Who's greater? Froch or Calzaghe?

[RichCCFC]

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.

Yeah but it's not as if it elevates his wins that much just because he was picked to lose.

[IronDanHamza]

Yeah but it's not as if it elevates his wins that much just because he was picked to lose.

Doesn't elevate them to something amazing but surely it has to hold some sort of merit.

Atleast to a degree where it's better than a win over Charles Brewer!

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Yeah but it's not as if it elevates his wins that much just because he was picked to lose.

It does to an extent. Same way Calzaghe's victory over Lacy is elevated because of just how many people backed against him.

In truth, Froch's wins are actually even better than that because that was just ignorance of Calzaghe's skills.

Whereas Froch really should lose to guys like Taylor and Bute who are much faster and more skilled than him. The fact that he overcame such disadvantages through sheer will and determination makes the wins even better.

[IMDAZED]

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?

That's exactly why I used him. Because he fits perfectly with Froch's "best" wins. And in his prime was a better fighter than pretty much everyone Froch beat. And that's no exagerration.

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

Yes he came in second. Not sure how that's relevant. His resume ain't seeing Calzaghe's - AT ALL.

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

Let's try to stick to the topic - it's not Andre Ward. And I think we know the controversy surrounding weight so I don't think it helps your point.

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.

So what had he done again?

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

What has he done again?

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

True. Lacy has a better resume than Bute. Fact.

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

Can't say the same for Froch.

Doesn't mean anything.


Pascal arguably his best win.
This is why his resume can't compare.

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

Not much? Try nothing.

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

Give him credit. Doesn't mean his resume is sniffing Calzaghe's. You're going way way off the mark now. It's not about "credit."

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.

And has a worse resume than Jeff Lacy.

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

Jermain Taylor had accomplished nothing at 168. Still hasn't. And that's the point.

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

Except Lacy has a better resume.

Hopkins and Kessler are what put him ahead for me.

WAY WAY AHEAD.

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

Sadly, Woodhall is better than most of Froch's resume. And he isn't even a top three win for Calzaghe.

[Sparked_26]

It is a tough one.

But Calzaghe is the better and less beatable fighter so for that reason he gets the nod from me.

It's certainly hard for me to envisage Froch beating Calzaghe in a head to head.

[IronDanHamza]

That's exactly why I used him. Because he fits perfectly with Froch's "best" wins. And in his prime was a better fighter than pretty much everyone Froch beat. And that's no exagerration.

He doesn't though.

And he wasn't even in his prime when he fought Calzaghe.

Yes he came in second. Not sure how that's relevant. His resume ain't seeing Calzaghe's - AT ALL.

The relevance is in a better era than Calzaghe's, he managed to come second in a tornuament consisting of the best Super Middleweight's in the world.

That alone is comparable to Calzaghe's resume.

Let's try to stick to the topic - it's not Andre Ward. And I think we know the controversy surrounding weight so I don't think it helps your point.

It is the topic. It's in reference to Froch.

Explain to me how someone can be a top P4P fighter when one of their best wins is against a guy who doesn't have any wins better than Charles Brewer.

So what had he done again?

Nothing much. Does this mean it's not a good win?

What has he done again?

Same question.

True. Lacy has a better resume than Bute. Fact.

Arguably.

Both as good as each other.

Doesn't mean anything.

Of course it does.

It means he took multiple risks.

Something Calzaghe didn't in his career.

Pascal arguably his best win.
This is why his resume can't compare.

Not really.

If Calzaghe had a win over Pascal, it would be one of his best wins also.

That's not really a testament to how good Froch's resume is. More on how weak Calzaghe's is.

Give him credit. Doesn't mean his resume is sniffing Calzaghe's. You're going way way off the mark now. It's not about "credit."

If you're saying beating Charles Brewer is better than almost any win Froch has you're clearly personally not giving Froch credit for what he's done in career. And that's fine, It's not overwhelming.

Neither is Calzaghe's.

And has a worse resume than Jeff Lacy.

Arguably.

Jermain Taylor had accomplished nothing at 168. Still hasn't. And that's the point.

Other than beating Lacy for the mandatory, no.

Still doesn't change the fact he was expected to win the fight.

Except Lacy has a better resume.

Arguably.

Again, similar kind of win.

And this is Calzaghe's third best win. And perhaps Froch's second.

Yet, they're not close somehow?

WAY WAY AHEAD.

Still, edging Hopkins is nothing to shout about IMO.

The win over Kessler is what separates them more.

Sadly, Woodhall is better than most of Froch's resume. And he isn't even a top three win for Calzaghe.

Richie Woodhall would go 0-7, at very best 1-6 with Froch's last 7 opponents and that'e being generous.

Especially the version of him that Calzaghe fought.

Richie Woodhall?

I seriously can't help but laugh when his name almost always crops up in these conversations involving Calzaghe.

[IMDAZED]

He doesn't though.

And he wasn't even in his prime when he fought Calzaghe.





The relevance is in a better era than Calzaghe's, he managed to come second in a tornuament consisting of the best Super Middleweight's in the world.

That alone is comparable to Calzaghe's resume.



It is the topic. It's in reference to Froch.

Explain to me how someone can be a top P4P fighter when one of their best wins is against a guy who doesn't have any wins better than Charles Brewer.




Nothing much. Does this mean it's not a good win?




Same question.




Arguably.

Both as good as each other.




Of course it does.

It means he took multiple risks.

Something Calzaghe didn't in his career.





Not really.

If Calzaghe had a win over Pascal, it would be one of his best wins also.

That's not really a testament to how good Froch's resume is. More on how weak Calzaghe's is.




If you're saying beating Charles Brewer is better than almost any win Froch has you're clearly personally not giving Froch credit for what he's done in career. And that's fine, It's not overwhelming.

Neither is Calzaghe's.




Arguably.



Other than beating Lacy for the mandatory, no.

Still doesn't change the fact he was expected to win the fight.




Arguably.

Again, similar kind of win.

And this is Calzaghe's third best win. And perhaps Froch's second.

Yet, they're not close somehow?




Still, edging Hopkins is nothing to shout about IMO.

The win over Kessler is what separates them more.







Richie Woodhall would go 0-7, at very best 1-6 with Froch's last 7 opponents and that'e being generous.

Especially the version of him that Calzaghe fought.

Richie Woodhall?

I seriously can't help but laugh when his name almost always crops up in these conversations involving Calzaghe.

Sadly, Froch's resume consists of a bunch of guys who never did anything at 168. Pascal is his best win - and that's leagues below Hopkins. He lost to an older version of Kessler. Calzaghe soundly beat him. Those two names alone crap all over Froch. And Calzaghe has a longer list of pretenders he beat. Froch's not as long and he's even shorter on wins over elite opponents. If that makes the distance between the two "not so wide" then whatever. For now, only one is a Hall of Famer.

[2012]

What an asinine comparison.

Calzaghe was a hustler who outhustled hopkins, embarrassed the **** out Roy Jones and everyone else he fought. A true, adaptable lion with ring IQ and top notch athleticism.

Carl Froch on the other hand, is just one stiff sluggard with a solid punch and solid chin. A great fighter, but for Christ's sake the man has been soundly beaten three seperate times (I will include the robbery against Dirrell) and his career is not even over yet, he might lose more fights.

Props on fighting the best but if still get beaten the **** out of (see: Froch vs Ward) than don't compare yourself to a legendary fighter from a different period.

Besides who can you say Calzaghe ducked, Sven Ottke with 6 KO's?! ! Be real please. He was after the big dogs of the division and he got them.

Personally I think Calzaghe would have beaten both Froch and Ward. He could tame powerpunchers and outgun fighters with speed. People truly underrate him.

[IronDanHamza]

Sadly, Froch's resume consists of a bunch of guys who never did anything at 168. Pascal is his best win - and that's leagues below Hopkins. He lost to an older version of Kessler. Calzaghe soundly beat him. Those two names alone crap all over Froch. And Calzaghe has a longer list of pretenders he beat. Froch's not as long and he's even shorter on wins over elite opponents. If that makes the distance between the two "not so wide" then whatever. For now, only one is a Hall of Famer.

Froch and Calzaghe's amount of wins over "Elite" opponents is about the same.

Both have around the same amount of wins over Top 5 ranked opposition in their weight class.

Calzaghe has 3 and think Froch has 3. 2 or 3.

And yes that's entirely my point. The gap is "not so wide".

Froch avenging his loss to Kessler is all he needs to put himself ahead.

[IMDAZED]

Froch and Calzaghe's amount of wins over "Elite" opponents is about the same.

Both have around the same amount of wins over Top 5 ranked opposition in their weight class.

Calzaghe has 3 and think Froch has 3. 2 or 3.

And yes that's entirely my point. The gap is "not so wide".

Froch avenging his loss to Kessler is all he needs to put himself ahead.

If you can name opponent who Froch beat when they were thought to be elite, I'll fall out of my chair. And if you can somehow compare them to the Hopkins Calzaghe beat, I'll let my chair fall on me afterward.