Greatest Super-Middle of All Times

[Humean]

Calzaghes resume isn't much better than Ottke's.

Froch wasn't "the man" because Ward's around. Calzaghe wouldn't be "the man" in this era either.

Froch has a better resume, as does Ward.

It's between those two.

You cannot be serious! What is your problem with Calzaghe? For some reason you are ridiculously biased against him.

[IronDanHamza]

You cannot be serious! What is your problem with Calzaghe? For some reason you are ridiculously biased against him.

Nothing against him. Just not a great fighter.

What do you consider so ludacrous? That he wouldn't be "the man" in this era? Don't see what's wrong with that accessment, at the very least it's arguable.

[Humean]

Nothing against him. Just not a great fighter.

What do you consider so ludacrous? That he wouldn't be "the man" in this era? Don't see what's wrong with that accessment, at the very least it's arguable.

The parts I think ridiculous are that Calzaghe's resume isn't much better than Ottke's which it considerably is unless the manner of victory is not part of 'resume'. Also that Froch has a better resume. You talk about resume and like to mention the wins which is fine but what about the losses? Froch was comprehensively outboxed by Ward, was defeated by a man Calzaghe defeated clearly and shouldn't have received the decision against Dirrell. In Calzaghe's 22 championship fights at 168 he was run close only once against Robin Reid. Apart from that Kessler was the only other opponent at 168 that clearly won as many as 4 rounds against Calzaghe.

The part about whether Calzaghe would or would not be the man right now is certainly debatable, I have no problem with that claim. I'd favour Calzaghe over Ward but I am biased in favour of Calzaghe. I don't think there is much between them in ability.

[IronDanHamza]

The parts I think ridiculous are that Calzaghe's resume isn't much better than Ottke's which it considerably is unless the manner of victory is not part of 'resume'. Also that Froch has a better resume. You talk about resume and like to mention the wins which is fine but what about the losses? Froch was comprehensively outboxed by Ward, was defeated by a man Calzaghe defeated clearly and shouldn't have received the decision against Dirrell. In Calzaghe's 22 championship fights at 168 he was run close only once against Robin Reid. Apart from that Kessler was the only other opponent at 168 that clearly won as many as 4 rounds against Calzaghe.

The part about whether Calzaghe would or would not be the man right now is certainly debatable, I have no problem with that claim. I'd favour Calzaghe over Ward but I am biased in favour of Calzaghe. I don't think there is much between them in ability.

Lost clearly to Ward, no shame there.

1-1 with Kessler, Lost a close one in the first one.

But his wins are better.

I won't dispute it's arguable, It is. Not a clear thing but I still thinks it's better.

As for Ottke, Calzaghes IS better, but not by much. They both fought mostly the same weak opposition. Calzaghe has a few wins that takes him ahead.

Ability wise no I don't think he's as good as Ward at all.

[Humean]

Lost clearly to Ward, no shame there.

1-1 with Kessler, Lost a close one in the first one.

But his wins are better.

I won't dispute it's arguable, It is. Not a clear thing but I still thinks it's better.

As for Ottke, Calzaghes IS better, but not by much. They both fought mostly the same weak opposition. Calzaghe has a few wins that takes him ahead.

Ability wise no I don't think he's as good as Ward at all.

You think ward would defeat Calzaghe in as dominant a fashion as he defeated Froch? Do you think Froch would defeat Calzaghe? I honestly think Calzaghe would defeat Froch every bit as easily as Ward did, Ward and Calzaghe are just on a different plane to Froch.

Both Kessler fights were close but clear as far as I was concerned. Calzaghe defeated Kessler better and did so when Kessler was undefeated.

Firstly I think Ottke is a better fighter than people make out, he gets so much heat on the forums but he was actually fairly good. Secondly Ottke had about 5 or 6 close fights, as I said Calzaghe had 1 close fight. Calzaghe didn't lose many rounds in his entire career at 168. When you take in the manner of victory Calzaghe's resume it a lot better than Ottke's, as well as adding in that Calzaghe defeated Kessler.

Do you think Froch lost to Dirrell?

[IronDanHamza]

You think ward would defeat Calzaghe in as dominant a fashion as he defeated Froch? Do you think Froch would defeat Calzaghe? I honestly think Calzaghe would defeat Froch every bit as easily as Ward did, Ward and Calzaghe are just on a different plane to Froch.

Both Kessler fights were close but clear as far as I was concerned. Calzaghe defeated Kessler better and did so when Kessler was undefeated.

Firstly I think Ottke is a better fighter than people make out, he gets so much heat on the forums but he was actually fairly good. Secondly Ottke had about 5 or 6 close fights, as I said Calzaghe had 1 close fight. Calzaghe didn't lose many rounds in his entire career at 168. When you take in the manner of victory Calzaghe's resume it a lot better than Ottke's, as well as adding in that Calzaghe defeated Kessler.

Do you think Froch lost to Dirrell?

No I don't. I wouldn't be surprised if Froch beat Calzaghe and I think Ward definitely would.

Better yes, not much better. Calzaghe's a better fighter than Ottke, but, still, not that much better resume.

Anyway, no I don't think Calzaghe is on a different plane for Froch.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Calzaghes resume isn't much better than Ottke's.

Froch wasn't "the man" because Ward's around. Calzaghe wouldn't be "the man" in this era either.

Froch has a better resume, as does Ward.

It's between those two.

Calzaghe clearly beat Kessler who was a unified undefeated champ.. Froch lost to that guy and also clearly lost to ward...
You can't possible think froch has a better resume..
What on froch's resume of achievements can beat being
Lineal undisputed champ
Beat all other champs
Had like 20 title defenses
Never really ever came close to losing at 168

Froch can't claim any of those things..

Froch is like a Miguel cotto and Oscar de la Hoya, good fighters that's best claim to fame is that they fought everyone win or lose.. In no way does froch have a better resume than calzaghe

[IronDanHamza]

Calzaghe clearly beat Kessler who was a unified undefeated champ.. Froch lost to that guy and also clearly lost to ward...
You can't possible think froch has a better resume..
What on froch's resume of achievements can beat being
Lineal undisputed champ
Beat all other champs
Had like 20 title defenses
Never really ever came close to losing at 168

Froch can't claim any of those things..

Froch is like a Miguel cotto and Oscar de la Hoya, good fighters that's best claim to fame is that they fought everyone win or lose.. In no way does froch have a better resume than calzaghe

What you're listing is just stuff on paper.

Lineal Champion, loads of (mostly meaningless) defenses, you can say the same for Wonjongkam who's higher out of him and Froch?

Froch clearly has better wins than Calzaghe. The loss to Kessler makes it close even though that could have gone either way.

To say there's "no way his resume is better" is just ridiculous. Obviously at the very least it's comparable. Especially at 168, where his resume is just not very great really.

I think both Cotto and Oscar are better than Calzaghe, and greater. Especially Oscar.

[Humean]

What you're listing is just stuff on paper.

Lineal Champion, loads of (mostly meaningless) defenses, you can say the same for Wonjongkam who's higher out of him and Froch?

Froch clearly has better wins than Calzaghe. The loss to Kessler makes it close even though that could have gone either way.

To say there's "no way his resume is better" is just ridiculous. Obviously at the very least it's comparable. Especially at 168, where his resume is just not very great really.

I think both Cotto and Oscar are better than Calzaghe, and greater. Especially Oscar.

Wonjongkam becase for one thing he was a better fighter than Froch!

Calzaghe's best win is better than Froch's best win.

Listing stuff on paper, isn't that what a resume is?

Froch has had 6 years with 12 fights fighting very stiff opposition, no argument there, winning most but also losing and Calzaghe had 10 years fighting 22 fights and winning them all clearly bar one close fight, against mixed opposition, some good, some mediocre, some very poor, and suffered no losses. Now surely fighting championship fights for 10 years counts for something? Froch hasn't, and won't ever, do that.

[IronDanHamza]

Wonjongkam becase for one thing he was a better fighter than Froch!

Calzaghe's best win is better than Froch's best win.

Listing stuff on paper, isn't that what a resume is?

Froch has had 6 years with 12 fights fighting very stiff opposition, no argument there, winning most but also losing and Calzaghe had 10 years fighting 22 fights and winning them all clearly bar one close fight, against mixed opposition, some good, some mediocre, some very poor, and suffered no losses. Now surely fighting championship fights for 10 years counts for something? Froch hasn't, and won't ever, do that.

Wonjongkam better fighter than Froch? And what is that based on? Let's go back to "you cannot be serious"

Calzaghe has the best win. Overall Froch has better wins.

No that's not what resume is.

Doesn't count for much when you only fight two top 5 ranked opponents out of 22 title fights and one of them was Jeff Lacy.