Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

You cannot claim one to be faded then claimed Roy , nard , eubank as great wins as timing is key but hey let's throw rationality out the window to keep the agenda driven
I have never ignored no one blocked no one but your close and its a shame because anything other than Joe you can be relatively rational so I have to wonder or you really Joe you seems as I secure as him imo
Now good day and merry Christmas

But you boring the sh1t out of me with this old round about

 

Hi mate,

I hope you've had a great Christmas.


This is a great thread.

I agree with most of your points, but I think you have to assess how good each opponent was at the time of their fights, instead of just looking at past accomplishments.

For example:

Although Chris Eubank was more accomplished than Andre Ward, I believe that the version of Andre who Carl fought, was better than the version of Eubank who Joe fought.

Also, I believe Andre Dirrell was a better fighter than Mario Veit. Although it doesn't really matter that much to me, because I honestly believe that Carl lost to him.

 

I agree with you. But I don't like how you list all of the reasons why Kessler was faded when Froch beat him, whilst at the same time you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Eubank was also faded and underprepared for Joe. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't believe that Joe would have fought Froch in 2008 under any circumstances.

 

Not for a strap not for money and not for legacy Joe simply did not want it
For reasons unbeknown to himself

 

I respect Carl Froch's legacy .

I don't respect Joe Calzaghe's legacy .

 

Kind of like adding Floyd and Pacquiao to Hattons resume but forgetting to add the one sided beat downs he received in both fights.

 

I don't agree. That wasn't the Eubank from the Benn fight. I know his fights well and he was drained. It was still a good win but to say that was prime Eubank is nonsense. Let's keep it real. Not better than the other fights you mentioned either. Froch lost the s6 but still went right after Bute. I didn't see Ward chomping at the bit to take on Bute. Froch had limitations but desire, courage and heart....... he had plenty.

 

I rate Joe higher, but how can his win over Roy be a better win than any of Carl's?

Joe himself said that Roy was shot in 2004, and that's the only reason Tarver and Johnson were able to beat him. Roy was no longer a top level fighter at that point.

 

Great Christmas thanks
Hope you did to.
Happy New Year

 

I'm a ******ed for stating my opinion. I feel the exact same towards your screwed opinion. exactly how, in your eyes, does LOSING to good fighters help ?

 

Circumstances do matter but in 08, Calzaghe was at LHW and facing bigger name fighters in at that time far bigger fights. Thats undeniable

 

It doesnt.
Some people have an agenda where Calzaghe is concerned and many American fans would say Froch because he lost to Ward whereas Calzaghe beat Hopkins. They seem to carry that for some reason.

 

Froch didnt rematch Ward or go up to face Dirrell or Pascal again.
Eubank said in an interview that he was going up to LHW because he couldnt get another fight with Collins and that he could make the weight and fight at either SMW, LHW or CW if he pleased

 

He was looking to cash in the chips against Roy. If he'd have been motivated, looking to prove a point, he'd have fought Pavlik instead. That's why I don't think he'd have fought Carl, even if Carl had beaten Kessler and Bute at that point. Then there's the weight to consider.