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

[TyrantT316]

Easy for an undefeated Joe to sit back and claim glory. However Froch has nothing to be ashamed of in fighting most if not all of the best in his class over the past few years without much break. Some were older, some were prime. However Calzaghe didn't fight everybody in their prime either. Kessler is a common opponent, but not the only guy to gauge their careers. Froch sure fought an older Kessler, yes. But Calzaghe fought a older Eubank and Jones Jr.

Froch: Pascal, Kessler x2, Ward, Abraham, Dirrell, Groves, Bute, Taylor, Mack, Johnson in succession

Calzaghe: Shieka, Reid, Eubank, Veit x2, Manfredo Jr, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Bika

Calzaghe gets accolades for being undefeated, dominating Lacy when Lacy seemed like he might be ready for the throne, beating a prime Kessler in front a big crowd and a close victory over a still formidable Hopkins.

Froch gets accolades for fighting a better string of more talented fighters. I think Froch's resume is better, but he doesn't have the undefeated record going for him in the arguments vs Calzaghe as well as two hard fights vs a common opponent in Kessler who Joe beat pretty handily.

I wouldn't exactly call a bulk of Joe's career fights dangerous. However I'd say that Froch's career fights could be classified as mostly dangerous and risky.

[TyrantT316]

You've got to be kidding me. Froch had to come off the deck to beat a shot-2-hell Jermain Taylor. Arguably lost to Andre Dirrell. Lost to a shot Mikkel Kessler. And went life-n-death with an even more shot version of Kessler. Froch isn't special and it doesn't take a once-n-a-generation talent like RJJ or maybe the current heir apperant P4P King o beat him. Hell, Grooves just beat the hell outta him and got jobbed.

I think part of the problem is that Calzaghe supporters and Froch supporters argue two different points.

Calzaghe supporters argue that Froch isn't anything special as a fighter and struggled with a common opponent as well as some of his wins. That Froch's better resume doesn't matter because he sc****d out some wins and even lost.

Froch supporters argue that Calzaghe doesn't have the resume of Froch which is a reason why Froch seems to have had a tougher career with close fights and losses. That his undefeated record and reign doesn't matter much because it wasn't against the competition of Froch.

They both have their merits, but I believe have taken different career paths. One a bit more risky that calls to have close fights and defeats. The other less risky that allows for an undefeated record and a long reign. It's about what fans value I guess. Calzaghe years of dominance vs decent opposition? Or Froch's back and forth battles with better competition?

Let's not forget that Froch's still has some fights left. He can still clear up dispute with another victory over a young, talented and prime Groves, he can still possibly beat the dangerous Golovkin, he can still possibly fight Ward again. All of which can only enhance his supporters argument of better resume and risky fights. As well as support Calzaghe defenders if he loses to them.

[hitking]

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.

[WESS]

Joe would super windmill slap him around the ring. Froch's best chance is by KO which isn't out of the question. Or at least dropping Joe several times which isn't out of the question either.

However Andre Ward makes them both look like clowns.

[hitking]

I think part of the problem is that Calzaghe supporters and Froch supporters argue two different points.

Calzaghe supporters argue that Froch isn't anything special as a fighter and struggled with a common opponent as well as some of his wins. That Froch's better resume doesn't matter because he sc****d out some wins and even lost.

Froch supporters argue that Calzaghe doesn't have the resume of Froch which is a reason why Froch seems to have had a tougher career with close fights and losses. That his undefeated record and reign doesn't matter much because it wasn't against the competition of Froch.

They both have their merits, but I believe have taken different career paths. One a bit more risky that calls to have close fights and defeats. The other less risky that allows for an undefeated record and a long reign. It's about what fans value I guess.

That's kinda my point. Froch's resume isn't better. It simply gets celebrated because he was in tough, action packed fights where Calzage pretty much went unchallenged. Kessler was a beast. Lacy was a beast. Calzage treated them like amateurs. He pretty much ruined Lacy. And he did a number on Kessler and Mikkel's never been the same. I had B-Hop beating him by a point. But that result was far from a robbery. And people totally disregard the decade long run he had as super middleweight champ. People **** on him, simply because he's a European fighter hat fought the majority of his career at home. But let me as you think. Hopkins' middleweight title run is celebrated. But outside of two blown up welterweights. Who the hell did B-Hop beat during that run? Its a double standard.

Likewise, Froch gets his ass kissed because he's not good enough to dominate good but not great fighters the way Calzage did. Its almost the Floyd-Pac argument. Calzage, like Floyd, always wins easy. So people assume he isn't fighting anybody. But Froch, like Pac, is always in wars. So since we want them to be on the level of Floyd and Joe respectively, we overrated the competition.

[daggum]

That's kinda my point. Froch's resume isn't better. It simply gets celebrated because he was in tough, action packed fights where Calzage pretty much went unchallenged. Kessler was a beast. Lacy was a beast. Calzage treated them like amateurs. He pretty much ruined Lacy. And he did a number on Kessler and Mikkel's never been the same. I had B-Hop beating him by a point. But that result was far from a robbery. And people totally disregard the decade long run he had as super middleweight champ. People **** on him, simply because he's a European fighter hat fought the majority of his career at home. But let me as you think. Hopkins' middleweight title run is celebrated. But outside of two blown up welterweights. Who the hell did B-Hop beat during that run? Its a double standard.

Likewise, Froch gets his ass kissed because he's not good enough to dominate good but not great fighters the way Calzage did. Its almost the Floyd-Pac argument. Calzage, like Floyd, always wins easy. So people assume he isn't fighting anybody. But Froch, like Pac, is always in wars. So since we want them to be on the level of Floyd and Joe respectively, we overrated the competition.

no he wasn't

[iron mike tyson]

no he wasn't

circa 2005 he was

[JamesEarl]

Froch 6 years ago was a better faster fighter

Froch and Calzaghe in 2008 would have been a war with froch probably winning. Froch was UK's best fighter of all time. Joey maybe 3-4th.

[moonshineman]

I agree with Enzo.

I agree with Enzo.

[hitking]

no he wasn't

circa 2005 he was

When Calzage fought him, he was considered a beast. Do we retrospectively go back and **** on the win because Lacy's career didn't pan out as expected? IMO, you can't do that. Because how much of the beating he took against Calzage have to do with Lacy's career not panning out as expected?