Comments Thread For: Carl Froch Explains: I Don't Think Joshua's Legacy Can Be Compared To Mine

[deathofaclown]

Froch does make some good points there but he didn't put his own opponents he named under the same scrutiny

Povetkin was old...so was Glen Johnson

Didn't mention he went 1-1 with Kessler. Calzaghe had already taken prime Kesslers 0.

Said Parker wasn't some top heavyweight, i totally agree but then who did the likes of Andre Dirrell ever beat? Also many people thought he lost that fight. Dirrell's other biggest fight was a loss to DeGale.

Abraham? Was never same at 168 as he was 160. Same as Taylor. Let's not forget Pavlik dealt with Taylor much easier than Froch.

see, its pretty easy to criticise most fighters resumes if you really want to.

[BrometheusBob.]

I heard he once fought in front of 80,000 people at Wembley

[Ganondorf]

Froch is right IMO. He is one of those guys I thought was just a legend in his own mind and full of himself at first but he grew on me.

He consistently showed his desire to face top opposition and most of the time he came out on top.

Froch did have a better career and was the superior fighter imo.

[Knuckle sandwich]

Joe Calzaghe, simple as that, froch doesn't even come close.

[Hooded Terror]

Joe Calzaghe, simple as that, froch doesn't even come close.

With names such as Gimenez, Sobot, Brewer, Pudwill, Salem, and Manfredo, Joe's 46-0 looks pretty stellar. It also speaks though to years of either being locked-out OR being happy with the status quo. Not everything is dependent on the big names around. I believe Joe was held back some. I also believe he held back some, especially given all of his talking back then. He got to two faded big names aat the right time, climbing off the deck to squeak out wins both times. I call that impressive. As for his post-Eubank body of work, it reads like an employee of the WBO.

Froch took on everybody and he did the work that, back around that time, Kelly Pavlik was supposed to do.

I view Calzaghe and Froch as shoulder to shoulder, but if I were to count hairs, Froch has a more colorful and defendable body of work, over a longer period. The rimming of Calzaghe is the work or parrots.

[Apollo7]

We all know Froch is very egotistical and is obviously going to be a bit biased.

When you actually think about it though, their resumes are very comparible. Both lost to a P4P guy, both lost to a B level guy and both beat a bunch of B level guys.

losses:

Ward ------------ Usyk x2
Kessler --------- Ruiz

Wins:

Kessler --------- Klitschko
Bute -------------- Ruiz
Groves ---------- Parker
Taylor ----------- Povetkin
Pascal ---------- Whyte
Abraham ------ Takam
Johnson ------ Pulev

[Roberto Vasquez]

Froch fought Ward and got out-classed and gave up. Joshua fought Usyk and got outclassed and tried again. Seems like Joshua has more guts to me

[PRINCEKOOL]

I rate Carl Froch highly, I would back him to beat Alvarez and Golovkin 'For me Froch would of beaten Golovkin at 168 pounds, when they were potentially going to fight'.

But? His overall resume, and achievements are not miles better than Joshua's 'Froch ability wise and on achievement, also is not a greater fighter than Joe Calzaghe'.

Joshua was a Olympic Champion in the amateur ranks, 'And Joshua's win vs Wladimir Kiltschko is a greater win than any fight on Carl Froch's resume'.

'Wladimir Kiltschko vs Anthony is the greatest Heavyweight title fight of the past 25 years'.

Note: Froch I believe has ulterior motives behind all of these latest attacks upon Joshua 'As he is more active these days on certain social media platforms'. Quite surprising behavior from Froch, but really? He should confront Joshua in physical reality and state these beliefs etc.