Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

Eubank had, had 2 comeback fights not long before. Many fighters have a gap of a year before fighting. Consider Mosely was a WW champ who hadnt fought for a year before facing Mayweather. Had Mosely uttered the words retirement would it have made a difference to the win? Course not.
What was Butes best win at SMW leading up to Froch? Was the G Johnson fight before suddenly a big win?
When you state all this you forget the level Bute was fighting at compared to Eubank or that Bute was fortunate not to have a KO loss on his record whereas Eubank had no clear loss

 

I notice at no point did you answer the questions I posed to you. Or any of the points I put forward which shows you have an agenda sadly
Which SMWs did Calzaghe back away from facing when SMW champ?

 

So what if Hopkins schooled Tarver?

That is completely irrelevant.

Joe said he didn't rate Tarver and he wasn't interested in fighting him BEFORE he went on to beat Hopkins in 2008. It doesn't matter that he went on to beat the man who beat Tarver.

I'm assessing his comments and actions and then putting forward a logical opinion based off of them.


Joe is on record as saying he didn't rate Tarver and he'd done nothing to warrant a fight.

Joe is on record as saying he didn't rate Pavlik and he'd done nothing to warrant a fight.

Joe is on record as saying he didn't rate Dawson and he'd done nothing to warrant a fight.

Joe is on record as saying he didn't rate Froch and he'd done nothing to warrant a fight.

Earlier on his career, he remained at SMW where he struggled to make weight, even though he knew that he couldn't unify, and that there was nothing on the horizon at the time.


Do you understand?

I have taken all of the above information into account, and then I have put forward a logical opinion based upon it.


Due to the above, I don't think Joe would have fought the likes of Dawson in 2009-2010, even if he'd have prolonged his career.


Now how can you put forward a logical opinion saying he definitely would have done?

Again, there is no logic to it.

If he wasn't interested in fighting Pavlik, Tarver or Dawson, in and around 2008, what on earth makes you think it's a no-brainer that he'd have fought Dawson in the years that followed?

It's complete nonsense.

 

Their age and credentials are of no relevance to me.

It's where they were in their careers at the specific moment the fights occurred that's the most important factor.


For example:

Put Roy and Mikkel Kessler head to head.

One was a very good fighter, the other one was an ATG who won titles in 4 weight classes, including making history by going up to HW and back.

Their head to head achievements are world's apart.

Roy was completely on another level.


Joe beat both of them.

But which victory was the most important?

The one over Kessler.

Because despite Roy going down in history as a superior fighter to Kessler, Kessler was a much better fighter than Roy was at the time he fought Joe.


If you put Eubank and Bute's careers under the microscope, Eubank clearly comes out on top. No contest. But you're rating the wins based on the specific versions of who Joe and Carl fought.

Joe beat a version of Chris Eubank who was fired up and who still had a lot left. But he didn't beat the version of Eubank who'd beaten the likes of Benn and Watson. Although Eubank will rank much higher than Bute in the historical SMW rankings, he was not a top SMW when Joe fought him. He was faded, he'd lost his last 2 fights at the weight, and he hadn't won at the weight for 3 years. He'd also got injured knees, and he'd had awful preparation with no sparring.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.


You are comparing the version of Bute who Carl fought from 2012, to the version of Eubank who Joe fought in 1997. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with MAJR claiming that in his opinion, Carl's win over Bute was the better win. Especially if you also take into account the manner of the victory.

 

Not so long ago, we were debating whether or not Andre Ward ducked Bute.

I said that in my honest opinion, he didn't, and that it would be illogical to fear Bute and then go and fight Chad Dawson immediately after.

Your response to that was to question Dawson's resume and credentials, whilst at the same time putting forward a case of why Bute was the better fighter. In that debate, you thought extremely highly of him. Yet here you are practically dismissing him as being an elite guy.

 

He gave Calzaghe the toughest fight of his career because Calzaghe isn't the supreme special fighter you think he is and also because it's Eubank, a proven stubborn great fighter. Calzaghe is HOF quallity at best, he's not an ATG.

Yes, Eubank was past his prime and out of it at that point in his career. I'm not an idiot nor blind for you to convince me otherwise. The man has been through devastating wars and was on his way out. Prime Eubank would've beaten both Thompson and Calzaghe. I bet you also believe that Roy Jones wasn't beyond past it when he fought Calzaghe too, right?.

 

I have never claimed Calzaghe to be an all time great nor to be some "supreme special fighter". He had abilities that made him a great fighter and one of the best of his division's history but he was not one of the greatest of all time because he was too unambitious, didn't challenge himself enough and spent too long fighting sub-par opposition.

Nor have I ever claimed that Jones was anything other than shot when he fought Calzaghe or anything other than a cash-in fight.

And it seems I do not appear to have to convince you of anything because my whole point was Eubank was still a dangerous fighter who could be competitive and you've just admitted he was a "proven stubborn great fighter" - which is actually more than I claimed him to be during that period of time.

 

Being stubborn or great in the past doesn't mean he wasn't past his prime.

 

Are you under the impression that I think Eubank was in his prime in 1997?

 

No, but you're claiming that he's not past it which means he was still a solid contender. Have to completely disagree with you there.

 

he wasnt a solid contender for many reasons, the main one being that.. he wasnt! He was drafted in from a different division entirely.

but he was still an opponent you wouldnt want to pick, even if wasnt interested in winning as against joe he would still give you a hard push.

 

Once again you have ducked my question. Why is that? Probably because it makes this waffle sound ridiculous.
There is so much about this post that I could wreck, but until you answer the question, there is little point.
Never had you down as such a ducker but you have ducked the same question several times in this thread alone

 

Still ducking!

Certainly is when you are discussing Calzaghe/Hopkins/Jones

It's where they were in their careers at the specific moment the fights occurred that's the most important factor.

We are not talking Kessler and Jones who were about 10 years different in age etc. We are talking 31 year old Eubank and 32 year old Bute who have SMW pedigree in fights at SMW

So you are falling into the trap of saying an undefeated record says it all. We will get to this in a minute

Once again you are dismissing various links that you have seen including some from Serge that you know stopped you dead in the same debate and are now pretending otherwise. Another duck. As well as getting it wrong when you say Eubank hadnt won a fight at the weight in 3 years

Now lets get to where Eubank and Bute were.
It was considered Butes step up when he fought Froch, so what level was Bute at? What was Butes big SMW win?
Bute was coming off a win over a faded, boiled down G Johnson coming off a loss, so what was this story about where he was in his career. His fight before that was Mendy. These were world title fights. Now Eubank was doing what many fighters do and having a couple of tune ups, something which Bute did after losing his title against Froch.
Eubank had no clear defeats and never looked lucky not to have a KO loss at that time.
Tell me when comparing these levels and where people were, that Eubank was facing a challenger in his 40s coming off a loss with a SMW. This was argued as Butes biggest win to date. Yet because Bute held a title you are trying to rate that above. lol lol lol[/QUOTE]

 

Dont recall using the word duck?
But we are on a different debate comparing a win rather than if a completely separate fighter decided not to face someone.
I think at SMW, Bute was a greater fight than Dawson and at the time of when it was mooted still think that. It is you who doesnt like black and white stats yet try and use them in that failed argument of yours

 

They both have pretty nice resumes. Froch was fortunate enough to be involved in a tournament where he was able to compete with top tier guys every time out, and him making it to the finals was very impressive.

I personally believe that an undefeated Kessler was the best win on Calzaghe's resume, and it was definitely an impressive fight between the clear cut top 2 guys at SMW at the time.

I think Ward is the best fighter on either man's resume (considering Hopkins was already old and Jones Jr was a shell of his former self when he fought Joe.)

These two guys have been the best UK fighters since Lewis, no doubt.