Froch gets Cobra'd by Sir Joe!

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Morales went 1-2 with Barrera so not really

According to your logic Morales is levels above Barrera.

According to actual logic, obviously styles make fights. But I think that ones been put to bed.

Froch is #2 of this era. Whereas Calzaghe was #1 in his era. But his era was terrible though.

There's many instances were a #2 of a strong era is better than the #1 of a weak era.

And I agree Froch isn't on Ward's level. Defintely on Calzaghe's level, though.

"According to my logic" - not really because each situation is different. All Barrera and Morales decisions were disputed. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

It's debatable whether Carl Froch is number 2 in this supposed golden age of SMWs. And the reason why it's debatable is because he has a 1-1 record against Joe Calzaghe's son.

Froch and Kessler are similar levels of fighters. That was shown over 24 rounds of boxing and 4 years. This is Carl Froch's best win.

A guy who'd been completely outclassed twice - why couldn't Froch do it? Oh because "styles make fights" - no because Froch isn't on the same level.

Calzaghe moved up in weight and beat an ATG in his first fight at LHW for the lineal title. How can you dismiss this when Froch has done nothing of the sort?

You can keep making excuses for each piece of evidence but sooner or later, it starts to stack up.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

How many examples do you need to know styles make fights? Seriously?

Surely you've seen enough boxing and followed it long enough to know if there are 3 fighters and one beats a fighter better than the other beats the same fighter it doesn't necessarily make them better? Boxing history is literally riddled with examples of that. Not just the ones I've provided.

Yes but how many examples do you also see where there are levels to this ****?

Chris Algieri goes in against Provodnikov and boxes his ears off mostly in a reasonably close fight. Then he fights Manny Pacquaio and gets the absolute piss beaten out of him.

Did that happen because "styles make fights" or did it happen because Algieri fought two guys who were on different levels?

[IronDanHamza]

Yes but how many examples do you also see where there are levels to this ****?

Chris Algieri goes in against Provodnikov and boxes his ears off mostly in a reasonably close fight. Then he fights Manny Pacquaio and gets the absolute piss beaten out of him.

Did that happen because "styles make fights" or did it happen because Algieri fought two guys who were on different levels?

Well yeah but that's not a good example unless you're saying that he gap between Ruslan Provodnikov and Manny Pacquaio is the same as Froch and Calzaghe?

[IronDanHamza]

"According to my logic" - not really because each situation is different. All Barrera and Morales decisions were disputed. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

It's debatable whether Carl Froch is number 2 in this supposed golden age of SMWs. And the reason why it's debatable is because he has a 1-1 record against Joe Calzaghe's son.

Froch and Kessler are similar levels of fighters. That was shown over 24 rounds of boxing and 4 years. This is Carl Froch's best win.

A guy who'd been completely outclassed twice - why couldn't Froch do it? Oh because "styles make fights" - no because Froch isn't on the same level.

Calzaghe moved up in weight and beat an ATG in his first fight at LHW for the lineal title. How can you dismiss this when Froch has done nothing of the sort?

You can keep making excuses for each piece of evidence but sooner or later, it starts to stack up.

Precisely

Ali lost to Norton and Fraizer.

Foreman damn near committed murder on both in 2 rounds.

Was there levels to that **** or did styles just make fights for about the trillionth time in boxing history?

I never dismissed Calzaghe moving up in weight. Just that it doesn't prove he's better.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Well yeah but that's not a good example unless you're saying that he gap between Ruslan Provodnikov and Manny Pacquaio is the same as Froch and Calzaghe?

Oh I see....it's a bad example when I use them but yours are air tight. Come on man.

You compared Calzaghe's LHW title win to Broner ffs lol. But my examples aren't good? He beat an ATG in Bernard Hopkins at LHW. That is the point. Froch has done nothing of the sort and literally refuses to.

Forget this ****. Like I said. I'm talking to someone who is very anti-Calzaghe and has completely fallen head over heels with Froch since his rematch victory over Son of Joe

[techliam]

"According to my logic" - not really because each situation is different. All Barrera and Morales decisions were disputed. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

It's debatable whether Carl Froch is number 2 in this supposed golden age of SMWs. And the reason why it's debatable is because he has a 1-1 record against Joe Calzaghe's son.

Froch and Kessler are similar levels of fighters. That was shown over 24 rounds of boxing and 4 years. This is Carl Froch's best win.

A guy who'd been completely outclassed twice - why couldn't Froch do it? Oh because "styles make fights" - no because Froch isn't on the same level.

Calzaghe moved up in weight and beat an ATG in his first fight at LHW for the lineal title. How can you dismiss this when Froch has done nothing of the sort?

You can keep making excuses for each piece of evidence but sooner or later, it starts to stack up.

I agree with you here. But does that fact that the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight was also disputed change anything?

[IronDanHamza]

Oh I see....it's a bad example when I use them but yours are air tight. Come on man.

You compared Calzaghe's LHW title win to Broner ffs lol. But my examples aren't good? He beat an ATG in Bernard Hopkins at LHW. That is the point. Froch has done nothing of the sort and literally refuses to.

Forget this ****. Like I said. I'm talking to someone who is very anti-Calzaghe and has completely fallen head over heels with Froch since his rematch victory over Son of Joe

No, I said THAT specific example was a bad one.

Unless you're saying that the gap between Ruslan Provodnikov and Manny Pacquaio is the same as Froch and Calzaghe?

No, I definitely didn't compare those two runs. Just used an example of a fighter going through the weights and how that doesn't prove they're better than someone who hasn't.

I actually became a fan of Froch after the Bute fight, not Kessler 2

[boxingfan1986]

Dirk your posts are much better when you're not involved in slanging matches lol.. But I guess some posters on this site drive you to it. Good thread in the end.

[Box-Office]

I agree with you here. But does that fact that the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight was also disputed change anything?

Froch-Dirrell was disputed too, one of his major wins. Of course Groves-Froch 1.

Let's be honest, it was Groves who flew out to America to appeal his case with the IBF hence, the rematch. Otherwise there would be no chopping trees to KO Groves in front 80,000 fans at Wembley.

Groves should've gotten 2014 Promoter of the Year.

Edit: It was close, but calling it disputed wouldn't be a stretch. However, I think Joe did enough and deserved it.

[IronDanHamza]

Froch-Dirrell was disputed too, one of his major wins. Of course Groves-Froch 1.

Let's be honest, it was Groves who flew out to America to appeal his case with the IBF hence, the rematch. Otherwise there would be no chopping trees to KO Groves in front 80,000 fans at Wembley.

Groves should've gotten 2014 Promoter of the Year.

Edit: It was close, but calling it disputed wouldn't be a stretch. However, I think Joe did enough and deserved it.

The only fight that went the distance that you could argue Froch got a disputed victory was Dirrell.

Obviously there's the first Groves fight where he was down on the cards, but as we all know the Ref stopped it early. My opinion is Froch was on his way to stopping him but we will never know.

All the other times he was behind he got the KO.

Calzaghe arguably lost to both Reid and Hopkins, IMO.