Froch gets Cobra'd by Sir Joe!

[IronDanHamza]

No he didn't. Froch was given a lot of money to fight Groves which just was never there for Calzaghe to fight Froch compared to what he was getting in America. And basically Froch had no one else to fight or didn't want to fight anyone else (Ward).

How much money did he get for the first Groves fight and how much money was on the table for Froch-Calzaghe before and after he'd won the title?

Froch was an unknown mandatory that Calzaghe turned down.

Groves was an unknown mandatory that Froch didn't turn down.

[IronDanHamza]

All he said was that Groves gave him some good work and that he wished him well against DeGale - standard stuff that most sparring partners say about each other. He didn't exactly nosh him off.

You'd pick Groves because you're trying to make Froch's win over him look better. He is not even in Dirrell's league.

Not at all. Not how I work.

And if that were the case surely it's win-win considering Froch beat both?

Why would I lie about picking Groves?

And Dirrell was a lot more complimentary than that. A lot more. He seemed very impressed with Groves.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Does he? There's Kessler, Hopkins, who else? Can't think of any.

That's not bigging up Bute, that's just showing how poor his resume is.

Ok, Manny Pacquaio and Juan Manuel Marquez had 3 razor close back and forth fights, the 4th one Pacquaio got sparked out cold.

Freddie Norwood on the other hand soundly beat a fresher Marquez on his first try.

Does that mean Norwood is distinctly better and on a different level to Pacquaio. Surely by your logic it does?

And also how the hell isn't that a triangle theory? You're saying fighter A is better than fighter B because A beat C better than B did. That's a pretty clear triangle theory if I've ever seen one.

My dislike for Calzaghe and my fondness of Froch doesn't cloud my judgment. I have no bias.

Ok sure....you have no bias

You're going to extreme lengths. I mean Freddie Norwood ffs lol. I can't even remember that fight or how inexperienced Marquez was at the time. Wasn't it an either way fight too?

There are exceptions to rules but this is a very very direct comparison. It's blatantly obvious there is a level gap between certain fighters. Calzaghe is a level above Froch.

How much money did he get for the first Groves fight and how much money was on the table for Froch-Calzaghe before and after he'd won the title?

Froch was an unknown mandatory that Calzaghe turned down.

Groves was an unknown mandatory that Froch didn't turn down.

Calzaghe made 10m to fight Roy Jones. He wasn't going to get even half that to fight Froch.

Froch got 2.5m for Kessler. I'm almost certain he got more to fight Groves (85% of the purse).

Not at all. Not how I work.

And if that were the case surely it's win-win considering Froch beat both?

Why would I lie about picking Groves?

And Dirrell was a lot more complimentary than that. A lot more. He seemed very impressed with Groves.

Because Froch's performance against Dirrell was horrendous and he completely flattened Groves.

I honestly think Anthony Dirrell would have probably laid Groves out, let alone Andre.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Marquez had about 10-15 fights between Norwood and Pacquaio I

Kessler had about 3 between Calzaghe and Froch - the one right before was another embarrassing loss to Ward.

How can you not say there is a level gap between the two fighters?

Because of all Froch's better "B" level wins over the likes of Bute?

[IronDanHamza]

Ok sure....you have no bias

You're going to extreme lengths. I mean Freddie Norwood ffs lol. I can't even remember that fight or how inexperienced Marquez was at the time. Wasn't it an either way fight too?

There are exceptions to rules but this is a very very direct comparison. It's blatantly obvious there is a level gap between certain fighters. Calzaghe is a level above Froch.



Calzaghe made 10m to fight Roy Jones. He wasn't going to get even half that to fight Froch.

Froch got 2.5m for Kessler. I'm almost certain he got more to fight Groves (85% of the purse).



Because Froch's performance against Dirrell was horrendous and he completely flattened Groves.

I honestly think Anthony Dirrell would have probably laid Groves out, let alone Andre.

I don't. I'm not a biased person. I have my likes and dislikes as anyone does I don't let that cloud my judgement. I'm not the one saying Froch is levels above Calzaghe.

How's it extreme? Its. I different to the Kessler/Froch/Calzaghe example and It's the exact same logic. Does that prove Norwood is levels above Pacquaio?

No, of course it doesn't because the logic isn't sound.

It proves, that styles make fights. Much like Kessler/Calzaghe/Froch.

Much like hundreds of other examples.

Just because A beat B better than C beat B doesn't mean A is better than C. That's literally been shown time and time again. I've repeated that about 10 times

And no it wasn't Norwood won comfortably.

Froch looked worse in Groves 1 than he did in Dirrell so it's the same for both. He KO'd him but it took him a second try he didn't get one with Dirrell. Either way the winner makes one of Froch's wins look better.

Don't know, I think Anthony could have beaten Dirrell. Andre might. Neither are levels above though. Like I said, maybe talent wise but that's not the be all and end all.

[IronDanHamza]

Marquez had about 10-15 fights between Norwood and Pacquaio I

Kessler had about 3 between Calzaghe and Froch - the one right before was another embarrassing loss to Ward.

How can you not say there is a level gap between the two fighters?

Because of all Froch's better "B" level wins over the likes of Bute?

Ok and?

Norwood still only needed one try to soundly beat a fresher version.

Pacquaio couldn't do that in 4.

How can you not see there is a level gap between Norwood and Pacqauio using your logic?

I don't see how losing to Ward proves anything about levels he's far and beyond the best fighter on either resume.

Because Froch has a better resume that's why.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Ok and?

Norwood still only needed one try to soundly beat a fresher version.

Pacquaio couldn't do that in 4.

How can you not see there is a level gap between Norwood and Pacqauio using your logic?

I don't see how losing to Ward proves anything about levels he's far and beyond the best fighter on either resume.

Because Froch has a better resume that's why.

I would say Marquez was an inexperienced version because he was in his mid-20s and hadn't had many big fights. I don't remember Norwood completely outclassing him either. He then had 10-15 more before Pacquaio and was more in his prime.

Kessler had 40 fights, was a double world champion, undefeated, been in big fights when he fought Calzaghe. Got completely outclassed. Had a couple of bum fights. Got completely outclassed by Ward. And then beat Froch.

It's just a far more direct comparison.

Froch's resume is very good on who he's fought but he hasn't beaten them all and he hasn't looked dominant in a lot of them. Calzaghe's two biggest fights at SMW, he completely outclassed the opponents and one of them is Carl's best win!

He also won the LHW title. Froch won't move up in weight. Does this not factor into it?

[IronDanHamza]

I would say Marquez was an inexperienced version because he was in his mid-20s and hadn't had many big fights. I don't remember Norwood completely outclassing him either. He then had 10-15 more before Pacquaio and was more in his prime.

Kessler had 40 fights, was a double world champion, undefeated, been in big fights when he fought Calzaghe. Got completely outclassed. Had a couple of bum fights. Got completely outclassed by Ward. And then beat Froch.

It's just a far more direct comparison.

Froch's resume is very good on who he's fought but he hasn't beaten them all and he hasn't looked dominant in a lot of them. Calzaghe's two biggest fights at SMW, he completely outclassed the opponents and one of them is Carl's best win!

He also won the LHW title. Froch won't move up in weight. Does this not factor into it?

Not really. Going up in weight doesn't prove anything.

Froch's resume is very good and who's he's beaten. Yeah he hasn't dominated but he's pulled them out and the only man to convincingly beat him is Andre Ward who's the best SMW ever.

The same logic applies. Basically it doesn't prove anything except styles make fights. That isn't the only comparison, there's many more.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Not really. Going up in weight doesn't prove anything.

Froch's resume is very good and who's he's beaten. Yeah he hasn't dominated but he's pulled them out and the only man to convincingly beat him is Andre Ward who's the best SMW ever.

The same logic applies. Basically it doesn't prove anything except styles make fights. That isn't the only comparison, there's many more.

Going up in weight doesn't prove anything?

Are you on something tonight?

[IronDanHamza]

Going up in weight doesn't prove anything?

Are you on something tonight?

Are you?

It doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Hagler didn't go up in weight, Monzon didn't go up in weight. A long list of legends didn't go up in weight. Others that did in their eras didn't prove they were better by moving up In weight.