Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

Degale is doing well for himself but he wouldnt be ahead of either yet, but I have a feeling if he carries on like he is he will have an argument later in his career if he doesnt suffer any more losses.
SMW isnt full of lots of names at this moment but that could change at any time. If Groves gets a title, if he gets Ramirez, and a few names come through. Who knows?

 

wbo was unrecognised in the 90s and start of the 00s. wbc was.

less of this there was no difference BS please.

 

show me where he held a world title. not regular crap, thats made up. since when is a regular (ie a non titlist) the talent of the century?

bika had title, briefly. veit never had the world class abiltiy to get one.

 

Eubank and Hopkins had seen better days but they weren't shot.

 

it wasnt recognised. I enjoyed the wbo at that time, since it gave britain a broader fight scene, but I'm not going to pretend it was highly valued even if it was good drama.

 

no he was "regalur", which isnt the title holder in that organisation.
That braehmer and veit were battling it out for the lowly fringers "international belt" tells you all you need to know about their respective abilties, which you are trying to sell as world beaters - INTERNATIONAL BELT for fringers for goodness sake!

cleverly used to be a full world title holder, his current regular means nothing, and is in fact more of an embarrassment than anything else given the nature of his "win"

owned world titles, they didnt need regulars to fake one. Dont use real world champs to back up fringer veit. Thats like trying to sell a Mini by reading our Porsche stats.

been watching since 1982. so stfu right there.

why you patching your post with lies? Echols never fought Veit, he was a class above before he got shot in the arm.

what has your fantasy fight opinion got to do with building a factual argument?

 

Who are these most people? Veit wasnt winning round 5 before being knocked down. He wasnt having a terrible round but certainly wasnt winning it and then did get knocked down. Your argument is ridiculous

You are funny!
the ref was American and you call that "with whos home-referee" lol.
We cant assume what anyones scorecard was but judges were neutral and 2 had it very close. None of them had it as wide as you
As well as calling all those other fights wrong you also say Froch only beat Abraham because he saved it in the last 4 rounds. Thats hysterical. Tell me what 4 rounds you scored for Abraham?

Why do you think it was a different Woodhall when it was 2 fights later and only a year after and Woodhall hadnt been on a year lay off either. You really are getting all confused.
Calzaghe stops Woodhall in 10 rounds and was further ahead on points overall then Beyer after 12. That tells you how far more convincing Calzaghe was at the end.
Now lets talk G Catley as well

 

Lets go back in time. Woodhall had a bad start but went Woodhall was pushing forward. Woodhall suffered 3 KDs which cost him the fight but without the KDs he probably wouldnt have lost on points on the official cards
Yes or no. Was Beyer holding on at the finish. Simple answer
Do you think it was all Beyer in the second half of the fight?
Do you not think Beyer was holding in the last round?

 

We are not talking Tyson/Douglas. We are talking Calzaghe/Ottke who were both leading fighters in their division. Bad example and why I can destroy your arguments.
How do you put Ottke above eubank when you look at their SMW records.
You put Eubank as high as you do which shows how Calzaghe had beaten someone greater than Ottke in your own argument. lol

Once again rewriting history. Beyer was taking shots off Catley. They werent exchanging. Catley was piling it on

I do take it you are aware of the glove query with this? If not let me know

Remember that isnt all of Catleys career. Why dont you mention Haussler also for Catley?



Now lets look at the next part. I will forget that several of the Ottke wins were close and debatable for a bit as there are some that felt he was fortunate against Brewer, Tate, Larsen, Reid, Mitchell and look at it from your rewrite of history. Here goes -

Calzaghe beat Mitchell also and more impressively

Calzaghe beat Brewer also and more impressively

who wasnt as good a win as Bika

Who I dont think was as good a win as Lacy

who I dont think was as good as Veit

who I dont think was as good as Mkrtchyan

who I dont think was as good as Woodhall who beat Branco

who I dont think was as good a win as Sheika who beat Johnson in order to face Calzaghe

who I dont think was as good as Bika

Now post in also that Calzaghe had beaten Kessler who below you think was a greater win than any of Ottkes and add Eubank also and I cant see how your argument works out?

Now back to you rewriting history -
First. How was Kessler the 2nd best SMW from his country. Kessler did far more than Larsen or Markussen.
Eubank went to Germany and beat Rocchigiani. How did you score that as you think Rocch won? Wait for it. Was it the last 4 rounds??? Eubank won with a point deduction[/QUOTE]

 

no he wasnt. stop lying. a reg title is not the organisations ONE world title.

Or which world are you referring to? Its certainly not this one.


.

you started with echols.

he has no relation to veit.

What exactly are you proving by tellling me you were wrong?

no need to pretend because he never did.
You are the one needing to pretend.

it wasnt recognised, though it was slowly gaining momentum as the years went by certainly thats true.

 

you right there, just seen this one, yet another fake stoppage for joe immediately after he was getting cornered and beaten the **** out of by sheika.

And he wasnt WBA king ever.


double lie.

 

that was interim with promotion. He never won the title. Its just as fake as regualr to magically be handed one.

 

So what if it was a lack of concentration.
who won the round?

This is no more than your opinion and worthless, but if you do feel that way. Do you think it applied to Ottke and Beyer in their title defences?

I dont need to ask them, but you are making it sound like one country when bad decisions have happened in many countries.
You make a comment about the referee in the Woodhall/Beyer fight yet cant see anything in the Reid/Ottke fight which is very noted by some. Which shows how you rewrite history and are bias.
Easy to pick your posts apart.
Many people felt Ottke didnt win some of his fights and it was you that tried to rewrite history until it was posted for you in his fight with Tate.

Many fighters break a hand. It happens. It doesnt mean they win because they had a good round and were then injured.
Still you have caught yourself out as you now say Beyer lost focus admitting that Woodhall was back in the fight

Tell me the 5 rounds you scored to Abraham against Froch and who were you claiming was out on their feet?

Calzaghe did knock Woodhall down.
Yes Beyer scored some early KDs but also went the distance and was taken to a close fight whereas Calzaghe won inside the distance in a fight he was winning. Big difference, but once again if you go down that route I will have some fun with you when you try and rate Ottke by using your own examples lol

 

this is why you are picked apart and not taken seriously.
You forget your own arguments. You say Bika was a nobody at that time but earlier we noted how he was winning rounds against Beyer. You tied yourself up again. You joker. I give you credit for fantastic trolling but I know you wouldnt dare make threads about how you think Ottke was a clearer winner against Brewer than Calzaghe because you know yourself that you would look silly