-out robberies, but also think you should take everything into account when judging who got the better of a fight.

 

I don't really have an agenda other than to further my knowledge of the past to further my appreciation of the present.

I'm not one of these who dislikes the modern era. Infact I love it and think it stands up well to most out there. But the more I learn about the yesterday the more I can appreciate today.

If I was biased for froch i'd probably be saying he deserved to beat dirrell, if I was biased against calz i'd probably be saying he deserved to lose to reid.

I think my whole point in this thread is twofold.

1) had joe fought the smw schedule that froch has, he'd at best equal it.

2) froch can walk through joe's slaps more often than not and win a slight majority of rounds.

I don't have a particular affinity to either guy. Both born in england, both active during my time, both have done british boxing proud.

The only man i'll shamelessly nuthug today is frank bruno. Given a world class conditioning expert, his potential was limitless

 

I see Joe beating Froch and outpointing him with his speed. I think Joe would beat Ward in a close decision also.

 

How are opponents like Jermain Taylor, Arthur Abraham and Glen Johnson better than Richie Woodhall, Robin Reid and Byron Mitchell?

Froch did fight Kessler and Ward, and lost to both.

Joe fought Eubank and Kessler and beat both.

Jeff Lacy is a comparable win to Lucian Bute. Remember, Joe beat Lacy when he was an undefeated world champion. It's a similar win to Froch beating Bute, which is Froch's best win to date.

Froch has earned mass respect for competing in the Super 6, travelling and putting on great fights every time. He deserves that respect. However, Calzaghe didn't have a Super 6 for him to compete him. People forget that back at the start of the decade, Frank ****** and Joe's team were making offers to fight Hopkins in Vegas (career high payday for Bernard), offers to fight Ottke in Germany, and these guys turned him down. If these guys had agreed, we could have seen Joe beating Ottke in Germany, and Hopkins in Vegas, but these opportunities weren't available to Joe. He gets a lot of harsh criticism, alot of it isn't deserved.

 

At best Joe may well go unbeaten, there are potential losses in Ward, Taylor, Dirrell though but I think Ward is the only 1 who maybe favourite over him. Kessler and Bute certainly don't beat Calzaghe

 

Mental midgets Taylor and Dirrell wouldn't have a chance in hell either.

Seriously, this thread has been farcical.

 

Given the obvious corruption in the sport and inept nature of judges this is. Judges in boxing unlike other sports work for the promoters and there opportunity to get work relies on them pleasing the promoter. Any corruption or bribes aside

Then let's remember the likes of Harold Lederman has been a boxing judge, the judges have little or no knowledge of boxing compared to the posters on this board, so yes as incompetents they should rightfully be second guessed

 

I favour Calzaghe, certainly against Taylor, but both are faster with better jabs, Joe has never faced a quicker fighter with better control of range to this degree