Who's greater? Froch or Calzaghe?

[The Hammer]

Why is Eubank amongst Calzaghe's names?

He wasn't even in the Top 10 at 168 and hadn't won a legit fight there in years.

Next you'll be claiming Eubank was "old" at age 30.

[IronDanHamza]

Next you'll be claiming Eubank was "old" at age 30.

Didn't you say in this very thread, age is just a number?

Eubank was clearly well into decline, looked terrible in recent fights, wasn't in the Top 10 at 168 and hadn't won a legit fight there in years.

[Fasttimes]

Why is Eubank amongst Calzaghe's names?

He wasn't even in the Top 10 at 168 and hadn't won a legit fight there in years.

Fair enough, but then I'd have to take Taylor off of there for Froch, and I'm not prepared to do that

[The Hammer]

Didn't you say in this very thread, age is just a number?

Eubank was clearly well into decline, looked terrible in recent fights, wasn't in the Top 10 at 168 and hadn't won a legit fight there in years.

Eubank didn't look shot at age 30 in that fight or look terrible in his late 20s.

You are on a mission to discredit Joe.

You'd probably say Mikkel Kessler was shot when he fought Joe, but you don't want to discredit a win by one of your heroes, Andre Ward.

[IronDanHamza]

Fair enough, but then I'd have to take Taylor off of there for Froch, and I'm not prepared to do that

Well, Taylor was in the Top 5 at 168 when he fought Froch whereas Eubank wasn't in the Top 10 and hadn't even fought there in years, let alone won there in years.

Taylor was also a heavy favourite to beat Froch whereas Calzaghe was heavily expected to beat Eubank.

I wouldn't say they are the same.

[Xyei]

Froch beat a faded Taylor

- but Taylor lost to Pavlik who lost to Hopkins who lost to Joe

Froch beat Pascal

- but Pascal lost to Hopkins who lost to Joe

You can't be serious with this? You can do that to anyone's record to make them look like crap.

[IronDanHamza]

Eubank didn't look shot at age 30 in that fight or look terrible in his late 20s.

You are on a mission to discredit Joe.

You'd probably say Mikkel Kessler was shot when he fought Joe, but you don't want to discredit a win by one of your heroes, Andre Ward.

Eubank had looked in the decline as early as the early 90's. He'd been a pro since the 80's.

His fights with Close, Schommer, Rocchigiani and a list of others were clear indicators he was in the decline even before his first fight with Steve Collins. After the 2 Collins fights, it was clear to see he was well passed it.

Then, Calzaghe fought him 2 years after that in 1997 when he was unranked at 168 and again, hadn't won a legit fight there in years. He then retired a year later.

And no Mikkel Kessler wasn't shot against Calzaghe. That's his best win in my book and one of the mere three fighters he fought who were in the Top 5 in the division he was campaigning in when he fought them.

And Andre Ward certainly isn't one of my heroes.

[Fasttimes]

Well, Taylor was in the Top 5 at 168 when he fought Froch whereas Eubank wasn't in the Top 10 and hadn't even fought there in years, let alone won there in years.

Taylor was also a heavy favourite to beat Froch whereas Calzaghe was heavily expected to beat Eubank.

I wouldn't say they are the same.

Taylor was in the top 5? Even if he actually was, that makes zero sense to me.

[IronDanHamza]

You can't be serious with this? You can do that to anyone's record to make them look like crap.

Notice he describes Taylor as "faded" whilst claiming Eubank wasn't and using "He was 30" as an argument when Taylor was around the same age

And yes, he's being 100% serious with the triangle theory and it isn't the first time.

[IronDanHamza]

Taylor was in the top 5? Even if he actually was, that makes zero sense to me.

He certainly was.

After his Eliminator with Lacy he was ranked #5.

Should he have been? Perhaps not but that wasn't the feeling at the time.