Who's greater? Froch or Calzaghe?

[IMDAZED]

The Ring Magainze. That's the consensus on what's gone by for the ranking, is it not?

Again, Taylor would a world title eliminator so he's going to be ranked in the Top 10 I.e Ryan Rhodes. And more recently Olusegun at JWW.

Byron Mitchell, as poor as he was, is up there with the Richie Woodhalls of Calzaghe's best wins Which is of course, laughable.

You're mistaken.

Bika, Veit and Sheika weren't in the top 10 when he fought them.

Brewer, Woodhall, Reid, Kessler, Lacy and Manfredo were ( At some of those names. Some of them coming off loss's aswell) I think Mitchell may have been aswell.

So again, no, he doesn't have double the amount of Froch and he may even have less now, thinking about it.

At the end of the day (to quote Joe), his resume is better. Personally, I think significantly.

Hopkins, Kessler >>>> Froch resume

Has Froch beaten more "never will be's"? Maybe. Don't really care. Calzaghe beat his fair share as well.

[IMDAZED]

Taylor's a legit win because he was the favourite and favoured to not only win, but with ease.

I'm answering your question as to why he was ranked at #5 when Froch from him; Because of his fight with Lacy which was a World Title Eliminator.

I'm pretty sure Roy Jones was a ranked LHW when Calzaghe fought him. It's really irrelevant. Taylor is one of his best wins. Calzaghe's resume has never impressed me but when you have to list Jermain Taylor at 168 as one of your best wins...laughable.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I'm pretty sure Roy Jones was a ranked LHW when Calzaghe fought him. It's really irrelevant. Taylor is one of his best wins. Calzaghe's resume has never impressed me but when you have to list Jermain Taylor at 168 as one of your best wins...laughable.

You're playing far too much into the weight. Taylor is a good win because Taylor is a good fighter. It doesn't need to get complicated.

[IMDAZED]

You're playing far too much into the weight. Taylor is a good win because Taylor is a good fighter. It doesn't need to get complicated.

Weight matters. It's why boxing has divisions. Sometimes less emphasis can and should be placed. But we're not talking about just weight here - we're talking about a guy who hadn't had a significant win in God knows how long.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Weight matters. It's why boxing has divisions. Sometimes less emphasis can and should be placed. But we're not talking about just weight here - we're talking about a guy who hadn't had a significant win in God knows how long.

I actually thought he beat Pavlik in the rematch. Either way it was a close fight (at 166 I think?). He was still quite clearly a world class fighter who was not old or shot.

[IMDAZED]

I actually thought he beat Pavlik in the rematch. Either way it was a close fight (at 166 I think?). He was still quite clearly a world class fighter who was not old or shot.

Maybe. I didn't think much of him to begin with. I don't think much of either him or Pavlik above 160 either. Furthermore, Taylor hadn't beaten a significant opponent in God knows how long when he fought Froch. And Froch struggled mightily with him.

Regardless, it's not an impressive win to me.

[IronDanHamza]

At the end of the day (to quote Joe), his resume is better. Personally, I think significantly.

Hopkins, Kessler >>>> Froch resume

Has Froch beaten more "never will be's"? Maybe. Don't really care. Calzaghe beat his fair share as well.

It's better, sure. But significantly? Not really.

And Hopkins and Kessler are better than anything he's done but that goes back to the argument than Carter's win over Griffith is better than anything either them have done. Still, he obviously isn't in their league.

And they have beaten around the same "Never will be's" or "contenders", the word that was formerly used. Froch perhaps a few more. Which I'm guessing settles the idea that Calzaghe beat double.

Facts are, both are underwhelming (Talking on HOF scale) and both are, at least, comparable.

[IronDanHamza]

I actually thought he beat Pavlik in the rematch. Either way it was a close fight (at 166 I think?). He was still quite clearly a world class fighter who was not old or shot.

Yeah.

Plus, he showed in the Froch fight he had something left, atleast.

Froch well and truly put him in his coffin though.

[IMDAZED]

It's better, sure. But significantly? Not really.

And Hopkins and Kessler are better than anything he's done but that goes back to the argument than Carter's win over Griffith is better than anything either them have done. Still, he obviously isn't in their league.

And they have beaten around the same "Never will be's" or "contenders", the word that was formerly used. Froch perhaps a few more. Which I'm guessing settles the idea that Calzaghe beat double.

Facts are, both are underwhelming (Talking on HOF scale) and both are, at least, comparable.

Both those wins are significantly better than anything Froch has done. And yes, Calzaghe may not be an ATG but he's certainly a HOF'er. Froch - not a chance.

[IronDanHamza]

Both those wins are significantly better than anything Froch has done. And yes, Calzaghe may not be an ATG but he's certainly a HOF'er. Froch - not a chance.

Yes, and so is Carter's win over Griffith. Doesn't automatically make him greater and in this case, doesn't even put him in either of their leagues.

To be honest with you I consider Calzaghe a boarderline HOF'er. As I do with Froch.

I would vote for Calzaghe over Froch though.