Froch gets Cobra'd by Sir Joe!

[IronDanHamza]

Compared to Dirrell he was experienced. That's the point.

Dirrell was a prospect, Reid was a former champion. Froch was expected to wipe the floor with the kid whereas this was a young Calzaghe's first real test since Eubank.

If you can't notice the difference in the two fights, I can't help you. Your dislike for Calzaghe and love for Froch are clearly clouding your judgement here.

I'm a fan of both and English but can easily admit there's a level gap and Calzaghe is above Froch.

What difference does that make to the fact Froch was inexperienced?

What is the difference? Both were close fights that they got the decisions in that many disputed. Explain the difference to me.

You said Dirrell made Froch look like an amateur. Reid made Calzaghe look like an amateur at times aswell.

Absolutely nothing to do with clouded judgement.

Your reasoning for Calzaghe being levels above Froch is a triangle theory. And that Dirrell arguably beat him. But Reid arguably beating him is meaningless for some reason.

I'll say what I said and to me it's very simple. Froch has a better resume and for me has surpassed him.

[BennyST]

No better than Lacy, Reid and Mitchell??? Yeah right.

They're worlds better.

You are really going to ask how Dirrell is better than Lacy? Probably because Dirrell is actually a good fighter?

George Groves comparable to Richie Woodhall?

Not a chance in hell.

Ok, well, unusually you've got a very, very weird bias when it comes to Froch so I won't bother much because it won't ever make the slightest difference to your thinking.

But, Groves has one good win in his entire career so far. Unless something changes drastically, he is in every single way, comparable to a fighter of Woodhall or Staries similar mediocre achievements. Maybe he'll end up doing much more, or maybe he won't. So far, he's absolutely no better. Do you genuinely believe that a win over a 10 fight Degale trumps Robin Reids entire championship career? Ok then. Enough said. You seem to think resume is important rather than just looking good, but losing, right?

Unless you've seen or heard something I haven't, Dirrell lost to Froch in a close fight, lost to Degale and those are the only two title fights he's had. His only other win was a DQ to Abraham. One win so far, via DQ.

It's like arguing for Judah. Looks good, but doesn't actually get the results you'd think he could. It's because he's not as good as he looks.

So far, Groves' career consists of getting beaten twice by the best fighter, and only world champion he's faced, and beating a green 10 fight Degale. That's literally his entire career. Unless you can tell me with any degree of honesty that that is better than David Starie beating Clinton Woods, a very solid future LHW titlist, and losing to Calzaghe afterward, see the similarity, well, I don't know what else to say apart from bias blinds.

Maybe you just think them to be better, but so far, they haven't shown it though their achievements or actions and really, that's all that counts in the end. If they don't actually ever beat anyone of significance and lose the big fights, then they just aren't that good. That's how boxing works. It's how any sport works. If a team can't beat another team, despite maybe showing the potential to look better, well, they aren't better. That simple. Results matter.

Maybe one day they'll do something better, but until then, they simply aren't no matter how good you think they look. That's just a fighter looking good, and lots do. It's what they actually win though. Dirrell getting a DQ win over Abraham as his career highlight isn't particularly impressive I would have thought.

Anyway, you don't seem to see quite clearly on this subject, which spins me out as I've never seen it except with Froch, but whatever, we all have our guys that make us see stuff that isn't there.

[FlatLine]

damn I totally missed your thread bro, just made a similar one

[IronDanHamza]

Ok, well, unusually you've got a very, very weird bias when it comes to Froch so I won't bother much because it won't ever make the slightest difference to your thinking.

But, Groves has one good win in his entire career so far. Unless something changes drastically, he is in every single way, comparable to a fighter of Woodhall or Staries similar mediocre achievements. Maybe he'll end up doing much more, or maybe he won't. So far, he's absolutely no better. Do you genuinely believe that a win over a 10 fight Degale trumps Robin Reids entire championship career? Ok then. Enough said. You seem to think resume is important rather than just looking good, but losing, right?

Unless you've seen or heard something I haven't, Dirrell lost to Froch in a close fight, lost to Degale and those are the only two title fights he's had. His only other win was a DQ to Abraham. One win so far, via DQ.

It's like arguing for Judah. Looks good, but doesn't actually get the results you'd think he could. It's because he's not as good as he looks.

So far, Groves' career consists of getting beaten twice by the best fighter, and only world champion he's faced, and beating a green 10 fight Degale. That's literally his entire career. Unless you can tell me with any degree of honesty that that is better than David Starie beating Clinton Woods, a very solid future LHW titlist, and losing to Calzaghe afterward, see the similarity, well, I don't know what else to say apart from bias blinds.

Maybe you just think them to be better, but so far, they haven't shown it though their achievements or actions and really, that's all that counts in the end. If they don't actually ever beat anyone of significance and lose the big fights, then they just aren't that good. That's how boxing works. It's how any sport works. If a team can't beat another team, despite maybe showing the potential to look better, well, they aren't better. That simple. Results matter.

Maybe one day they'll do something better, but until then, they simply aren't no matter how good you think they look. That's just a fighter looking good, and lots do. It's what they actually win though. Dirrell getting a DQ win over Abraham as his career highlight isn't particularly impressive I would have thought.

Anyway, you don't seem to see quite clearly on this subject, which spins me out as I've never seen it except with Froch, but whatever, we all have our guys that make us see stuff that isn't there.

I can use my eyes and clearly see that Groves is better than Richie Woodhall. Richie Woodhall is not a good fighter.

Zab Judah is world's better than all those names mentioned. Worlds better.

I can use my eyes and see that Andre Dirrell is better than Jeff Lacy. Jeff Lacy is one of the worst "world class" fighters In the history of the sport. Dirrell's close loss's to Froch and Degale and his performance aha isn't Abaraham is more impressive than anything Lacy has done. Lacy wouldnt win a round against any of the above. The guy went life and death was Onar Sheika for crying out loud.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about this bull**** bias. I like Froch yes and I'm a fan of his but I'm hardly a big fan. There is no bias when it comes to Froch.

[Box-Office]

See ... As expected it all boils down to Khan

Froch is much more respected in the boxing world than Khan is. And Froch never "picked" on Khan, he just stated some facts which was that Khan has a dodgy chin and lost when he stepped up.

It doesn't. It was funny banter and I felt like sharing. You're the one reaching for straws as usual.

You do realize this has been going on for years right? There is another one like this right after his loss, but I can't find it.

Wtf are you talking gibberish for?

Hadn't fought at British level. Dude, he was mando and had cleared up all possible players at British level and then faced Jean Pascal.

I'm saying that Froch was a nobody for Calzaghe, a British champion, yet another mandatory, one of many he had beaten in the past, while Joe had bigger things in mind. He held no importance for Joe. Just like Degale holds none for Froch unless Carl chooses so.

So, why would he be worried about a British Champion, when he was planning on fighting Hopkins in America at a higher weight?

[Box-Office]

You forgot to put about half of Froch's replies you fool.

The ones I saw were really weak. The point here was to poke fun at Frochy's butt hurt. Same guy who'll dish abuse to critics in Twitter PMs and then block them.

You're more than welcome to post them if you wish.

Notably this one below, thread title is kinda biased too but OP is a Khan fan so he won't be high on Froch.

@RealJoeCalzaghe Yet you***39;ve crumbled in my company on many occasions & you know when! You***39;re always talking about me!! #Jealous #obsessed

— Carl Froch (@Carl_Froch) May 24, 2015

Ever occur to you that I might and just might have missed that one? Oh yes and it is Calzaghe always talking about Froch. The irony.

Added to OP. Thanks anyways.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

What difference does that make to the fact Froch was inexperienced?

What is the difference? Both were close fights that they got the decisions in that many disputed. Explain the difference to me.

You said Dirrell made Froch look like an amateur. Reid made Calzaghe look like an amateur at times aswell.

Absolutely nothing to do with clouded judgement.

Your reasoning for Calzaghe being levels above Froch is a triangle theory. And that Dirrell arguably beat him. But Reid arguably beating him is meaningless for some reason.

I'll say what I said and to me it's very simple. Froch has a better resume and for me has surpassed him.

I just don't think Froch was that "inexperienced" and that's a tired and not very credible excuse when he was up against a young prospect.

How did Reid make Calzaghe look like an amateur? Because he got caught by right hands? Like I said, it was a tight back n forth fight where Calzaghe fought most of it with one good hand.

Froch looked like he'd never boxed before in his life against Dirrell at times. He was swinging at air, it wasn't exactly a back n forth war. Froch was winning rounds because Dirrell was throwing them away.

Just two completely different fights. Plus like I keep saying, Froch has had his **** boxed off more than once.

Froch's "better resume" is topped by an older version of a fighter Calzaghe emasculated. How can that not resonate into telling you who was the better fighter?

I guess you could say he has a few more "B" level wins whilst Calzaghe fought more bums than him but does that surpass him?

[Box-Office]

Hmm, I don't remember anyone playing with anyone. In fact, pretty sure Joe said that was one of, if not the toughest fight he ever had.

And that was against a one-handed Kessler which you seem to want to brush under the carpet.

Again, Froch too fought a one handed fighter in Ward and got demolished in a one sided affair.

That is of course assuming your "insiders" in Denmark are telling the truth.

[IronDanHamza]

I just don't think Froch was that "inexperienced" and that's a tired and not very credible excuse when he was up against a young prospect.

How did Reid make Calzaghe look like an amateur? Because he got caught by right hands? Like I said, it was a tight back n forth fight where Calzaghe fought most of it with one good hand.

Froch looked like he'd never boxed before in his life against Dirrell at times. He was swinging at air, it wasn't exactly a back n forth war. Froch was winning rounds because Dirrell was throwing them away.

Just two completely different fights. Plus like I keep saying, Froch has had his **** boxed off more than once.

Froch's "better resume" is topped by an older version of a fighter Calzaghe emasculated. How can that not resonate into telling you who was the better fighter?

I guess you could say he has a few more "B" level wins whilst Calzaghe fought more bums than him but does that surpass him?

When did I ever use that as an excuse? I said he was inexperienced to reply to the notion he might not beat Dirrell today. I don't make excuses for fighers. Like Calzaghe having "one good hand". Calzaghe had bad hands basically his whole career.

He made him look like an amateur by making him miss and picking him off with counters. He landed a lot more than a "few right hands".

How wasn't it a back and forth fight? Froch won some rounds and Dirrell won some rounds. Clearly a back and forth fight.

Obviously they were different fights because they are 4 entirely different fighters but what they have in common is they're all close fights that could have gone either way.

Which was to refute the notion that its arguable that Froch is better then Dirrell. By the exact same logic you'd have to say it's arguable if Reid is better than Calzaghe.

Once again, styles make fights. A triangle theory doesn't make a fighter better. Who's better out of Zahir Raheem and Manny Pacquaio? Raheem whitewashed A fresher Morales whereas Pacquaio went 2-1, first two being competitive back and forth fights.

[Weebler I]

The ones I saw were really weak. The point here was to poke fun at Frochy's butt hurt. Same guy who'll dish abuse to critics in Twitter PMs and then block them.

You're more than welcome to post them if you wish.

Ever occur to you that I might and just might have missed that one? Oh yes and it is Calzaghe always talking about Froch. The irony.

Added to OP. Thanks anyways.

The exchange seemed roughly even, infantile as it was. I don't think Calzaghe needed to go there but it seems that's how it's going to be between these two until they're old men.