Comments Thread For: Enzo Calzaghe Trashes Froch: He is Not a Special Fighter!

[piye]

Froch is the man he's travelled and fought absolutely everyone! Joe state at home until his last two fights. he rarely even left Wales he's a class act but Froch is my favourite british fighter since Lewis.

[Enzo Calzaghe]

a forum post?

he sounds too lucid to be that poison dwarf.

Yer fackin twat.. Yer better fackin stay the fack outta fackin Wales!!!

Me son would 'ave boxed circles around that sloppy fackin wanker, even after 'aven't fackin fought for all these fackin years.

[xLuKeYx]

Joe state at home until his last two fights. he rarely even left Wales

He only fought in Wales 18 times out of 46 fights. That's only 39.13% of his total fights. I'd have thought you'd have checked that fact before making such a ridiculous and ill informed statement.

[Weebler I]

Don't forget about Benn too, both of whom would more than likely throw Froch a beating and a half in their prime.

They were middleweights in their prime.

Froch doesn't win fantasy matches, everyone beats him in theory. In the ring it's a different story.

[Porter's Dad]

The Froch vs Calzaghe debate is an interesting one.

(Cards on the table - I'm a Calzaghe hater, but I'll try to keep it real)

There can be absolutely no debate over who has fought the tougher opposition - Froch. Calzaghe would never, ever have gone on a run like that.

Who would have won if they ever fought? Calzaghe. If they had fought when Carl was his mandatory (2008?), Calzaghe would have won and pretty handily, IMHO. That Froch was raw. I mean, who can forget those special uppercuts from the outside he used to do on the regular?

What about the current, seasoned Froch - for whom fighting tough fight after tough fight has the effect of making him an even better fighter, even more so than diminishing him in any way from all the wear and tear.

Calzaghe, IMHO, would still win. But it would have been an amazing scrap. Ultimately, I think JC's speed, better boxing skills, and will to win (which, like Floyd, stemmed from not allowing that "0" to be taken from him) would have meant he would have prevailed.

Who was the better best win? Calzaghe. Both have Kessler as their best win but Calzaghe had the undefeated version.

Calzaghe's next best win is Hopkins. Now, of course, BHop has gone on to still do great things. But that performance from Calzaghe stunk (as did Bernard's) and I always think it's slightly false to cite a win when the scorecard was so debatable and the performance was lamentable.

Now, Froch other wins include Bute (extremely good win, getting more underrated by the day), Pascal, Abraham, Johnson, Taylor (I ain't giving him Dirrell, he clearly lost that). Now that is a killer list of wins (and as much as I take Dirrell away, people argue he should have 2 wins over Kessler)

So overall, the whole body of work from Froch, I think is superior to Calzaghe's. But people will always be reluctant to categorise him over Calzaghe, even if he were to beat Ward (which he won't) and Hopkins. It's just one of those things - people will always hold Calzaghe's unbeaten reign and his skills as to why he is better than Froch. And you just the feeling that Calzaghe would have beaten him if they ever fought.

But if Calzaghe had fought the fighters Froch has, including Ward, I think he would have taken an "L" at some point. Probably to Ward.

[xLuKeYx]

The Froch vs Calzaghe debate is an interesting one.

(Cards on the table - I'm a Calzaghe hater, but I'll try to keep it real)

There can be absolutely no debate over who has fought the tougher opposition - Froch. Calzaghe would never, ever have gone on a run like that.

Who would have won if they ever fought? Calzaghe. If they had fought when Carl was his mandatory (2008?), Calzaghe would have won and pretty handily, IMHO. That Froch was raw. I mean, who can forget those special uppercuts from the outside he used to do on the regular?

What about the current, seasoned Froch - for whom fighting tough fight after tough fight has the effect of making him an even better fighter, even more so than diminishing him in any way from all the wear and tear.

Calzaghe, IMHO, would still win. But it would have been an amazing scrap. Ultimately, I think JC's speed, better boxing skills, and will to win (which, like Floyd, stemmed from not allowing that "0" to be taken from him) would have meant he would have prevailed.

Who was the better best win? Calzaghe. Both have Kessler as their best win but Calzaghe had the undefeated version.

Calzaghe's next best win is Hopkins. Now, of course, BHop has gone on to still do great things. But that performance from Calzaghe stunk (as did Bernard's) and I always think it's slightly false to cite a win when the scorecard was so debatable and the performance was lamentable.

Now, Froch other wins include Bute (extremely good win, getting more underrated by the day), Pascal, Abraham, Johnson, Taylor (I ain't giving him Dirrell, he clearly lost that). Now that is a killer list of wins (and as much as I take Dirrell away, people argue he should have 2 wins over Kessler)

So overall, the whole body of work from Froch, I think is superior to Calzaghe's. But people will always be reluctant to categorise him over Calzaghe, even if he were to beat Ward (which he won't) and Hopkins. It's just one of those things - people will always hold Calzaghe's unbeaten reign and his skills as to why he is better than Froch. And you just the feeling that Calzaghe would have beaten him if they ever fought.

But if Calzaghe had fought the fighters Froch has, including Ward, I think he would have taken an "L" at some point. Probably to Ward.

That's a pretty good post, but I think a Calzaghe vs Ward fight would be a lot closer than many people think. I'd say it was a 50/50 fight, but would probably favour Joe on overall work rate.

[Porter's Dad]

That's a pretty good post, but I think a Calzaghe vs Ward fight would be a lot closer than many people think. I'd say it was a 50/50 fight, but would probably favour Joe on overall work rate.

From what I have seen on this forum, I think most people think Calzaghe would win. Probably 60% who would favour him to win.

I think Ward would win - I feel he would implement a similar strategy to Hopkins, but would (obviously) not have more energy and stamina, and quite importantly, he has that same will-to-win that Calzaghe had, which I believe carried Joe through in the end versus Hopkins.

The problem with Calzaghe was he simply didn't fight enough good fighters. Look at Froch's improvement over the years, it's all from learning from fighting all these world class fighters with different styles. I really think Andre's style would befuddle Calzaghe for long enough for Ward to win a close UD. The one time Joe fought a slick fighter with good footwork, he struggled badly.

I'd say 50/50 is about right for that fight, even though I would favour Ward for the reasons above.

[LacedUp]

So apparently Froch declined a Cleverly matchup. I'm almost positive Cleverly would walk away with a win. I know a lot of people don't rate him, but from what I've seen of him he's pretty damn good. Very quick hands and tough as old boots.

[Porter's Dad]

Another thing about the idea of Froch ranking himself and his own legacy....

**** it. Let him. Look at his resume from the 2008 onwards. That is a guy who is seeking greatness, who is pushing himself. If he wanted easy paydays, there would have been more Yusuf Macks in that run. This guy is chasing greatness - that rare guy in boxing who seems to actively chase tough, hard fights. Name me one other fighter who wouldn't be throwing in Mack-like fights in every other fight?

In contrast, Calzaghe never sought greatness. Team Calzaghe had a very definite plan - to stay unbeaten, then make the right moves and take the right fights - but above all, stay unbeaten. And along the way, make the best money they could. At the end of his career, Calzaghe got what he wanted - made good money, stayed unbeaten, had a few good names on his records, and had a lot of love from British boxing fans and the sports media to this day.

So if the guy who took the hard road to the top, who was laughed at in 2008 by so many boxing heads when he first started taking on elite competition, who seems unwilling to make easy, gimme fights, who is constantly seeking greatness has the nerve to discuss his own position in the pantheon of British fighters...

I'm absolutely fine with that.

[Weebler I]

So apparently Froch declined a Cleverly matchup. I'm almost positive Cleverly would walk away with a win. I know a lot of people don't rate him, but from what I've seen of him he's pretty damn good. Very quick hands and tough as old boots.

Recently, or do you mean last year?

If he wanted easy paydays, there would have been more Yusuf Macks in that run.

Froch didn't even want to fight Mack. Hearn said he had to convince him to take on a lesser fighter. That fight was for Froch to look good, get the KO win and build hype for Kessler this year.