Who's greater? Froch or Calzaghe?

[RichCCFC]

Pascal and Bute are his 2 best wins

Pascal was undefeated but never won a title at 168 and according to his camp, weight drained

Bute is a good fighter but relatively untested, we'll see how he does in his next few fights

[IronDanHamza]

Can we be a little specific here? LOL. Who exactly has Froch beaten?? I'll take Calzaghe's win over Charles Brewer over 99% of Froch's resume. Maybe 100.

Charles Brewer? The same guy Echols stopped in 3 rounds a few years prior? You're not serious.

And to be specific Froch has beaten;

Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Bute and Dirrell. You're honestly telling me that Calzaghe's resume is much better than that?

Considering, Taylor, Abraham and Bute were favoured by both fans and bookmakers to beat Froch.

I'm sure no one is going to argue that Calzaghe's Super Middleweight era is stronger than Froch's and Froch happened to come 2nd in a tournament consisting of the universally recognised best fighters at 168. And, the one that wasn't in the tournament, he destroyed in 5 rounds.

If Froch's resume is so lackluster, with Charles Brewer being better than anyone he's faced. Why is Andre Ward held in such high regard for beating him?

[IMDAZED]

Charles Brewer? The same guy Echols stopped in 3 rounds a few years prior? You're not serious.

And to be specific Froch has beaten;

Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Bute and Dirrell. You're honestly telling me that Calzaghe's resume is much better than that?

Considering, Taylor, Abraham and Bute were favoured by both fans and bookmakers to beat Froch.

I'm sure no one is going to argue that Calzaghe's Super Middleweight era is stronger than Froch's and Froch happened to come 2nd in a tournament consisting of the universally recognised best fighters at 168. And, the one that wasn't in the tournament, he destroyed in 5 rounds.

If Froch's resume is so lackluster, with Charles Brewer being better than anyone he's faced. Why is Andre Ward held in such high regard for beating him?

I suggest you actually watch that Echols fight. Controversial ending. Shouldn't have ended period and I think Echols was very glad it did.

Second...those are some nice names on Froch's resume. Can you tell me what any of them accomplished at 168?

[Pullcounter]

the reason why froch's resume is better is because he participated in the super six and fought the top guys in his division.

cokezaghe cherrypicked and avoided and fought only in his hometown. Didn't he struggle with some guys that had no business giving cokezaghe trouble?

in any case, froch took the harder road and he should get credit for it... mofos keep talking about cokezaghe beating hopkins... cokezaghe barely squeeked out the victory and many thought he lost... and he beat a prime kessler, cool, that's 1 good opponent out of 40+ other lame opponents.

even though froch lost some fight in the super six and cokezaghe was undefeated don't mean that cokezaghe has a better resume, atleast froch took some tough fights.

No lie, in a heads up fight, I think cokezaghe has the talent to beat froch, but cokezaghe's resume is lacking and that's why froch > cokezaghe

[IronDanHamza]

I suggest you actually watch that Echols fight. Controversial ending. Shouldn't have ended period and I think Echols was very glad it did.

Second...those are some nice names on Froch's resume. Can you tell me what any of them accomplished at 168?

I saw the Echols fight and know how it ended. And Echol's was absolutely happy it ended. I mean, Charles Brewer was a decent fighter, no question. But you're seriously telling me that guy is better than 100% of Froch's resume?

In that case, I'll ask again. Why is Andre Ward held in such high regard for beating him?

Jermain Taylor was ranked #5 at 168 and was considered a heavy favourite to beat him. He also showed me in the Froch fight he still had something left in the tank at that point.

Andre Dirrell, despite having a career setback and a dissapearing act is clearly a good fighter. But, unproven.

We know what Pascal went on to do. Nothing special of a fighter but better than a long list of Calzaghe's opponents. Including, Charles Brewer

Abraham, again, heavily favoured to beat Froch and has gone on to beat Steigletz. See what he does from here.

Bute #2 at 168, yet another fighter favoured heavily to beat him and stopped in 5 rounds.

Now, show me Calzaghe's top 5 wins and why they're so superior?

Like I said, I still lean on Calzaghe at this moment in time but it's by no means a landslide.

[IMDAZED]

I saw the Echols fight and know how it ended. And Echol's was absolutely happy it ended. I mean, Charles Brewer was a decent fighter, no question. But you're seriously telling me that guy is better than 100% of Froch's resume?

Not 100. Maybe 96%

In that case, I'll ask again. Why is Andre Ward held in such high regard for beating him?

I think he's held in high regard for winning the whole tourney, not just beating Froch. And also whitewashing Dawson.

Jermain Taylor was ranked #5 at 168 and was considered a heavy favourite to beat him. He also showed me in the Froch fight he still had something left in the tank at that point.

Rankings mean squat. Can you tell me anything Jermain Taylor had done to deserve this top five ranking? Or was it everything he accomplished at 160 (ie. rob Hops and then proceed to barely beat a bunch of junior middles before Pavlik stomped his ass out)?

Andre Dirrell, despite having a career setback and a dissapearing act is clearly a good fighter. But, unproven.

And he had accomplished what exactly when Froch fought him?

We know what Pascal went on to do. Nothing special of a fighter but better than a long list of Calzaghe's opponents. Including, Charles Brewer

Pascal is his best win. In other words, he's well behind Calzaghe, who can list a few guys better than that.

Abraham, again, heavily favoured to beat Froch and has gone on to beat Steigletz. See what he does from here.

And what had he done when Froch fought him?

Bute #2 at 168, yet another fighter favoured heavily to beat him and stopped in 5 rounds.

Don't ever mention that ****ing bum's name around me again

Now, show me Calzaghe's top 5 wins and why they're so superior?

Hopkins is superior to every name on that list. Jermain Taylor? That's like me listing Roy Jones. Bute? He's not even better than Jeff Lacy. Come on, man. Richie Woodhall, Omar Sheika, Charles Brewer...not great fighters, but have accomplished more than almost every fighter you named for Froch.

[RichCCFC]

the reason why froch's resume is better is because he participated in the super six and fought the top guys in his division.

cokezaghe cherrypicked and avoided and fought only in his hometown. Didn't he struggle with some guys that had no business giving cokezaghe trouble?

in any case, froch took the harder road and he should get credit for it... mofos keep talking about cokezaghe beating hopkins... cokezaghe barely squeeked out the victory and many thought he lost... and he beat a prime kessler, cool, that's 1 good opponent out of 40+ other lame opponents.

even though froch lost some fight in the super six and cokezaghe was undefeated don't mean that cokezaghe has a better resume, atleast froch took some tough fights.

No lie, in a heads up fight, I think cokezaghe has the talent to beat froch, but cokezaghe's resume is lacking and that's why froch > cokezaghe

You can't expect anyone to take you serious when you are too petty to call the fighter by his real name.

[IronDanHamza]

Not 100. Maybe 96%

Not even close, man. Seriously, not even close.

I'll use your question. What has Charles Brewer done recently? Despite going to war with Echols and being on the wrong end of a decision over Ottke?

I think he's held in high regard for winning the whole tourney, not just beating Froch. And also whitewashing Dawson.

Well, Froch came second. That's worse than beating Charles Brewer though? I honestly struggle to believe you are being serious with that.

And as for Dawson. I'll ask another one of your questions. What has he done at 168 lately? Or ever?

Rankings mean squat. Can you tell me anything Jermain Taylor had done to deserve this top five ranking? Or was it everything he accomplished at 160 (ie. rob Hops and then proceed to barely beat a bunch of junior middles before Pavlik stomped his ass out)?

I don't think he deserved the ranking but that wasn't the consensus at the time when almost everyone expected Taylor to dispatch of Froch with ease.

I'm not going to take the credit away from the win when I, and pretty much everyone expected him to lose.

Just like I don't with Calzaghe and his win over Lacy.

And, that's the only time in Calzaghe's career he was expected to lose.

Can't say the same for Froch.

And he had accomplished what exactly when Froch fought him?

Nothing.

But does that mean it's not a good win?

Pascal is his best win. In other words, he's well behind Calzaghe, who can list a few guys better than that.

Pascal arguably his best win.

And what had he done when Froch fought him?

Not much but he was one of the favourites to win the tournament and yet another to beat Froch.

Froch keeps beating these guys that are favoured and supposed to beat him yet should get no credit when he beats them?

Don't ever mention that ****ing bum's name around me again

I think it should be mentioned. Bute was overhyped but he was still considered to be one of the best in the world at 168 and even just outside the Top 10 P4P rankings.

Hopkins is superior to every name on that list. Jermain Taylor? That's like me listing Roy Jones. Bute? He's not even better than Jeff Lacy. Come on, man. Richie Woodhall, Omar Sheika, Charles Brewer...not great fighters, but have accomplished more than almost every fighter you named for Froch.

Not like bringing up Roy Jones considered Taylor was considered a risk as opposed to Jones who wasn't.

Bute and Lacy are about the same IMO. Similar kind of win.

Hopkins and Kessler are what put him ahead for me.

Guys like Woodhall ( ) being brought up just confirm to me how weak his resume is and how more over, comparable their resumes are.

[RichCCFC]

To be honest, Froch was mainly the underdog in all those fights because people didn't really respect him as a boxer (not fighter).

[IronDanHamza]

To be honest, Froch was mainly the underdog in all those fights because people didn't really respect him as a boxer (not fighter).

Absolutely.

But beating them has earned it, no?

I don't think it's fair to discredit a win when everyone expects them to lose.

I think we can all agree that Jeff Lacy isn't a very good fighter but the fact of the matter is, he was considered one of the best Super Middleweights out there universally and expected to destroy Calzaghe.

And despite the fact I picked Calzaghe to win, I'm not going to discredit the win when he was one of the best and biggest risk's of an option out there and expected to lose by most.

And Froch has done this and won more than a few times.