Comments Thread For: Froch Believes His Legacy is Better Than That of Calzaghe

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

CARL FROCH insists he should go down in history as better than Joe Calzaghe.

Froch was left frustrated when rival British super-middleweight Calzaghe hung up his gloves three years ago and denied him a showdown.
[Click Here To Read More]

[hookoutofhell]

I think legacy is something that can only really be evaluated at the end of someone’s career.

For instance at one point people looked at Calzaghe’s legacy and thought that his win over Hopkins was good but not great. But bearing in mind what Hopkins has done since that defeat (i.e. dethroning pascal not once but twice) and suddenly Calzaghe’s win over Hopkins looks much better.

At one point Frochs wins over AA and pascal looked very good. So did Calzaghes win over Lacy. But after their defeats to Hopkins, Ward and Taylor those wins don’t look as impressive as they first did.

One thing I am sure of though is that Froch could not go through Calzaghes resume and remain undefeated. Kess, Eubank and Hopkins would all beat him. I think the likes ouma, mitchell, lacy would also give Froch problems.

[EdMon917]

I think legacy is something that can only really be evaluated at the end of someone’s career.

For instance at one point people looked at Calzaghe’s legacy and thought that his win over Hopkins was good but not great. But bearing in mind what Hopkins has done since that defeat (i.e. dethroning pascal not once but twice) and suddenly Calzaghe’s win over Hopkins looks much better.

At one point Frochs wins over AA and pascal looked very good. So did Calzaghes win over Lacy. But after their defeats to Hopkins, Ward and Taylor those wins don’t look as impressive as they first did.

One thing I am sure of though is that Froch could not go through Calzaghes resume and remain undefeated. Kess, Eubank and Hopkins would all beat him. I think the likes ouma, mitchell, lacy would also give Froch problems.

I completely agree. Froch is out of line with this one. Let him be though if that is what makes him confident more power to him.

[tripper]

If froch beats bute his legacy would be impressive, i just feel that calzaghe used to :gayominate his opponents more convincingly, he only beat taylor with seconds on the clock, disputed verdict over dirrell and a close win over johnson. Regardless of this i love watching froch fight and wish he'd got more rocognition earlier in his career whenhe was in his prime.

[hookoutofhell]

If froch beats bute his legacy would be impressive, i just feel that calzaghe used to :gayominate his opponents more convincingly, he only beat taylor with seconds on the clock, disputed verdict over dirrell and a close win over johnson. Regardless of this i love watching froch fight and wish he'd got more rocognition earlier in his career whenhe was in his prime.

alot of british fighters like hatton and calzaghe built their profile with fights on ITV (a free ITV channel) and when they became a big enough draw they cashed in with PPV fights towards the end of their careers.

froch thought too highly of himself too early in his career, if he had followed the blueprint laid out by calzaghe and hatton he would have been making more in his early/mid thirties than he is now.

fighters like froch and audley thought they could get a better deal and overestimated their own status. They clearly though of fighting on ITV as below them and paid a hefty price.

[Jam Jars]

I think legacy is something that can only really be evaluated at the end of someone’s career.

For instance at one point people looked at Calzaghe’s legacy and thought that his win over Hopkins was good but not great. But bearing in mind what Hopkins has done since that defeat (i.e. dethroning pascal not once but twice) and suddenly Calzaghe’s win over Hopkins looks much better.

At one point Frochs wins over AA and pascal looked very good. So did Calzaghes win over Lacy. But after their defeats to Hopkins, Ward and Taylor those wins don’t look as impressive as they first did.

One thing I am sure of though is that Froch could not go through Calzaghes resume and remain undefeated. Kess, Eubank and Hopkins would all beat him. I think the likes ouma, mitchell, lacy would also give Froch problems.

Eubank was finished and weight drained when he fought Calzaghe. He was preparing for a fight at 175 when he stepped in on 10 days notice to fight Calzaghe. Eubanks next fight was at cruiserweight.

[Alx.]

calzaghe was ok but froch ain't better nor his legacy/resume

also calzaghe would've twelve'd froch decently easy 9-3

[iron mike tyson]

alot of british fighters like hatton and calzaghe built their profile with fights on ITV (a free ITV channel) and when they became a big enough draw they cashed in with PPV fights towards the end of their careers.

froch thought too highly of himself too early in his career, if he had followed the blueprint laid out by calzaghe and hatton he would have been making more in his early/mid thirties than he is now.

fighters like froch and audley thought they could get a better deal and overestimated their own status. They clearly though of fighting on ITV as below them and paid a hefty price.

Hatton had every fight barring 1 on sky and the other was on setanta!
Froch would of got beat a few times going through joes resume but joe would go through frochs with he's 0 and shut out the cobra.
People tripe on about calzaghe been overated and then underate him in the process

[nycsmooth]

al 2 say is Joe never lost & Froch will lose again vs Bute...after Joe hpokins was a cherry picker, but I'll eat my words if he beats Dawson...

[Check]

calzaghe was ok but froch ain't better nor his legacy/resume

also calzaghe would've twelve'd froch decently easy 9-3

How exactly is Calzaghes resume better than Frochs?