Tweet
Froch and its not close, Ward also already has a better resume the Joe. Joe is extremely overrated.
-
-
You've got Yusaf Mack, a contender, for Froch, but no Eubank and Brewer, two champions, for Calzaghe?
It's a tricky one. People will never be able to look passed their contempt for Calzaghe, and with Froch having clearly with of the toughest runs in all of boxing and consistently facing the top guys, that skews the perception mightily.
Having said that...
Who has the best win?
Calzaghe.
Who has beaten the most champions?
Calzaghe.
Who is a two division lineal champion?
Calzaghe.
Who has beaten more HOFers?
Calzaghe. Is Kessler a HOFer do we think? I'm uncertain.
Froch undoubtedly has the greater, tougher run of the two. Utterly indisputable. He's a hilarious warrior. Calzaghe a bit of a ****face.
However, if we ignored the amount of **** that Calzaghe also fought, and there was a lot, and just put their best wins, top contenders and champions together, Calzaghe is still squeaking it out.
A prime Kessler and Hopkins is still two better wins than anything Froch has got. Two top wins, one a legend of the game, has a lot of sway. But Calzaghe is such a ****** that Froch should just take it without any rational thought right? Come on.
Hopkins
Kessler
Eubank
Lacy
Reid
Mitchell
Brewer
Bika
Sheika
Woodhall (yes, I know Iron, but if we're using Mack, we're using Woodhall)
vs
Kessler
Abraham
Dirrell
Bute
Taylor
Mack
Pascal
Johnson
All bias and hate aside, I'll still take Calzaghe. Getting closer though.Comment
-
Froch has the better resume that is undisputable, Joe's big claim is Hopkins, (younger) Kessler and being undefeated.
Take it as you will but it terms of names its Froch, I think Joe was the better fighter though and he has no losses.Comment
-
anyone who includes eubank as a "great" win or says that calzaghe beat more hall of famers because he beat eubank and jones is not to be taken seriously. that's like saying mosley was a great win for canelo or ledbedev beat more hall of famers than so and so because he beat jones and toney.
calzaghe beat more ex-champs than froch. they were ex-champs for a reason meaning they were no longer good! froch beat 4 guys who were current or went on to be champs after he fought them to calzaghe's 3(2 if you don't include hopkins robbery) which shows froch fought the much fresher fighters, not just old champs with name value.
i guess it depends on how much stake you put in a robbery win over hopkins. that's really the only thing that stands out over froch and it was a complete farce. he couldn't even hit him! if we are pretending that calzaghe beat hopkins why can't we pretend froch beat ward? he came forward and ward spoiled! froch won! ward got tired in the last couple rounds froch won!Last edited by daggum; 05-27-2013, 01:49 AM.Comment
-
Lewis, Hamed, Benn, Froch, Ted Lewis >>>>>>>>>> Calzaghe.Comment
-
Froch, but I give the ATG and H2H advantage to Joe.Comment
-
Only a very few respect Calzaghe. That alone is telling how pathetic his mentality was during his career and how weak his resume is.
To me Calzaghe is the most cowardice and pathetic boxer of all time. He gave boxing a very bad name. Not only because of his very whack style of fighting (slapping), but also because of his incredibly weak mentality by not challenging himself to go overseas and fight the best and hostaging that paper belt of his for years so he could pad it up with worthless defenses.
I genuinly de****e him.
Posted from Boxingscene.com App for AndroidComment
-
Yes. Speak volumes, doesn't it?
Add in Richie Woodhall, coming off a loss.
Charles Brewer, coming off a loss.
Byron Mitchell, coming off a loss.
A razor close fight with Robin Reid.
These are considered to be amongst his best wins or "Good wins".
That alone just speaks for itself as far as I'm concerned.Comment
Comment