Carl Froch's resume >>> Joe Calzaghe's resume

[daggum]

Anyway, they both lost to Calzaghe in their primes around the time of their title reigns. They also both lose very controversial decisions to Sven Ottke.

yes and both lost controversial fights to calzaghe. reid should have won based on clean punches landed but calzaghe fooled those judges again with sheer output and moxie. the mitchell fight was an early stoppage. mitchell was wobbly but he fell off balance into the ropes from his own punches momentum untouched by calzaghe.

reid and mitchell were good fighters but frochs last 5 opponents(including abraham) are all a step above them.

[Spray_resistant]

You know damn well Kessler only got that decision because the fight was in Denmark.

Whereas Calzaghe avoids prime fighters (sans Lacy), Froch has no fear and administers pwnage to prime fighters on the regular.

That makes him superior.

Plus, he has way better taste in woman. Calzaghe's g/f on 24/7 looked like some ex stripper.

I had the cobra winning too but it was a close fight so the nod going against him doesn't reflect badly on him as a fighter.

As for your thread premise, if he beats AA I think your on to something.

[haverespect]

AS IF!!!!

That is a purely subjective viewpoint and you know it. I fancy Froch would impose his self on Calzaghe and k.o him.

Just because you find him moar aesthetically pleasing doesn't make him a better fighter.

You couldn't qualify that if you wanted to.

Cotto is "theoretically" more "skilled" than Tony, but Tony made him his bitch and forced him to quit on his knees like a heartless **********.

lets get this straight are you being serious?..... calzaghe undefeated, dominated for years.... totally owned a prime mikkel kessler who froch couldn't even beat after hed been badley owned by ward?

get the fk out of here... calzaghe skills way better than froch...... look at way taylor and dirrel both outclassed him.... his best win and performance is probably pascal..... and pascal is vastley overrated..... calzaghe makes froch his bi*ch all day every day!

and everyone knows that dirty drowned rat margacheato used plaster against cotto

[hugh grant]

JC is above Froch i would say hand on heart. JC did beat Kessler in his prime conclusively and JC was 36. So even if Froch has fought the current big names out there, JC still beat guys better than Froch probably could have.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

Froch is building a hardcore résumé. Joe can be more talented, have a "0" and a long string of backyard defences, but if Froch carries on the way he is doing there'll be no doubt that his body of work ends up stronger than Calzaghe's.

[shade darkar]

Calzaghe: Eubank, Jones (old), Hopkins (old), Lacy, Bika, Manfredo, Veit, Brewer, Sheika, Kessler


Froch: Abraham, Dirrell, Kessler, Taylor, Jean Pascal, Jermain Taylor, Reid

(all prime)
If Joe would've fought Jones and Hopkins in their prime, he'd have a better argument.

Not only this, Joe clearly ducked Froch and retired rather than face him which makes it even worse.

In summary, Froch shits all over Calzaghe.

lol, just go and shoot yourself or something.

[ding-ding]

it would have been great to see the two head to head, Froch came into the big time a year or so too late unfortunately.

I have mates who call Froch for calling out Clazaghe but it's what the fighter with the lesser known rep has to do in my opinion.

It's always exciting when there's an all British top level scrap to be had, theres too much of an age gap for us too see De Gale or Groves up against Froch imo, unless once the super six is done with and one of the two mentioned makes a few moves in that time... If not we'll hopefully see De Gale vs Groves in the next couple of years for one of the straps

[TOBYLEE1]

If Froch wins impressively against AA they would be an argument. I don't discredit him too much on the Kessler lost cause it was such a close fight that could had gone either way but JC did adjust in the Kessler fight and left no doubt who won that one.

[BROOKLYN CESAR]

Joe is the better skilled boxer of the 2 imo and id say he wouldve out boxed froch!!!

But ill give froch one thing, he fought the best guys at their best win lose or draw a mans man for sure!!!

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

I agree with you that Froch has a better resume' but Zags is greater due to his longevity and flawless record.

And..... Zags win over Kessler will always give him the advantage in head to head comparissons. Froch will never live that down.

That's BULL.


If Froch carries on in the vein he's been doing -- ie. taking hard fights against top guys home and away and making every one competetive -- then the bigger picture doesn't hinge on their performances against one common opponent at all. As far as a Calzaghe-Froch matchup, styles make fights and triangulating with Kessler says nothing about how that one goes, either.


The British sports establishment might never acknowledge Froch as better than Calzaghe, he's less talented in the pure sense, he lacks baubles like the "0", the run of title defences, a successful unification fight - but people who know boxing will know if/when Froch's career usurps Calzaghe's in the nitty-gritty definition (which is the important one here, that doesn't concern fame or money).


As for longevity, Froch was working in darkness for a title-shot for years. If he'd had Warren to set up a shot against a past-prime name so he could defend a weak strap in his back yard against frequently mediocre opposition (Sobot, Thornberry, Starie, Veit, McIntyre, Jimenez, Pudwill) for years after, Froch could conceivably have done the same. I'm not knocking Joe for some lame defences and mandatories, but the fact remains that Froch is carving a rugged path through top level opposition since becoming a titlist, his performances are as consistent as the quality of the guys he's facing. That has to be recognized. And if it continues on, he has a chance to surpass Calzaghe.



I always was a fan of Joe, but a part of his "Greatness" is a deception.