What's With Calzaghes feeling inferior to Froch?

He is probably missing the spotlight, and envious that a guy took his spot as the biggest uk star... This. Plus Froch is building a decorated and respectable career to rival Calzaghe, so while they've had their words in the past, they're facing NATURAL comparisons that fuel both fighters to make comments about one another. I think Calzaghe is seeing that Froch's name is now being mentioned next to and in some cases above his. Calzaghe naturally defends himself based on his reign, undefeated record, beating Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and old Jones Jr. He 's looking to remind people of those. It's natural defense of your standing in history and as a UK fighter in addition to Calzaghe missing his time in the spotlight.

1st off I want to say I love Froch,but he can't hold a candle to Joe. I get tired of people comparing them. Anybody who knows anything about boxing knows Joey Zags would have iced his ass. They're levels to this **** and Joe is on another level. Joe is a legend,a top 20 ATG. An iron will best describes TBE,Joey Zags. well you got to realize when you retire on top you are never ever going to get the credit you deserve it is what it is you cant just assume things would have happened weren his hands breaking every fight? that would have caught up with him quick not to mention how does he do with froch resume does he beat ward? well never know because he retired in his prime.

1st off I want to say I love Froch,but he can't hold a candle to Joe. I get tired of people comparing them. Anybody who knows anything about boxing knows Joey Zags would have iced his ass. They're levels to this **** and Joe is on another level. Joe is a legend,a top 20 ATG. An iron will best describes TBE,Joey Zags. Hold up......... Top 20 ATG? Do you mean at light heavy or what?

He doesn't feel inferior. It's the opposite actually. He's just letting people know about it and it doesn't mean he's on a cocaine rant.

He's being inducted into the Hall of Fame this week. I doubt he feels very inferior. Inevitably, journalists are going to ask him about Froch and inevitably, he's going to answer by saying he was better.

dude gets so insecure over froch, its kind of sad. but at the end of the day i can see why, froch has surpassed what calzaghe has done by far. joe was a very talented fighter, but chose to play it safe for the majority of his career. now he sees a guy far less talented than himself surpass his legacy simply by going after it full speed (short of fighting ward). i think joe regrets not fighting RJJ when it mattered, giving hopkins a rematch to clear out the controversial decision and maybe fighting johnson, tarver or dawson as well. he played it safe and now he is being surpassed by a lesser fighter as a result. most fighters would come back, but he wasnt willing to risk his perfect record in his prime so he sure as hell isnt going to do it now. they say payback is a b*tch but so is regret.

The funny thing is I genuinely believe Calzaghe would've UD'd Froch BUT Froch definitely has a better resume.

well put there mate

He looks at Froch and see's a man with a far superior career and legacy, which is only getting better with each passing fight. I suppose you tend to feel inferior when someone in your own field has a much better legacy than you. Froch is simply better.

Well then you don't think Calzaghe is better, they are about the same. I think Calzaghe would finish in the top 3 and Froch around mid table. I know I don't hence why I didn't once say that he was better. You just tried to say I was implying he was better because I'd lean on him if they fought therefore telling me that I was saying he was better :lol1: Essentially telling me what I'm thinking. It's like your favourite thing to do. Even attempting to tell me that I even think he had the better career! Despite me clearly stating otherwise. Great stuff. Well it is what I think you should be thinking but you don't actually think Calzaghe was better than Froch so it doesn't matter. :lol1: Fitting.

I think they'd finish around the same position. Ok well that wasn't what I was saying. Well then you don't think Calzaghe is better, they are about the same. I think Calzaghe would finish in the top 3 and Froch around mid table. Well it is what I think you should be thinking but you don't actually think Calzaghe was better than Froch so it doesn't matter.

OK think of it this way, if Calzaghe and Froch each fought each of the top 20 best 168 pounders there has been, Jones jr, Collins, Eubank, Benn etc, who would do better, Calzaghe or Froch, who would finish higher up the table? That I think would be a test of who was actually better, unfortunately it cannot be a reality but only a hypothetical. I think they'd finish around the same position. I was saying that that is how you should be thinking if you think Calzaghe is better than Froch. I was saying that if someone thinks Calzaghe is better than Froch then it is because Calzaghe showed/proved during the course of his career than he was a better fighter than Froch, that in turn would be evidence for Calzaghe having a better career than Froch. Ok well that wasn't what I was saying.

Most fights pickings are based upon styles for me. Styles play a big part, a fighter can be better than another fighter and still lose. Because they have tools that the other struggles with, or many other things. I think Cotto is a better fighter than Margarito, I think Cotto certainly had the better career, but Margarito beat Cotto, because he had a style that troubled Cotto. Like I said, I think it's arguable. I would pick Calzaghe to win should they have fought, but, It wouldn't have been as an easy fight IMO. I could see Froch winning. OK think of it this way, if Calzaghe and Froch each fought each of the top 20 best 168 pounders there has been, Jones jr, Collins, Eubank, Benn etc, who would do better, Calzaghe or Froch, who would finish higher up the table? That I think would be a test of who was actually better, unfortunately it cannot be a reality but only a hypothetical. Well yes you were. You said if I think Calzaghe beats Froch then surely I'm saying his career was better despite the fact I clearly stated that wasn't the case IMO. Anyway, I've said what I think. Froch had the better career and his career isn't over yet either. I was saying that that is how you should be thinking if you think Calzaghe is better than Froch. I was saying that if someone thinks Calzaghe is better than Froch then it is because Calzaghe showed/proved during the course of his career than he was a better fighter than Froch, that in turn would be evidence for Calzaghe having a better career than Froch.

Well you just said that your picking Calzaghe over Froch was at least in part a style thing. So it is not clear if you think Calzaghe was actually a better fighter than Froch. Most fights pickings are based upon styles for me. Styles play a big part, a fighter can be better than another fighter and still lose. Because they have tools that the other struggles with, or many other things. I think Cotto is a better fighter than Margarito, I think Cotto certainly had the better career, but Margarito beat Cotto, because he had a style that troubled Cotto. Like I said, I think it's arguable. I would pick Calzaghe to win should they have fought, but, It wouldn't have been as an easy fight IMO. I could see Froch winning. I wasn't simply making things up, I was saying that that is how you should think if you actually think Calzaghe was a better fighter than Froch. That is that you would have relevant reasons, that you wouldn't think Calzaghe was better because he had an Italian surname but because he exhibited his greater quality during his career. Well yes you were. You said if I think Calzaghe beats Froch then surely I'm saying his career was better despite the fact I clearly stated that wasn't the case IMO. Anyway, I've said what I think. Froch had the better career and his career isn't over yet either.

Arguable IMO. Like I said I would lean on Calzaghe if they fought prime for prime. But I think Froch had the better career. Think I said that a few posts ago but of course you took into a whole other direction of "I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying by completely making up something and saying that's what you're actually saying". Simple stuff here is what I'm saying. I would pick Calzaghe to beat Froch. But, I think Froch had a better career. It is possible to have this scenario. Well you just said that your picking Calzaghe over Froch was at least in part a style thing. So it is not clear if you think Calzaghe was actually a better fighter than Froch. I wasn't simply making things up, I was saying that that is how you should think if you actually think Calzaghe was a better fighter than Froch. That is that you would have relevant reasons, that you wouldn't think Calzaghe was better because he had an Italian surname but because he exhibited his greater quality during his career.

So Calzaghe was not a better fighter than Froch? Arguable IMO. Like I said I would lean on Calzaghe if they fought prime for prime. But I think Froch had the better career. Think I said that a few posts ago but of course you took into a whole other direction of "I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying by completely making up something and saying that's what you're actually saying". Simple stuff here is what I'm saying. I would pick Calzaghe to beat Froch. But, I think Froch had a better career. It is possible to have this scenario.

Yes I do. My credit for them differ, it obviously depends who they fought during their reign. I don't just look at how many defences or see a long list of defences and deem that impressive. No my crediting that Calzaghe would beat Froch if they fought is because I think the style match up favours Calzaghe and I think Calzaghe has the edge in skill and a big edge in speed. I don't think it would easy for Calzaghe though. Nothing to do with their respective careers. There are plenty of fighters who I think could beat a fighter but didn't have a better career. I think Joel Casamayor has a good shot at beating Alexis Arguello at 130 lbs but I don't think Casamayor had a better career. Styles make fights. But once again you're trying to tell me what I'm saying. So Calzaghe was not a better fighter than Froch?

Well you don't seem to credit them whatsoever, as if they weren't important career achievements. I credit Chris John's run because most of hs opposition was of a fairly mediocre variety, a few more credible opponents and one great opponent. That title run deserves credit in and of itself as an achievement to add to an evaluation of a fighters career and what it tells about the fighters abilities is that he was a very good fighter but who was definitely short of greatness relative to all the other top featherweights in history. Yes I do. My credit for them differ, it obviously depends who they fought during their reign. I don't just look at how many defences or see a long list of defences and deem that impressive. Surely your crediting that Calzaghe would defeat Froch is because over the course of Calzaghe's career you think he displayed himself as a better fighter than Froch. If that is not a testament of a likely better career that I don't know what is. No my crediting that Calzaghe would beat Froch if they fought is because I think the style match up favours Calzaghe and I think Calzaghe has the edge in skill and a big edge in speed. I don't think it would easy for Calzaghe though. Nothing to do with their respective careers. There are plenty of fighters who I think could beat a fighter but didn't have a better career. I think Joel Casamayor has a good shot at beating Alexis Arguello at 130 lbs but I don't think Casamayor had a better career. Styles make fights. But once again you're trying to tell me what I'm saying.

Because the majority of "Long title runs" are filled with poor opposition. Why do you over credit long title runs? You over credit Chris John's long title run for some unknown reason despite the fact almost the entirety of it was against very poor fighters I credit "Title runs" by what's actually inside those runs. I don't just look at the number of defences and consider that to be impressive. Well I think Calzaghe would beat Froch but that's fantasy. What's reality is Froch fought better fighters more consistently, beat better fighters more consistently and just has more good wins. No surely not. I can understand the notion of thinking Calzaghe was the better of the two had they met but in terms of resume and career I'd definitely go with Froch. Well you don't seem to credit them whatsoever, as if they weren't important career achievements. I credit Chris John's run because most of hs opposition was of a fairly mediocre variety, a few more credible opponents and one great opponent. That title run deserves credit in and of itself as an achievement to add to an evaluation of a fighters career and what it tells about the fighters abilities is that he was a very good fighter but who was definitely short of greatness relative to all the other top featherweights in history. Surely your crediting that Calzaghe would defeat Froch is because over the course of Calzaghe's career you think he displayed himself as a better fighter than Froch. If that is not a testament of a likely better career that I don't know what is.

Why don't you ever give credit for long title runs? I know he fought some real **** in there in some of his defences but it wasn't all like that. Doesn't longevity count for something? Calzaghe probably has the two (Kessler and Hopkins) best wins out of the two of them. Also you have said it yourself that you think Calzaghe would defeat Froch. Surely Calzaghe's career is just a step up from Froch's. Because the majority of "Long title runs" are filled with poor opposition. Why do you over credit long title runs? You over credit Chris John's long title run for some unknown reason despite the fact almost the entirety of it was against very poor fighters I credit "Title runs" by what's actually inside those runs. I don't just look at the number of defences and consider that to be impressive. Well I think Calzaghe would beat Froch but that's fantasy. What's reality is Froch fought better fighters more consistently, beat better fighters more consistently and just has more good wins. No surely not. I can understand the notion of thinking Calzaghe was the better of the two had they met but in terms of resume and career I'd definitely go with Froch.