Comments Thread For: Enzo Calzaghe Laughs at Froch: Joe Slaughters Him!

[Flabble Scrote]

Joe Calzaghe is atg, he fought some homers but so do americans, then he came to usa and beat them in their own backyard, even with injured hands.
Different class to Ottke

He was a hard puncher before he damaged his hands, only person he wouldnt have definitely beat was prime RJJ, not saying he wouldnt just that could go either way, if prime Roy had put him down in round 1 he would have struggled to get back into fight, so fast but Calzaghe was all about being a winner and adjusting

[Tonyu]

Joe Calzaghe is atg, he fought some homers but so do americans, then he came to usa and beat them in their own backyard, even with injured hands.
Different class to Ottke

He was a hard puncher before he damaged his hands, only person he wouldnt have definitely beat was prime RJJ, not saying he wouldnt just that could go either way, if prime Roy had put him down in round 1 he would have struggled to get back into fight, so fast but Calzaghe was all about being a winner and adjusting

Well said my friend

[Homervanderjazz]

You've got to love uk boxing its like the battle for hind titty. These "all time greats from the uk" should fight at Wembley and have amir khan do the chicken dance between rounds

That's some funny ****

[ButtScratcher^^]

Hmm.. slaughter is such a big word for such a pitty pat puncher like joe, but then, it's more likely joe beats froch very convincingly than the other way around. Joe is a tricky volume puncher with decent decent chin to back it up; Froch maybe awkward which could also be a factor, but he's really slow compared to calzaghe.

[Marvellous1]

Everyone agrees that Calzaghe would likely win, but.......... ultimately he turned down the chance to prove it to beat up on a fighter he said he wouldn't bother fighting because he'd been knocked out too many times. It means little to boast about doing something you didn't do even though you had ample opportunity.

[hitking]

Everyone agrees that Calzaghe would likely win, but.......... ultimately he turned down the chance to prove it to beat up on a fighter he said he wouldn't bother fighting because he'd been knocked out too many times. It means little to boast about doing something you didn't do even though you had ample opportunity.

When Calzage retired, exactly who the **** was Carl Froch?

[hitking]

Im from canada & im just telling you that joe & guys like ottke were beating guys at home & you didn't hear about them because they stayed home like chris john does in the philipines. The WBO belt was a stepping stone trinket that most world title contenders from outside europe or the asian pacific would vacate to get a shor at one of the big 3. The WBO belt was lightly regarded & outside europe it wasn't recognized as a world title.... I think joe/froch would be a great fight & id expect joe to win but id take froch & his resume over joe's lightly regarded wbo reign at 46-0... Lacy & kessler were excellent wins but hopkins & rjj wins were way to late... Just my opinion...

I don't care what belt Joe had. He eventually cleaned out the division, with the exception of Otkke. So an educated opinion can be formulated that Calzage was ALWAYS the class of that division.

As for the B-Hop and RJ wins. I haven't even brought up his fight with RJ because its irrelevant to his and RJ's legacies. As for B-Hop, I call bull**** on folks that say his win came too late. B-Hop was coming off wins over Tarver and Winky. He was the universally recognized light heavyweight champ. And he was top 5 on pretty much every P4P list. Its not like beating B-Hop six months after he dismantled Tito. But it was a damn good win that Joe deserves major props for.

[altparm]

Froch is lucky Calzaghe wasn't gay because he'd have ****d him.

[Capaedia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davis40

that means less then nothing only a newb would argue a triangle theory

That's not arguing a triangle theory its stating a fact. The triangle theory doesn't apply when it comes to arguing a head-2-head match-up. But when comparing resumes of fighters, who didn't fight, triangle theories fairly come into play. Hell, it really isn't even technically a triangle theory. Its just discussing common opponents.

Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[Djanxx]

based off what?
his wins over lacy and a shell of Jones??

Kessler win doesn't count?