Who has the Better Resume Froch or Calzaghe?

[crold1]

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.

You refuse to address context on some of these. Not every 'coming off a loss' is the same. Mitchell was coming off a close split on the road with Ottke that some thought could go the other way (I actually thought Ottke nicked it). One of Brewer's two recent losses prior to Calzaghe was a classic Ottke split that a LOT of people thought he got jobbed on and Echols was all sorts of debated.

And, technically, Brewer and Woodhall were NOT coming off losses. Woodhall's once removed loss, to Beyer, was a CLOSE fight. These weren't guys coming in shot. They could all still fight.

Again, I'm not saying he was fighting King Kong, but he wasn't fighting corpses every time out either and these were all among the best available fighters beneath Ottke at the time. Barring a move to Light Heavy, who wasn't he fighting that really mattered? The only guy who really stands out to me is Liles in the early part of his reign.

[IronDanHamza]

You refuse to address context on some of these. Not every 'coming off a loss' is the same. Mitchell was coming off a close split on the road with Ottke that some thought could go the other way (I actually thought Ottke nicked it). One of Brewer's two recent losses prior to Calzaghe was a classic Ottke split that a LOT of people thought he got jobbed on and Echols was all sorts of debated.

And, technically, Brewer and Woodhall were NOT coming off losses. Woodhall's once removed loss, to Beyer, was a CLOSE fight. These weren't guys coming in shot. They could all still fight.

Again, I'm not saying he was fighting King Kong, but he wasn't fighting corpses every time out either and these were all among the best available fighters beneath Ottke at the time. Barring a move to Light Heavy, who wasn't he fighting that really mattered? The only guy who really stands out to me is Liles in the early part of his reign.

Again, just stating a fact.

The thing is, these guys weren't even overly good fighters in their primes or at their very best, some were decent at that's at very best. The fact they are coming off loss's, or poor performances just makes it that much more laughable that they're considered to be "good wins" they aren't "good wins". Not even close. They're bottom of the barrell contender's in a bottom of a barrel division. Not Calzaghe's fault but that doesn't magically make them impressive wins either.

Beating a prime, undefeated, best ever version of Richie Woodhall is not a good or impressive win at all and it's hilarious to me when I see names like this brought up as if it's something impressive. Let alone the version Calzaghe fought which wasn't even the best Richie Woodhall.

[STREET CLEANER]

On paper Calzaghe has Eubank, Jones, Hopkins and Kessler.

Three fighters that were beyond there best. Joe's best win was Kessler and a Lacy that had so much momentum going into the fight.

Froch I have said before that has fought a high level of competition consecutively of prime fighters winning most and giving a good account of himself in his defeats.

A Ward win would do wonders for him in cementing his legacy.

[$Bullsfam$]

Froch by a landslide. Frazier beat Ali, doesn't mean he's rated higher then Foreman even if Foreman didn't beat Frazier twice.

Comparing the resumes of these 2 are laughable. Froch is a warrior, calzaghe a fraud


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[crold1]

Again, just stating a fact.

The thing is, these guys weren't even overly good fighters in their primes or at their very best, some were decent at that's at very best. The fact they are coming off loss's, or poor performances just makes it that much more laughable that they're considered to be "good wins" they aren't "good wins". Not even close. They're bottom of the barrell contender's in a bottom of a barrel division. Not Calzaghe's fault but that doesn't magically make them impressive wins either.

Beating a prime, undefeated, best ever version of Richie Woodhall is not a good or impressive win at all and it's hilarious to me when I see names like this brought up as if it's something impressive. Let alone the version Calzaghe fought which wasn't even the best Richie Woodhall.

I never said they were 'impressive' and I get where you're coming from. However, they were all competent pros for the most part and they didn't come into the fights with Calzaghe remarkably declined. They still were what they were and there really wasn't much there in the class.

I guess it's a lot like the argument between someone like Carbajal and Lopez. Carbajal fought better comp but Lopez is generally regarded as the better fighter despite a record, and career, much close to Calzaghe than most Lopez-philes would ever admit. I used to deconstruct Lopez's record like this but just came to the conclusion the sum was better than a lot of the parts.

[bravestone]

Wasnt expecting a one sided poll not gonna lie.

[crold1]

Wasnt expecting a one sided poll not gonna lie.

I'm not. Dude has faced the best comp in the sport over the last five years, mostly won, and has the sort of warrior mentality of guys like Corrales and Hagler. He's flat out admirable as a prizefighter.

Add in that there is a perfectly fine case for him having a better resume and it makes for a perfect storm for internet polls.

[#1Assassin]

Froch by a landslide.

[Joeyzagz]

straw man argument

Froch almost got stopped by a past it Kessler in the 11th round. I cant believe we are even having this ******ed conversation in 2013.

[bravestone]

Froch almost got stopped by a past it Kessler in the 11th round. I cant believe we are even having this ******ed conversation in 2013.

Haha, oh jesus.