Comments Thread For: Carl Froch: Joe Calzaghe Represents a 'Bullet Dodged'

[daggum]

LOL, what an idiot. U don’t know sheet about boxing. Luge is more your speed.

luge is high speed!

[daggum]

Although Carl Froch would be competitive, and I do rate him extremely highly 'Stylistically Joe Calzaghe is a very difficult fight for him'.

In a battle of attrition, Froch would be competing against a fighter who has comparable if not greater levels endurance 'Calzaghe's durable was also comparable to Froch's'.

In terms of pure boxing Joe Calzaghe was also a superior fighter skill for skill 'That is why, I believe during a 12 round fight. It would be competitive, but Calzaghe would just be landing too much and winning the rounds'.

Joe Calzaghe's resume in certain area's, is very underrated 'Calzaghe's win over Eubank Senior, I believe is a better win than all of Froch's wins'.

Note: I rate Carl Froch extremely highly, I have even backed him at his peak to beat Canelo Alvarez at 168 pounds 'I have made posts before about both Calzaghe and Froch being superior Super Middle Weight Fighters than Canelo Alvarez'.

Even when there was talk of Carl Froch fighting Gennady Golovkin 'I would of backed Carl Froch to beat Golovkin'.

Carl Froch's pure boxing ability was also underrated, he was a World Amateur Championship Bronze medalist 'Both Carl Froch and David Haye won medals at the same Amateurs World Championships. And they were the first UK fighters to win medals at the World Championships for many years'.

Joe Calzaghe would of beaten Carl Froch over 12 round 'Froch has solid power. But I have always believed that his major strength, was his overall brute strength 'Which amplified his offensive attacks'.

For example, Deontay Wilder has serious punching power 'But his overall brute strength is very much under-par. I think there are potentially some fighters, many weight classes below Deontay Wilder that have greater natural brute strength'.

If Deontay Wilder had a solid level of brute strength, his fights vs Tyson Fury 'The action would been dramatically different. We saw that, with how the third fight between the two fighters played out'.

Wilder made a considerable effort, in attempting to improve his brute strength 'In preparing for the Wilder vs Fury III match up'. Wilder did improve his brute strength, but many other area's of his game did not seem to be integrated into this version of Deontay Wilder'.

And I believe this is one of the major reasons why he lost that fight 'Fury was there for the taking in that fight. Technically Fury was all over the place, making unforced errors which in my opinion would of been exploited brutally by past great heavyweight offensive fighters'.

There are no active Super Middle Weights in today's era 'That have the brute strength of Carl Froch, Alvarez has no were near his strength. And Alvarez is a strong fighter'.

I honestly believe, that we have to jump up the weight classes 'And observe fighters such as Artur Beterbiev 'Froch has that same type of brute strength, that Beterbiev is embodied with'.

This type of strength, is not entirely built up through 'Body building methodologies. I more describe it as a innate organic type of strength'.

So to conclude: All of those attributes will make Carl Froch very competitive vs Joe Calzaghe 'But the speed, combination punch ability, endurance and skill of Calzaghe would see him winning more rounds' etc.

eubank is a better win than any froch win? eubank was so past it he wasnt even ranked when calzaghe fought him. in fact he had lost 2 fights to steve collins 2 years prior and toiled away in obscurity before fighting calzaghe. even years before the collins fight eubank was getting gift decisions against guys like schommer and debatable decisions against guys like ray close. he was pretty clearly on the slide way before fighting calzaghe and he never won another fight after the calzaghe fight. dont see how you can say this is some notable win. its akin to conor benn beating pacquaio right now. just a name.

[daggum]

I remember watching Calzaghe fight in Europe. I was never impressed till he fought an American named Jeff Lacy. I was shocked. Jeff was going through boxers like a hot knife through butter.
Then he fought Bika, Manfredo and whipped them. I thought he was a legit top guy but when he stepped into the ring against Kessler. I thought Kessler was a hell of a fighter. He whipped him. I knew he was great.
Then he beat Hopkins and RJJ. He is truly one of the most unappreciated greats out there and this is an opinion of a non English guy.
He would have whipped Froch on points easily. I remember Froch always talking sheeit about wanting to fight Calzaghe. I’m glad he sees what I saw.

lacy was not very good. good on joe for taking down an easy mark but lacy's resume was trash and he barely beat omar sheika. that should have been a red flag. he never did anything after losing to calzaghe because he stepped up his level of competiion and couldnt compete.

i had bika beating calzaghe. it was a close fight but bika actually landed the much cleaner and harder punches throughout the fight. if you thought calzaghe won thats fine but he definitely did not whip him. he didnt whip kessler either. he beat him 7-5. froch also beat him. froch has a better resume than calzaghe.

[MONGOOSE66]

lacy was not very good. good on joe for taking down an easy mark but lacy's resume was trash and he barely beat omar sheika. that should have been a red flag. he never did anything after losing to calzaghe because he stepped up his level of competiion and couldnt compete.

i had bika beating calzaghe. it was a close fight but bika actually landed the much cleaner and harder punches throughout the fight. if you thought calzaghe won thats fine but he definitely did not whip him. he didnt whip kessler either. he beat him 7-5. froch also beat him. froch has a better resume than calzaghe.

Wining about who should have won is just crying over nothing. Calzaghe easily out pointed EVERYONE. When he stepped up against the ELITE. HE SHINED. Even more. Few can do that. Like I said earlier I use to laugh watching calzaghe fight. I think majority of European fighters are trash(NOT Russian fighters).

[daggum]

Wining about who should have won is just crying over nothing. Calzaghe easily out pointed EVERYONE. When he stepped up against the ELITE. HE SHINED. Even more. Few can do that. Like I said earlier I use to laugh watching calzaghe fight. I think majority of European fighters are trash(NOT Russian fighters).

well i still laugh watching calzaghe fight and im sorry i dont accept official decisions as gospel. i just use my own eyes and he didnt win all his fights. just like froch didnt win them all. who has the better resume? froch by a mile.

and he easily outpointed everyone? cept reid, bika, and hopkins he didnt. he just didnt have as many quality fights as a guy like froch. smaller sample size of "greatness" but you are giving him extra points for doing less while docking froch points for doing more. a bit unfair dont you think? if calzaghe had fought better competition like froch he probably has more losses. if froch had fought weaker competition like calzaghe he would have fewer losses. why not judge them based on who they actually beat? and froch wins there

[IronDanHamza]

Wow.. That's the 2nd time I've witnessed Gonzo wake up from his hubris and actually display some humility...
First was in the build up to Froch/Groves1 when he stated he would 'swerve Golovkin like the plague.'
Mind you, he then waited until GGG was unofficially retired before coming out with the claim that he was 'Too big, too strong for Golovkin..'

Froch was a tough customer, but his defence was suspect. He consistently dropped the left when retracting the jab and left himself wide open. Can only imagine how Calzaghe would have capitalised on that. I think Calzaghe v Froch would've looked a lot like Calzaghe v Lacy, in that Joe would've utterly schooled him.

I find it tedious how the shermans go on about him catching Jones & Hopkins late... Been as how Joe retired afterwards as a result of his hands being totally fkd whilst RJJ & BHop fought on. Offhand I'm pretty sure BHop had a dozen or so more fights after losing to Joe & RJJ quite a few more than that. However, I'd love to have witnessed RJJ V JC back when they were both prime.. BHop stank the place out when he fought Joe, just trying to spoil his way to victory, but then again white men named Joe appear to have been his Kryptonite...

I think it's more tedious to pretend like Roy Jones wasn't totally shot and Calzaghe wasn't a P4P ranked fighter at the time.

Hopkins, cool, he went on to fight and win at the world level for years after so that's fair game.

Roy Jones? Come on. That's just ridiculous to pretend he wasn't totally finished at that point. He'd done nothing on any note in years and did nothing of note after.

[IronDanHamza]

Although Carl Froch would be competitive, and I do rate him extremely highly 'Stylistically Joe Calzaghe is a very difficult fight for him'.

In a battle of attrition, Froch would be competing against a fighter who has comparable if not greater levels endurance 'Calzaghe's durable was also comparable to Froch's'.

In terms of pure boxing Joe Calzaghe was also a superior fighter skill for skill 'That is why, I believe during a 12 round fight. It would be competitive, but Calzaghe would just be landing too much and winning the rounds'.

Joe Calzaghe's resume in certain area's, is very underrated 'Calzaghe's win over Eubank Senior, I believe is a better win than all of Froch's wins'.

Note: I rate Carl Froch extremely highly, I have even backed him at his peak to beat Canelo Alvarez at 168 pounds 'I have made posts before about both Calzaghe and Froch being superior Super Middle Weight Fighters than Canelo Alvarez'.

Even when there was talk of Carl Froch fighting Gennady Golovkin 'I would of backed Carl Froch to beat Golovkin'.

Carl Froch's pure boxing ability was also underrated, he was a World Amateur Championship Bronze medalist 'Both Carl Froch and David Haye won medals at the same Amateurs World Championships. And they were the first UK fighters to win medals at the World Championships for many years'.

Joe Calzaghe would of beaten Carl Froch over 12 round 'Froch has solid power. But I have always believed that his major strength, was his overall brute strength 'Which amplified his offensive attacks'.

For example, Deontay Wilder has serious punching power 'But his overall brute strength is very much under-par. I think there are potentially some fighters, many weight classes below Deontay Wilder that have greater natural brute strength'.

If Deontay Wilder had a solid level of brute strength, his fights vs Tyson Fury 'The action would been dramatically different. We saw that, with how the third fight between the two fighters played out'.

Wilder made a considerable effort, in attempting to improve his brute strength 'In preparing for the Wilder vs Fury III match up'. Wilder did improve his brute strength, but many other area's of his game did not seem to be integrated into this version of Deontay Wilder'.

And I believe this is one of the major reasons why he lost that fight 'Fury was there for the taking in that fight. Technically Fury was all over the place, making unforced errors which in my opinion would of been exploited brutally by past great heavyweight offensive fighters'.

There are no active Super Middle Weights in today's era 'That have the brute strength of Carl Froch, Alvarez has no were near his strength. And Alvarez is a strong fighter'.

I honestly believe, that we have to jump up the weight classes 'And observe fighters such as Artur Beterbiev 'Froch has that same type of brute strength, that Beterbiev is embodied with'.

This type of strength, is not entirely built up through 'Body building methodologies. I more describe it as a innate organic type of strength'.

So to conclude: All of those attributes will make Carl Froch very competitive vs Joe Calzaghe 'But the speed, combination punch ability, endurance and skill of Calzaghe would see him winning more rounds' etc.

****** argument once again.

I'm still none the wiser as to why you randomly put quotations marks on random sentences for no reason what so ever.

You understand the purpose of quotation marks, right?

[MONGOOSE66]

well i still laugh watching calzaghe fight and im sorry i dont accept official decisions as gospel. i just use my own eyes and he didnt win all his fights. just like froch didnt win them all. who has the better resume? froch by a mile.

and he easily outpointed everyone? cept reid, bika, and hopkins he didnt. he just didnt have as many quality fights as a guy like froch. smaller sample size of "greatness" but you are giving him extra points for doing less while docking froch points for doing more. a bit unfair dont you think? if calzaghe had fought better competition like froch he probably has more losses. if froch had fought weaker competition like calzaghe he would have fewer losses. why not judge them based on who they actually beat? and froch wins there

If someone looses to another guy even if it’s close. He fkn got no one to blame but himself. He should have knocked the guy out and never let it get to the judges. No fkn excuses. Excuses are for pooseys.

[Jack_sh*t]

I think it's more tedious to pretend like Roy Jones wasn't totally shot and Calzaghe wasn't a P4P ranked fighter at the time.

Hopkins, cool, he went on to fight and win at the world level for years after so that's fair game.

Roy Jones? Come on. That's just ridiculous to pretend he wasn't totally finished at that point. He'd done nothing on any note in years and did nothing of note after.

I'm in no way suggesting RJJ was anywhere near his best at that point.. I'm just saying neither was Calzaghe. Joe's hands were so fragile by that point he was forced to retire. I've seen a fair few criticise him for 'slapping,' not realising that he was punching unconventionally to try to minimise further damage. When you consider his output it was hardly surprising that he had issues with hands. I'm not even saying Joe would have won had they fought when they were both at their peak, that would've been a hard one to call but a hell of a fight I imagine.

[IronDanHamza]

I'm in no way suggesting RJJ was anywhere near his best at that point.. I'm just saying neither was Calzaghe. Joe's hands were so fragile by that point he was forced to retire. I've seen a fair few criticise him for 'slapping,' not realising that he was punching unconventionally to try to minimise further damage. When you consider his output it was hardly surprising that he had issues with hands. I'm not even saying Joe would have won had they fought when they were both at their peak, that would've been a hard one to call but a hell of a fight I imagine.

I mean, he wasn't that far off his best really. He had his two best wins of his career by a mile the 2 fights prior, he was P4P ranked, he was #1 in the division.

Roy Jones hadn't beaten a ranked opponent in what? 5 years or something? Never did again. Was totally shot to pieces by then.

It's ridiculous to even compare to two, one was in the Top 5 P4P list, coming off far and beyond the two best wins of his career, was clearly no where even remotely close to shot and the other was without a ranked win in half a decade and was totally shot to pieces.