Froch's resume - nothing legendary

[RichCCFC]

I didn't realise that Calzaghe fought Hopkins and Jones at SMW and @ you trying to say Calzaghe's win over Roy Jones is the same as Froch's win over Abraham.

Eubank > Taylor aswell

Froch's resume at 168 is better than Calzaghe's. That's barely even debatable.

Thought we was just talking resumes..

Abraham is nothing, please... lol.. Even a faded Roy Jones is better than him as long as you don't hit hard and are quick enough to get to him. The Roy Jones Calzaghe fought would also beat Taylor's ass too.

Eubank and Taylor were both past their prime but Eubank was a better fighter to begin with and wasn't coming in off KO loss.

[IronDanHamza]

Thought we was just talking resumes..

Abraham is nothing, please... lol.. Even a faded Roy Jones is better than him as long as you don't hit hard and are quick enough to get to him. The Roy Jones Calzaghe fought would also beat Taylor's ass too.

Eubank and Taylor were both past their prime but Eubank was a better fighter to begin with and wasn't coming in off KO loss.

You thought we were talking just resumes despite me saying "Froch has a better resume than Calzaghe at 168"?

Abraham was the heavy favourite to beat Froch and one of the favourite's to win the entire tornument. In the Top 5 of the Division on top of that.

Roy Jones wasn't in the Top 10, clearly shot and no one expected him to win a single round, including the bookmakers.

At saying those fights are comparable.


And at Eubank being a better win than Taylor.

Eubank wasn't in the Top 10 and hadn't won a legit fight in mutiple years at 168 whilst Jermain Taylor was ranked in the Top 5 at 168 when Froch beat him and again, was the heavy favourite to beat Froch.

[RichCCFC]

You thought we were talking just resumes despite me saying "Froch has a better resume than Calzaghe at 168"?

Abraham was the heavy favourite to beat Froch and one of the favourite's to win the entire tornument. In the Top 5 of the Division on top of that.

Roy Jones wasn't in the Top 10, clearly shot and no one expected him to win a single round, including the bookmakers.

At saying those fights are comparable.


And at Eubank being a better win than Taylor.

Eubank wasn't in the Top 10 and hadn't won a legit fight in mutiple years at 168 whilst Jermain Taylor was ranked in the Top 5 at 168 when Froch beat him and again, was the heavy favourite to beat Froch.

Lacy was favoured to beat Calzaghe too, doesn't mean ****. Abraham is average and too small for 168. Roy Jones still had more talent in his little finger than Abraham. Look at the polls on here, 50% thought he'd beat Calzaghe.. albeit it they are idiotic posters.
Taylor got top 5 rank because he beat a shot to **** Jeff Lacy and he even got knocked down by him lol!

[Light_Speed]

So you've named 3 fighters.

And, please explain how Joe Calzaghe has a better resume at 168 than Froch.

And At Roy Jones.

Yeah, of course his win over Toney is better than anything Froch has done at the weight. Obviously.

But are you going to rank him higher than him at the weight on 1 win? Obviously not.

And the legit one you've named, Andre Ward, in all honesty despite his better qaulity, Froch probably has the stronger resume at the weight as it stands.

So, which part of Froch having the best resume at 168 of all time is not legit?

Well it's the good old quality vs quantity debate. I notice a lot of hardcore fans choose quantity by default but I don't, I take both into account and I also take losses into account. Calzaghe has 21 title defenses, that's some quantity for you. He won the title by beating a high caliber fighter in Eubank (although past his best) . He beat Lacy who was an undefeated champion and Calzaghe was the underdog. He clearly beat a peak Kessler, undefeated champion at the time, to become the undisputed king of the division. Froch lost to Kessler years later, when Kessler was coming off a lopsided loss.

Ward's better quality as well as his dominance and consistency makes his resume better than Froch's.

[nomadman]

Well it's the good old quality vs quantity debate. I notice a lot of hardcore fans choose quantity by default but I don't, I take both into account and I also take losses into account. Calzaghe has 21 title defenses, that's some quantity for you. He won the title by beating a high caliber fighter in Eubank (although past his best) . He beat Lacy who was an undefeated champion and Calzaghe was the underdog. He clearly beat a peak Kessler, undefeated champion at the time, to become the undisputed king of the division. Froch lost to Kessler years later, when Kessler was coming off a lopsided loss.

Ward's better quality as well as his dominance and consistency makes his resume better than Froch's.

Froch just beat someone last night who was an undefeated champion and heavy favourite. How d'you rank that?

[IronDanHamza]

Lacy was favoured to beat Calzaghe too, doesn't mean ****. Abraham is average and too small for 168. Roy Jones still had more talent in his little finger than Abraham.

Well, it does.

That's one of Calzaghe's best wins, no?

As funny and sad as that sounds, that Jeff Lacy is one of the best wins for a fighter. It is the case.

The fact most people felt he'd lose the fight is the main reason for that.

The fact you're actually trying to argue that beating Roy Jones at that point is better than Froch's win over Abraham is more sad than it is funny.

Taylor got top 5 rank because he beat a shot to **** Jeff Lacy and he even got knocked down by him lol!

Still, he was considered one of the best fighters at 168 at the time when Froch fought him. Or up there with the best.

Picked to beat Froch, again.

Eubank wasn't considered in the Top 20, possibly over that, at 168 when Calzaghe fought him.

Again, it's barely even debatable at this point. Froch's resume at 168 is better than Calzaghe's.

As of right now, I'd still rank Calzaghe higher all time. But Froch is one win away from taking him over in that regard aswell.

[mani1]

I would agree with the ts but as another guy said it's easy to find holes if you go looking for them.What annoys me though is Devon Alexander Witter,Urango,Kotelnik,Bradley,Matthysse and Maidana and he is still being called a ***** on here by many while Carl is and deservedly so lauded.Alexander deserves just as much credit

Agree dont like the guy but he has a great record same with Vic darchinean.

[IronDanHamza]

Well it's the good old quality vs quantity debate. I notice a lot of hardcore fans choose quantity by default but I don't, I take both into account and I also take losses into account. Calzaghe has 21 title defenses, that's some quantity for you. He won the title by beating a high caliber fighter in Eubank (although past his best) . He beat Lacy who was an undefeated champion and Calzaghe was the underdog. He clearly beat a peak Kessler, undefeated champion at the time, to become the undisputed king of the division. Froch lost to Kessler years later, when Kessler was coming off a lopsided loss.

Calzaghe has 21 Title defenses. As does Sven Ottke.. Is he ranked higher aswell?

I still get baffled when Chris Eubank get's brought up. That win is worthless. The only reason people mention that fight is the name value. Eubank hadn't won a legit fight at 168 in years at that point and wasn't anywhere close to the Top 10 on any list.

Calzaghe beat Lacy. Good win, real good win. Picked to lose by many, he pulled it out, good win.

Anything else to add? Is that it?

Add Kessler to that and I don't see how that's better than Froch's run.

Ward's better quality as well as his dominance and consistency makes his resume better than Froch's.

So wait, is it quality or quantity? Which one is it?

With Calzaghe it's quantity but with Ward it's quality? Can't have it both ways.

Ward has wins over Kessler, Froch and Abraham which puts him in the argument but Froch clearly has the more depth at this point.

[mani1]

Well, it does.

That's one of Calzaghe's best wins, no?

As funny and sad as that sounds, that Jeff Lacy is one of the best wins for a fighter. It is the case.

The fact most people felt he'd lose the fight is the main reason for that.

The fact you're actually trying to argue that beating Roy Jones at that point is better than Froch's win over Abraham is more sad than it is funny.



Still, he was considered one of the best fighters at 168 at the time when Froch fought him. Or up there with the best.

Picked to beat Froch, again.

Eubank wasn't considered in the Top 20, possibly over that, at 168 when Calzaghe fought him.

Again, it's barely even debatable at this point. Froch's resume at 168 is better than Calzaghe's.

As of right now, I'd still rank Calzaghe higher all time. But Froch is one win away from taking him over in that regard aswell.

In my opinion Calzaghe was the man at 168 and 175 for Froch to surpass him he would have to beat Ward and Dawson.

[The Tase]

Froch will always have more respect than Calzaghe.

Calzaghe's actions will include him as one of the biggest cherry picking duckers in the history of the sport.

Calzaghe hid out his entire career at 168 while roy & bhop were a division below & above him. Only after they were in their 40s did calzaghe come out to play. & when he played with those geriatrics, he got his arse knocked down. Imagine if they fought in their primes....

& instead of capitalizing on his named cherry pickings, Calzaghe does what every good cherry picking ducker does, he saw the writing on the wall with the young up & coming studs of 168 & consequently retired to keep his undefeated record.

Calzaghe retiring just when 168 became super six is de****able.