Froch = the better resume. Calzaghe = the better fighter.

[#1Assassin]

I'm not sure froch has a better resume..

On a resume, it lists your best achievements


Calzaghe 2 different divisions as the clear #1 guy

Froch was never #1 in any division

I don't see how froch can have a better resume when he was never #1 at any point in his career and calzaghe managed that feat in 2 different divisions

froch looked for a stacked division to clean out and nearly did. calzaghe looked for empty divisions void of talent where he could reign. even his reigns didnt include taking on the best in those weak divisions on a regular basis, he waited until the time was right to pounce on weak opposition with inflated reputations. twice he got caught, thinking eubank and hopkins were more shot than they really were. ended up going life and death with a eubank who was pretty damn shot and losing to hopkins only to get a gift and high tail out of the sport.

do you know how you can tell calzaghe is a fraud? the way he speaks about the roy jones fight.

when larry holmes talks about fighting ali he doesnt pretend it was a great win, he admits that wasnt muhammad ali in the ring that night.

when tyson talks about beating holmes, he doesnt pretend he achieved a huge feat, he admits that version of holmes wasnt the same guy who ruled the world for years.

marciano-louis, pacquiao-dlh, garcia-morales.. the list goes on and on.

the only guys who beat a washed up corpse (and every single one of us knows roy was shot to hell) and pretend its a big deal are ppl who have no other leg to stand on for their so called legacy, not to mention no sincerity, no dignity and no shame as human beings.

calzaghe doesnt admit he beat a corpse, he wants to walk around and act as if he beat the real roy jones when we all know thats not the case.

thats no champion.

froch would never do such a thing.

[New England]

carl froch wouldn't put a glove on joe calzaghe and you all know it.

[New England]

I'm not sure froch has a better resume..

On a resume, it lists your best achievements


Calzaghe 2 different divisions as the clear #1 guy

Froch was never #1 in any division

I don't see how froch can have a better resume when he was never #1 at any point in his career and calzaghe managed that feat in 2 different divisions

froch fought in one fo the better eras at 168 and had a likely hall of famer in his prime to deal with.

calzaghe has better wins and did better against their common top tier opponent [kessler,] but froch has a much deeper resume than calzaghe, who fought a lot of trash during his prime and two past prime greats. froch basically fought everybody he could, or damn near it.

[Bravado]

froch looked for a stacked division to clean out and nearly did. calzaghe looked for empty divisions void of talent where he could reign. even his reigns didnt include taking on the best in those weak divisions on a regular basis, he waited until the time was right to pounce on weak opposition with inflated reputations. twice he got caught, thinking eubank and hopkins were more shot than they really were. ended up going life and death with a eubank who was pretty damn shot and losing to hopkins only to get a gift and high tail out of the sport.

do you know how you can tell calzaghe is a fraud? the way he speaks about the roy jones fight.

when larry holmes talks about fighting ali he doesnt pretend it was a great win, he admits that wasnt muhammad ali in the ring that night.

when tyson talks about beating holmes, he doesnt pretend he achieved a huge feat, he admits that version of holmes wasnt the same guy who ruled the world for years.

marciano-louis, pacquiao-dlh, garcia-morales.. the list goes on and on.

the only guys who beat a washed up corpse (and every single one of us knows roy was shot to hell) and pretend its a big deal are ppl who have no other leg to stand on for their so called legacy, not to mention no sincerity, no dignity and no shame as human beings.

calzaghe doesnt admit he beat a corpse, he wants to walk around and act as if he beat the real roy jones when we all know thats not the case.

thats no champion.

froch would never do such a thing.

Go ahead and end the thread

[IronDanHamza]

carl froch wouldn't put a glove on joe calzaghe and you all know it.

Are you implying that Calzaghe had a good defense?

[New England]

Are you implying that Calzaghe had a good defense?

good is a relative term. so yes, in the context of a fight with carl froch it would be good enough certainly.

froch would have no answers at all for calzaghe's speed. fast fighters dirrell and ward had him totally lost at sea with their hand and footspeed. heck, it took him several rounds to adjust to the speed of a shot jermain taylor, who had him missing by a lot and was even unloading on him [ i was at that fight, and had a great view of froch missing the mark until taylor gassed. calzaghe will not gas.]

ward's more intelligent and calculated with his movement, but he doesn't move as frequently as calzaghe, or throw the volume of punches that would amount to being one of his best defenses.


add in calzaghe's gas tank, his winners mentality, his recuperative powers and his chin, and i can't see how anybody would pick froch to win more than a few rounds or have a puncher's chance. styles make fights, and calzaghe presents a ton of problems for froch while froch doesn't do anything joe couldn't handle.

[IronDanHamza]

good is a relative term. so yes, in the context of a fight with carl froch it would be good enough certainly.

froch would have no answers at all for calzaghe's speed. fast fighters dirrell and ward had him totally lost at sea with their hand and footspeed. heck, it took him several rounds to adjust to the speed of a shot jermain taylor, who had him missing by a lot and was even unloading on him [ i was at that fight, and had a great view of froch missing the mark until taylor gassed. calzaghe will not gas.]

ward's more intelligent and calculated with his movement, but he doesn't move as frequently as calzaghe, or throw the volume of punches that would amount to being one of his best defenses.


add in calzaghe's gas tank, his winners mentality, his recuperative powers and his chin, and i can't see how anybody would pick froch to win more than a few rounds or have a puncher's chance. styles make fights, and calzaghe presents a ton of problems for froch while froch doesn't do anything joe couldn't handle.

Disagree. His defense is not good and it wouldn't be hard for Froch to find the target.

It's one thing not being able to hit Ward, the only fighter who's avoided any kind of real punishment against Froch over 12 rounds but Cazlaghe isn't Andre Ward.

I agree Calzaghe had some tools that would trouble Froch but I've got no doubt in my mind that Froch would find Calzaghe and trouble him. He never fought anyone like Froch especially a guy who gets stronger as the fight goes on.

I saw Robin Reid beat Calzaghe so I know Froch has a chance.

[New England]

Disagree. His defense is not good and it wouldn't be hard for Froch to find the target.

It's one thing not being able to hit Ward, the only fighter who's avoided any kind of real punishment against Froch over 12 rounds but Cazlaghe isn't Andre Ward.

I agree Calzaghe had some tools that would trouble Froch but I've got no doubt in my mind that Froch would find Calzaghe and trouble him. He never fought anyone like Froch especially a guy who gets stronger as the fight goes on.

I saw Robin Reid beat Calzaghe so I know Froch has a chance.

if that's fair then i saw andre dirrell embarrass froch for most of their fight. you want to open up that can of worms?

and dirrell and calzaghe are both fast southpaws. similar height and reach. styles are different, but there are physical traits that make them more similar than froch and rreid. froch and robin reid aren't realy alike at all. 3-4 inches height difference to start, froch is slow of hand and particularly his upper body, and relies heavily on his reach. fast footed fighters give guys like that a ton of problems, as evidenced by froch's poor showings against dirrell, ward, and taylor.

[Froch_uppercut]

I don't think many would argue second sentance, but as for resume - there's an argument.
Froch fought better opposition, but when talking resume - we're talking just wins, right? I personally think Froch lost to both Dirrell and Glen Johnson, his first fight with Groves should be no-contest really and fights with Pascal and faded Kessler in a rematch - were extremaly close too and I wouldn't argue if they were called draws.
His clear victories were over:
- Taylor, who we know was shaky.
- Bute - who was solid titleholder, but without resume to talk of and exposed when he stepped up.
- Abraham - who was still good at 168, but not quite as good as at 160.
- Groves - Good contender, but still yet to prove himself on top level

Calzaghe has:
- Kessler(prime) - which is better win than any that Froch have.
- Hopkins (Faded, but at that stage still better than anyone Froch beat - imo) - that one could've gone either way tho.
Then couple decent second tier guys
Eubank(Faded), Woodhall, Bika, Brewer, Reid(That one could've gone either way too tho).

I'd say it's close. Calzaghe has bigger two single wins, imo, Froch has couple more of overall A class wins, but Calzaghe's resume is deeper on sort of B-level.. And what's most important, Froch clearly lost to two best guys he fought - Ward and Kessler I. That has to leave a mark on his resume imo.

You're the first person I have heard say Johnson beat Froch!! WTF, where did THAT come from?

[billeau2]

froch looked for a stacked division to clean out and nearly did. calzaghe looked for empty divisions void of talent where he could reign. even his reigns didnt include taking on the best in those weak divisions on a regular basis, he waited until the time was right to pounce on weak opposition with inflated reputations. twice he got caught, thinking eubank and hopkins were more shot than they really were. ended up going life and death with a eubank who was pretty damn shot and losing to hopkins only to get a gift and high tail out of the sport.

do you know how you can tell calzaghe is a fraud? the way he speaks about the roy jones fight.

when larry holmes talks about fighting ali he doesnt pretend it was a great win, he admits that wasnt muhammad ali in the ring that night.

when tyson talks about beating holmes, he doesnt pretend he achieved a huge feat, he admits that version of holmes wasnt the same guy who ruled the world for years.

marciano-louis, pacquiao-dlh, garcia-morales.. the list goes on and on.

the only guys who beat a washed up corpse (and every single one of us knows roy was shot to hell) and pretend its a big deal are ppl who have no other leg to stand on for their so called legacy, not to mention no sincerity, no dignity and no shame as human beings.

calzaghe doesnt admit he beat a corpse, he wants to walk around and act as if he beat the real roy jones when we all know thats not the case.

thats no champion.

froch would never do such a thing.

You speak things that are exactly the way I feel. Unfortunately New England who posted below you is probably right, as much as it pains me.

Joe was a fraud in many ways, I think BHops beat him considering the quality of the punches, slaps and the knockdown. He got by on the Sven Ottke competition index as well... But Joe knew how to win fights with activity and his style would be horrible for Froch, he would make Froch look slow. his probably means that if he beats Froch head to head his resume ultimately evens out... hence he would have to be considered better by most measures. Its ok Froch was not that good.