Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

Carl Froch's resume destroys Calzaghe's resume. There's no competition there.

 

You realize you're ignoring the fact that froch LOST to the 3 top fighters on his resume which means his resume sucks to me and calz resume destroys his.

Calz resume is FILLED with wins while torch top 3 are LOSSES, wtf is wrong upstairs with weird ass fans crazy logic

 

That's some first class idiocy right there. Anyone that seriously considers Calzaghe's laughabe record better than Froch's is a mental fruit. The fact that Calzaghe's rolled on the floor in tears for beating someone with 20 fights even though he had 40 says enough about the man's resume, and he himself doesn't lie about it.

 

This is true

 

You're really claiming LOSING to lessor fighters is a positive ?
Eubanks and obviously Kessler would beat froch clearly, hell, I'd give lacy a very great shot at beating forch.

How is LOSING to ward, kessler and dirrell better than beating a much better kessler, a hopkins that right now could beat any torch, eubank who beats froch all day.

How could anyone claim such idiocy without finally admitting they're trolling.. this is really the bottom feeders off fans we're stuck with

 

Okay, think I'll pass on arguing with this idiot. Can't even pronounce "lesser" properly and is claiming Lacy would beat Froch. Do you even know that Eubank was past it and coming off losses when he fought Calzaghe?, or are you idiotic enough to think that was prime Eubank?.

 

You have just gone total ****** with lacy a shot at beating froch lol
You have got me laughing harder than scar yesterday
Lol
Give over man
I did not read the rest as well my sides are hurting like *****


How will you live that statement down dude


Only on ESB

 

A few people? There were loads and the poll I recall hearing about had Jones ahead, and boxing mag felt Jones was going to look the winner and be on the end of an unfortunate decision not dominated for 11 rounds.
Jones was the money fight with the resume

 

You will have to show me a link of where Joe made all these comments about Dawson because I havent seen those comments you are claiming.
As for the other fighters you named. Calzaghe beat a fighter that beat all of them which shuts that down and lets not forget when Calzaghe went to LHW, Tarver wasnt the man, he had lost to Hopkins who Calzaghe faced and Johnson had decided against facing Calzaghe. Forget that. Yes or No?

 

ly

it means equal or surpass.

next time read the dictionary definition completly, is will save u making such self-destructive replies.

 

Climatising for a fight in Denmark... It takes an hour by plane to fly to Denmark from UK...Nobody needs to get climatised for that ...Absolutely hilarious post!!!

 

You know there were just as many people who thought Joe would win. Joe was the favourite to win the fight across the board. Can you imagine any bookies making Joe a favourite if the fight had happened years earlier? Either way, it's irrelevant. Again, we're looking from Joe's perspective here.

It seems obvious to me that most of the people who thought Roy would win, was because they were nostalgic fans and Joe was still a bit of an unknown entity.

The facts didn't lie. Roy had been knocked out twice, over 4 years earlier. He hadn't had a top level win for exactly 5 years. Realistically, he only had a punchers chance.

Again, Joe's comments tell you why he was happy to retire against Roy. He was easy pickings at that stage. Joe was absolutely fixated with his zero. It defined him. He said he could never let himself lose. And that should tell you that he'd never have fought Roy when he was anywhere near his best. He wouldn't have put his zero at risk. It all stemmed from childhood where he was unfortunately bullied. He made a vow to himself that he'd never ever be beaten. Which to me is the reason why he killed himself to remain at SMW with nothing on the horizon, when he could have moved up to LHW at any point during his career to try and pursue better fights. You don't need to be a detective or a psychologist to see how and why his career played out like it did. A loss would have destroyed him mentally.

 

Regarding Dawson, he made a few comments to various journalists dismissing him.

Here's one of them:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/dec/10/boxing-calzaghe-retirement

Regarding Tarver, no, him beating Bernard doesn't shut that down. We're looking here at his mindset. He wasn't interested in Tarver before he fought Bernard. He said Tarver didn't excite him and he'd done nothing to warrant a fight. He said he only beat Roy because Roy was shot.

So: he didn't rate Tarver, Pavlik, Dawson or Froch, but he was happy to fight Bika, Manfredo, and a former legend who he'd labelled as being shot 4 years earlier.

If you take the above into account, logic states that he'd never have fought Dawson even if he hadn't retired in 2008. So realistically, it was never a 'no-brainer' that they would eventually have met.

 

def got to give Froch credit where its due but im on the same wave length, Calzaghe has better wins, maybe not as exciting a career as Froch due to his dominance but imo froch could be beat by guys way less talented

 

A past it Roy is a sticky one (I debated mentioning him) however even though Roy was past it I still see him being capable of topping most of Froch's wins, don't get me wrong a lot of them give Roy a rough night and possibly beat him (especially Kessler and Pascal) but the talent Roy had even at that point in his career could still get wins over the likes of Abraham, Mack, Taylor, Bute and Groves imo. Not to mention that this was at LHW where Joe had to climb too so that holds merit in the achievement itself.