Who's greater? Froch or Calzaghe?

[Pullcounter]

cokezaghe is a joke that didn't want to fight outside the UK and only came to the states when rjj and hopkins were past their primes

[sdcluser]

Resume wise. Froch by far.
Calzaghe will probably beat him though.

[Isaac Hunt]

Froch because he has genuinely fought all the top fighters around in their prime when the fights have been presented to him and has left home to fight abroad.Despite losing to Ward and Kessler he has done everything that has been asked of him Calzaghe would have beaten Froch on points IMO but was very selective in choosing his fights and could have fought the big names earlier in the States when in their prime but despite the excuses which come over just as that. Had Calzaghe taken on all comers and fought abroad he would have been greater than Froch but opted from that and took the cautious path and that detracts from his greatness.

[mannyman]

It's difficult really... I'd say Froch has a better resume already IMO and will continue to build on that.

Having said that, I'd say Calzaghe beats Froch H2H and also has the legacy defining 20 defences of his SMW crown. I won't mention his '0' or victories over RJJ and Bernard Hopkins.

Depends how you define 'Greater'.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Froch,

as for who would win, Froch himself admitted that he would need to knock Calzaghe out in order to win. I agree with Froch there, I don't see Froch stopping him either, Calzaghe had a very good chin and his ability to recover might have been greater.

[rampant]

Both great fighters personally I couldnt really split them although Froch's run of tough opposition is probably better than Calzaghe's, but when it comes down to era and prime it get's way too complicated.

Calzaghe has out achieved Froch and I'd probably fancy Calzaghe to beat Froch.

Like others have said Froch still has a few more fights and could finish with a tremendous record agsinst tremendous opposition, the difference could be considered to be the opposition but you can only fight in your era, a boxer cant be blamed for that.

[SirTomJones]

Froch is greater than Calzaghe because he would lose to Calzaghe in a head to head and lost to Kessler.

[MeanestNiceGuy]

Point taken but the fact that Froch fought fighters in their prime or close to it will only help him more cause fighters like Dirrell, Pascal, and Bute can all have a good career. Where Calzaghe's best wins like Lacy, Kessler, and Hopkins are all either retired or close to it. Plus Froch can do other things like move up and win a belt etc. Froch has more opportunities to end up greater than Calzaghe after all is said and done.

I concur with all of the above.

[Daddy T]

H2H calzaghe would probably win imo - but i prefer froch as he has fought the absolute best available - i don't need to list the names.

Calzaghe epitomised what was wrong with the sport, maybe through no fault of his own, I dunno, but he was a really good fighter who fought reliable losers as opposed to the best. Jones, Hopkins and to a lesser extent Sven were the three he should have fought and he refused to leave the UK and fight any of them of them. At least until Hopkins was a on the slide (but still good) and Jones was completely shot.

I think he is summed up by the way he ducked pavlik (and he did duck pavlik) it turned out later that Pavlik was not all that but for a brief moment he looked like a total beast and the calzaghe fight should of happened but because he looked like a beast joe ducked him. It was left to hopkins to expose kelly. If Froch was in Joe's shoes you could be damn sure he would have fought Kelly and thats the difference between them.

And yes having siad all that I still think h2h calzaghe would get the win.

[Larry the boss]

The one who cleaned out the division,won all the belts,had 21 title defenses and is a 2 division champion