Will Carl Froch always be ranked below Joe Calzaghe because hes been defeated

[slimshandy69]

Not only cos Froch lost, but nearly losing as well, like to JT. But also not beating common opponents as good as JC. And people not thinking he could actualy beat JC as well.

It all adds up.

the american pundits actually had frch winning, drawing and losing by 1 round going into the final round which was a 10-7 eve without the kncokout.

Plus joe struggled against robin reid and bika...

[1g5a22]

Not only cos Froch lost, but nearly losing as well, like to JT.

Nearly lost means sqwat really!! ppl act like carl got lucky lol Taylor got battered...

Carl started slowly, was a point (2 at the very most) down going into the later round and was not going to be denied that night! Yeah carl was really the loser that night....

IT WAS FROCH'S FIRST DEFENSE, ON FOREIGH SOIL, AGAINST ONE OF THE TOP RATED FIGHTERS IN THE WORLD AT THE TIME.

[RlCKY]

How many more threads do we need about this? Both are very good and entertaining boxers.

Who cares who is perceived as better, because there is no way to prove it.

[1g5a22]

the american pundits actually had frch winning, drawing and losing by 1 round going into the final round which was a 10-7 eve without the kncokout.

Plus joe struggled against robin reid and bika...

But he beat them both! Bika rates calzaghe as the best fighter he has fought...FACT! I think you will find calzaghe won most of the rounds too, bika was using elbows and his head all night long, bika in that fight was one of the dirtiest fighters ever! Anyone would find him a handful, ward certainly did (and with a short notice/inactive version too...)

And having a close fight with prime reid (though reid himself admits he was beaten) is nothing to be ashamed of...i.e chris eubank had very close fights with henry wharton, close, benn, colins, malinga etc

It was that same idiot judge Paul Thomas who scored Chambers-Dimitrenko as a draw, that scored Reid-Calzaghe for Reid. The two American judges scored it for Joe.There should be no controversy about it. Joe won 7-5, in a messy fight. That was joe at his worst and still the better man.

Reid though was one seriously under-rated fighter in his day. He only got knocked down and out by Jeff Lacy when he was totally shot, Lacy would never have put Reid down in his prime and in fact I reckon Reid would have done him. Reid was rated in the ring mag top 10 for 7 years. If Reid was not deducted and faced such a poor bias ref he would have beat Sven.

Had Reid have won he would have been a two time, three belt winning world champion..

Reid was honestly just outside the 10 ten best 168 fighters ever (GO WATCH BENN/EUBANK V WHARTON AND THEN GO WATCH REID FIGHT HIM AND THEN TELL ME REID WAS NOT ON A PAR WITH THEM)

Another guy Calzaghe fought who was a top contender who often goes unoticed or ignored by guys from the US cause many never watched the guy.

Reid said: "I can't argue with the decision. Joe was the better boxer on the night and I knew I could not catch him for speed."

[MARKBNLV]

But he beat them both! Bika rates calzaghe as the best fighter he has fought...FACT! I think you will find calzaghe won most of the rounds too, bika was using elbows and his head all night long, bika in that fight was one of the dirtiest fighters ever! Anyone would find him a handful, ward certainly did (and with a short notice/inactive version too...)

And having a close fight with prime reid (though reid himself admits he was beaten) is nothing to be ashamed of...i.e chris eubank had very close fights with henry wharton, close, benn, colins, malinga etc

It was that same idiot judge Paul Thomas who scored Chambers-Dimitrenko as a draw, that scored Reid-Calzaghe for Reid. The two American judges scored it for Joe.There should be no controversy about it. Joe won 7-5, in a messy fight. That was joe at his worst and still the better man.

Reid though was one seriously under-rated fighter in his day. He only got knocked down and out by Jeff Lacy when he was totally shot, Lacy would never have put Reid down in his prime and in fact I reckon Reid would have done him. Reid was rated in the ring mag top 10 for 7 years. If Reid was not deducted and faced such a poor bias ref he would have beat Sven.

Had Reid have won he would have been a two time, three belt winning world champion..

Reid was honestly just outside the 10 ten best 168 fighters ever (GO WATCH BENN/EUBANK V WHARTON AND THEN GO WATCH REID FIGHT HIM AND THEN TELL ME REID WAS NOT ON A PAR WITH THEM)

Another guy Calzaghe fought who was a top contender who often goes unoticed or ignored by guys from the US cause many never watched the guy.

Reid said: "I can't argue with the decision. Joe was the better boxer on the night and I knew I could not catch him for speed."

You made my post for me dude was posting like Reid was a bum dude could fight and in his prime was a tough out for anyone.

[RichCCFC]

[antrecasner]

Froch is ranked higher to me already...especially resume wise.

[Control-]

His resume is no doubt aboves joe now.

ONLY COUNTING A-CLASS FIGHTERS

Calzaghe:

Roy Jones
Bernard Hopkins
Mikkel Kessler
Chris Eubanks


VS


Carl Froch:

Jermain Taylor
Glen Johnson not A class
Andre Dirrell who's this guy again?
Lucian Bute not A class
Mikkel Kessler LOST
Jean Pascal good win
Arthur Abraham done very little at SMW
Andre Ward LOST

So will he always be ranked below joe simply because he took the risk that joe never did and therefore lost his '0'

sit down son

[RichCCFC]

Taylor - Past prime, done absolutely nothing @ 168
Dirrell - Done absolutely nothing, not even won a belt
Abraham - Done absolutely nothing @ 168 besides KO a shot Taylor, small
Johnson - 43 years old, came down in weight.. won 2 of last 5 and they were against bums
Pascal - Good fighter, good win. Possibly weight drained @ 168
Bute - Unproven champion against elite level, good win
Kessler - LOST
Ward - LOST

[Check]

Being undefeated doesnt really matter what matters is Calzaghe was the man in two weight divisions.
Froch on the other hand has just beaten his first reigning abc champion the two previous ones were vacant titles.

Being the man in a division that sucks really doesn't mean much. Froch isn't the man at 168, no, but 168 is one of the best divisions in boxing. When Calzaghe ruled 168 it ****** bad. Also saying he was the man at 175 is pretty funny. He fought there very few times and beat one top guy, Hopkins. It isn't like he really stamped his name in that division. Couldn't care less about titles.

To answer the TS, the answer is yes. That's why it's a crock of ****, just like Calzaghe was.