Most shot? Froch vs Ward or Eubank vs Calzaghe?

Fixed.

 

Nobody is trying to hear this **** you butthurt loser!:rofl

 

I have no idea. Just not the same fighter pre Watson.

He personally said he lost his ability to finish and he never went for KO.

 

Froch isn't shot.

He was in against a special fighter and got beat, a loss does not automatically mean you are shot you ******. Froch got beat but once again proved he's tough as nails and isn't afraid to go in against the best.

If more fighters were like Froch, the sport of boxing would be better off. He's not once dodged anyone.

 

Again, nobody is trying to hear this **** coming from you loser! Keep it up! you're only making a fool of yourself!:rofl

 

lol, more than fair enough reasoning. I like how you start off the thread as neutral, yet your agenda becomes very apparent.

The good ol' "Try to convince me ought of my extremely biased opinion" thread..... Nothing new here. His two wins were two legit wins for that weight class. His only loss was a great fight against Kessler.

A fighter aint shot just because he lost against the best SMW, you doofer...

 

The thread starter is just a Ward hater...its pretty obvious!

 

Anybody that followed Eubank could see he was not the same after Watson. Is not about success, is about performance. Not sure why you are trying to argue otherwise? You think he was the same fighter throughout?

To me, there was a massive difference between the pre and post version of Eubank.

 

The hell are you talking about man?

I'm not disrespecting Eubank or Collins or Calzaghe or Ward or Froch. Nor am I calling anyone a ducker. Where the hell you get that from?

The thread question was who was more shot, Eubank 97 or Froch 2011. Neither guy was shot per say. Froch certainly isn't. His stock has never been higher. But, fact of the matter is Eubank lost to Collins and Calzaghe, 2 guys i think he would have beaten at his best.

Whether he was at his best vs Collins is up for debate, but he certainly was NOT at his best vs Calzaghe. For reasons that have been mentioned.

If you don't view the fact that prior to Calzaghe......

Eubank had lost twice........

lost after at cruiser.....

only beat 2 completely inferior fighters in between......

and never won another fight, regardless of weight or circumstance, after facing Calzaghe.......

If you don't view that as evidence of Eubank's decline, and of his being in the midst of it when he took on Calzaghe on short notice, I don't know what to tell you....believe what you obviously want to believe.

 

Lol, Logic does not compute with these guys. He was MINT just like the rest of Joe's opposition when he fought them . . . like RJJ is and was still prime . . .ahahah:good

 

Eubank at 31 = winning the super 3 cup.