Froch gets Cobra'd by Sir Joe!

[IronDanHamza]

Because Hagler is Hagler and Froch is Froch. That's why it's ridiculous.

You're being pedantic. Calzaghe moved up and beat a great fighter. The lineal champion. He didn't cherry pick a belt like Broner or whatever other ridiculous example you used.

Froch can't compete at Light Heavyweight and refuses to try. Calzaghe did.

Levels.

Because Froch isn't built for LHW. He's 172 in the ring. You know that.

Right, yes, I understand Carl Froch isn't the same person as Marvin Hagler. Did you say something about someone being pedantic?

What I am saying is, he didn't move up in weight. So did many other exceptional fighters. Whilst many not so good fighters, did move up in weight. I.e I'm highlighting why it's not sound logic to say that moving up in weight proves you're better. Obviously it doesn't prove that.

Why's are they ridiculous? Because it debunks your extremely poor argument? Duke was a 3 weight Champion and he didn't win any vacant belts either he won all 3. So he went up more than Calzaghe is he better?

Moving up in weight doesn't prove you're better than someone that doesn't. It's that simple.

[LacedUp]

Andre Dirrell actually went the 12 with Froch and should have got the decision.

Ugly Kid gassed after 8 and was going to get KTFO.

Dirrell boxed Abraham's **** off before Froch did. Ugly Kid's best win is a gift decision over DeGale. After that, it's who? Paul Smith

He's ****. Talent wise, he is not in Dirrell's class.

What am I thinking? I'm talking to the two lads who told me that DeGale would never amount to anything and hadn't improved. Now he's IBF World Champion.

Some people know talent. Other's don't. I guess it's just a gift.

I don't think Groves first fight against Froch helps your theory. Much rather the second fight in front of 80 thousand people at Wembley - if anybody didn't know.

So what's Dirrell's best win? Is it better than Degale? How is he sht when he beat Degale?

I never said he wouldn't mount to anything. at least I don't remember that, but when he was struggling against Euro level opposition in leisure centers I might have had my doubts - admittedly. I have also paid him enough respect for his last three performances.

But you keep saying he's a tricky slick southpaw - which I don't see at all. I don't see why he's tricky or slick?

You also said he was the most naturally gifted fighter to come out of Britain for 15 years - another crazy notion.

Btw, Dirrell quit against Abraham.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Because Froch isn't built for LHW. He's 172 in the ring. You know that.

Right, yes, I understand Carl Froch isn't the same person as Marvin Hagler. Did you say something about someone being pedantic.

What I am saying is, he didn't move up in weight. So did many other exceptional fighters. Whilst many not so good fighters, did move up in weight. I.e I'm highlighting why it's not sound logic to say that moving up in weight proves you're better. Obviously it doesn't prove that.

Why's are they ridiculous? Because it debunks your extremely poor argument? Duke was a 3 weight Champion and he didn't win any vacant belts either he won all 3. So he went up more than Calzaghe is he better?

Moving up in weight doesn't prove you're better than someone that doesn't. It's that simple.

Don't actually know that. Never seen his fight night weights and I don't buy it as an excuse.

Joe Calzaghe wasn't exactly a big man, he challenged himself against an ATG fighter and won the lineal LHW title.

Froch won't do it.

Levels. Carl Froch isn't on Joe Calzaghe's level nor is he on Marvin Hagler's. He's been a very solid fighter whose fought everyone but is still maybe only the number 2 SMW in his era - if that. Traded wins and close fights with the same guy Calzaghe ruined.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I don't think Groves first fight against Froch helps your theory. Much rather the second fight in front of 80 thousand people at Wembley - if anybody didn't know.

So what's Dirrell's best win? Is it better than Degale? How is he sht when he beat Degale?

I never said he wouldn't mount to anything. at least I don't remember that, but when he was struggling against Euro level opposition in leisure centers I might have had my doubts - admittedly. I have also paid him enough respect for his last three performances.

But you keep saying he's a tricky slick southpaw - which I don't see at all. I don't see why he's tricky or slick?

You also said he was the most naturally gifted fighter to come out of Britain for 15 years - another crazy notion.

Btw, Dirrell quit against Abraham.

Well it does because Groves got stopped whilst Dirrell should have got the decision against Froch. And he beat Abraham. He gave Froch the blueprint.

And I'm one of Froch's biggest fans but the fanboyism of this guy has gone out of control on some it seems. Stop trying to make George Groves out to be anything special.

He'll probably lose to Jack and then you two will say he's been "Cobra'd". He'll achieve nothing in his career but he fought 8 good rounds against an unmotivated Froch so he "could have been" good.

Once again, Groves is ****.

[LacedUp]

Well it does because Groves got stopped whilst Dirrell should have got the decision against Froch. And he beat Abraham. He gave Froch the blueprint.

And I'm one of Froch's biggest fans but the fanboyism of this guy has gone out of control on some it seems. Stop trying to make George Groves out to be anything special.

He'll probably lose to Jack and then you two will say he's been "Cobra'd". He'll achieve nothing in his career but he fought 8 good rounds against an unmotivated Froch so he "could have been" good.

Once again, Groves is ****.

Well he was wrongly stopped in the first fight. Very wrongly. There was a stronger case of stopping Froch in the first round than Groves getting stopped in the 9th. However, Froch's destruction of him in the second fight kind of erases the memory of the first fight.

Dirrell didn't give Carl anything He didn't have the heart to fight Abraham the full 12.

Fanboyism? Froch did it the hard way. In my opinion he deserves all the praise he's getting. Look at Joe's resume before Kessler - when did you see any of those levels of fighters on Froch's resume for the last 8 years? Yusuf Mack. That's it.

I'm not making him out to be special - in fact, I believe I just said he wasn't world class. But I still think he could hang with anyone. He's quick, strong and powerful. He's a better puncher than Degale for instance.

I think he'll beat Jack, but we shall see.

[IronDanHamza]

Don't actually know that. Never seen his fight night weights and I don't buy it as an excuse.

Joe Calzaghe wasn't exactly a big man, he challenged himself against an ATG fighter and won the lineal LHW title.

Froch won't do it.

Levels. Carl Froch isn't on Joe Calzaghe's level nor is he on Marvin Hagler's. He's been a very solid fighter whose fought everyone but is still maybe only the number 2 SMW in his era - if that. Traded wins and close fights with the same guy Calzaghe ruined.

Well he is. He's 172 in the ring. He's said many times he'd prefer to go down than up.

I've just said why Froch won't do it.

"If that" Don't be ridiculous. He's obviously #2 and that's solely because Andre Ward is around. Like I've already said, Calzaghe would be #2 in the same position.

Yes...traded wins with a guy Calzaghe beat well. And that's because.....all together now.....Styles make fights.

Haven't we been over this already?

It doesn't matter how many times you say "levels" it won't make it true. Calzaghe defintely isn't another level to Froch

[IronDanHamza]

Well it does because Groves got stopped whilst Dirrell should have got the decision against Froch. And he beat Abraham. He gave Froch the blueprint.

And I'm one of Froch's biggest fans but the fanboyism of this guy has gone out of control on some it seems. Stop trying to make George Groves out to be anything special.

He'll probably lose to Jack and then you two will say he's been "Cobra'd". He'll achieve nothing in his career but he fought 8 good rounds against an unmotivated Froch so he "could have been" good.

Once again, Groves is ****.

Come on, even you must admit there's a high chance he's been Cobra'd.

Maybe not Lucian Bute level Cobra'd but still.

Also, I very much doubt Badou Jack beats Groves.

Mate I hate George Groves. And I mean passionately. I would love Jack to spark him out. Nothing would make me happier. But it ain't going to happen.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Well he is. He's 172 in the ring. He's said many times he'd prefer to go down than up.

I've just said why Froch won't do it.

"If that" Don't be ridiculous. He's obviously #2 and that's solely because Andre Ward is around. Like I've already said, Calzaghe would be #2 in the same position.

Yes...traded wins with a guy Calzaghe beat well. And that's because.....all together now.....Styles make fights.

Haven't we been over this already?

It doesn't matter how many times you say "levels" it won't make it true. Calzaghe defintely isn't another level to Froch

According to who? What was Joe Calzaghe in the ring?

You can come up with a multitude of excuses and platitudes about "styles make fights" or this example and that example which bare absolutely no relevance. But the evidence is too compelling and too direct.

How is is clearly number 2? He is 1-1 with Kessler technically. He should have lost to Dirrell by decision. How is he clearly number 2 to Ward? Because he beat Bute and Groves?

They're just deflection tactics from what is clear as day and that's that Joe Calzaghe was a better fighter than Carl Froch. He unified all the belts in dominating fashion and then went up and beat an ATG fighter at another weight.

Froch's claim to fame is a deeper resume of "B" level wins. Lucian Bute is better than Robin Reid....um I guess? Is he? Woop de doo.

I'm finished with this debate. You're extremely anti-Joe Calzaghe and very pro-Froch. We both know this. You're not a credible witness.

[LacedUp]

According to who? What was Joe Calzaghe in the ring?

You can come up with a multitude of excuses and platitudes about "styles make fights" or this example and that example which bare absolutely no relevance. But the evidence is too compelling and too direct.

How is is clearly number 2? He is 1-1 with Kessler technically. He should have lost to Dirrell by decision. How is he clearly number 2 to Ward? Because he beat Bute and Groves?

They're just deflection tactics from what is clear as day and that's that Joe Calzaghe was a better fighter than Carl Froch. He unified all the belts in dominating fashion and then went up and beat an ATG fighter at another weight.

Froch's claim to fame is a deeper resume of "B" level wins. Lucian Bute is better than Robin Reid....um I guess? Is he? Woop de doo.

I'm finished with this debate. You're extremely anti-Joe Calzaghe and very pro-Froch. We both know this. You're not a credible witness.

It's not like you're mr. impartial

[IronDanHamza]

According to who? What was Joe Calzaghe in the ring?

You can come up with a multitude of excuses and platitudes about "styles make fights" or this example and that example which bare absolutely no relevance. But the evidence is too compelling and too direct.

How is is clearly number 2? He is 1-1 with Kessler technically. He should have lost to Dirrell by decision. How is he clearly number 2 to Ward? Because he beat Bute and Groves?

They're just deflection tactics from what is clear as day and that's that Joe Calzaghe was a better fighter than Carl Froch. He unified all the belts in dominating fashion and then went up and beat an ATG fighter at another weight.

Froch's claim to fame is a deeper resume of "B" level wins. Lucian Bute is better than Robin Reid....um I guess? Is he? Woop de doo.

I'm finished with this debate. You're extremely anti-Joe Calzaghe and very pro-Froch. We both know this. You're not a credible witness.

How can you possibly say that they bare no relevance? They're examples that are essentially the same as your own example that disprove it.

Excuses? Since when it "styles make fights" an excuse? It's a fact of boxing and I've shown that in this thread and can show it a thousand times over.

He shouldn't have lost to Dirrell though. That fight could have gone either way. Could easily say Calzaghe should have lost to Reid. Wait, I think we've been here before aswell. Like what, 10 pages ago?

He unfied all the belts in a piss poor era against almsot entirely **** fighters. Kessler is the only win he has at 168 that's impressive over a good fighter.

You're asking if Bute is better than Reid, hilarious. Why not Bika as an example anymore? Why not? Did you forget that Bute clearly beat him and that completely ruins that argument?

Yeah Froch's "B" wins are better than Calzaghe's D wins. Calzaghe has one B win. The rest are lower.

Oh ok you're done with the debate Cool. For the record I've never said I'm not anti Calzaghe or pro Froch but I don't let that mould my views. I'm a rational person.