Froch gets Cobra'd by Sir Joe!

[IronDanHamza]

Froch was in his 30s and had defended his world title. He was fighting a virtual prospect.

Calzaghe was fighting an experienced ex world champion.

The difference is in the way each fight panned out. We've seen Froch get outboxed by Groves and Taylor too. Like I said, it's about levels.



Yes, the best of which is a Mikkel Kessler who Calzaghe played around with like a child and actually came closer to stopping than Froch ever did.

30's yes but obviously still young in boxing years.

Calzaghe was world champion too.

Froch when he fought Bute for example was obviously a different animal.

What's the difference with how the fights panned out?

I saw a 44 year old Hopkins embarrass Calzaghe at times.

I don't know why you keep referring to the triangle theory. It means nothing.

[LacedUp]

They really aren't that good though. Solid, decent wins, but nothing to go to say he's head and shoulders above Calzageh because of. None of those 0's you mention are of fighters who have gone on to do anything of note whatsoever so far.

Dirrell is a never was at the moment. Same with Groves. Pascal a good solid win. Bute a good solid win. Taylor was damaged goods and never particularly good to begin with. Abraham a good solid win, but he was good at middleweight, not sr middle.

Taking someone's 0 is only good when that fighter actually goes on to show that it was a good win. If they don't do anything, it literally means nothing more than beating a dude with 10 losses. So far, the only guy to have gone on to do anything after Froch beat him was Pascal and he's been a good, but very patchy, flawed fighter.

These wins are absolutely no better than the Reids, Lacy's, Bikas, Mitchell's etc. it's just because they are doing it now, so you have the full memory of how good they are. In another twenty years, it'll get looked back upon without that bias and most of those wins you mentioned won't be considered particularly good and certainly no better than someone like Byron Mitchell for Calzaghe.

I think it comes down to Froch is fighting now and so people remember his opponents. When that's passed they'll be seen for what they are, and that is no better than many of Calzaghe standard wins.

See, people look at Dirrell as some great win, but he's literally lost every big fight he's had and even in today's title ridden landscape, hasn't managed to win even a minor title...sorry, he won by DQ against Abraham. How can you say that's any better than Lacy? They were both guys with potential and both never reached it. Lacy though was considers a hell of a lot better/hyped than Dirrell. It's no different.

Groves is the same so far. He hasn't done anything, two losses in his only title fights, except beat an inexperienced 10 fight Degale. Maybe he'll beat Badou Jack, but that's not exactly putting him in the HOF is it?

How do these two wins, against literal contenders in an age where it's harder to be a contender than it is champion, say great things about Froch resume compared to the same types of fighters for Calzaghe like a Mario Veit or David Starie? You don't remember them because they don't fight today, but as a comparison, Starie beat future LHW champ Clinton Woods before losing to Calzaghe and was all but undefeated. How's that different to Groves or Dirrell?

Even if Groves or Dirrell do manage to win some half baked title, they'll be comparative to a Richie Woodhall. Brief champions that got beat by the good guys.

Hopkins and prime Kessler. Better than any wins Froch has.

lol what? Abraham has something like 14 title defences. Pascal went on to become light heavyweight champion, Bute had 10 defences or whatever.. How are they nothing special?

How was Taylor damaged goods when Froch fought him?

They are far better win's than the reid's of the world.

[The Champions]

Joe is retired doe and most of them I believe are just casuals anyways.

Anyhow, I prefer Froch over Calzaghe as a fighter, but Froch getting butthurt is always hilarious.

Froch >>>Calzhage

[IronDanHamza]

They really aren't that good though. Solid, decent wins, but nothing to go to say he's head and shoulders above Calzageh because of. None of those 0's you mention are of fighters who have gone on to do anything of note whatsoever so far.

Dirrell is a never was at the moment. Same with Groves. Pascal a good solid win. Bute a good solid win. Taylor was damaged goods and never particularly good to begin with. Abraham a good solid win, but he was good at middleweight, not sr middle.

Taking someone's 0 is only good when that fighter actually goes on to show that it was a good win. If they don't do anything, it literally means nothing more than beating a dude with 10 losses. So far, the only guy to have gone on to do anything after Froch beat him was Pascal and he's been a good, but very patchy, flawed fighter.

These wins are absolutely no better than the Reids, Lacy's, Bikas, Mitchell's etc. it's just because they are doing it now, so you have the full memory of how good they are. In another twenty years, it'll get looked back upon without that bias and most of those wins you mentioned won't be considered particularly good and certainly no better than someone like Byron Mitchell for Calzaghe.

I think it comes down to Froch is fighting now and so people remember his opponents. When that's passed they'll be seen for what they are, and that is no better than many of Calzaghe standard wins.

See, people look at Dirrell as some great win, but he's literally lost every big fight he's had and even in today's title ridden landscape, hasn't managed to win even a minor title...sorry, he won by DQ against Abraham. How can you say that's any better than Lacy? They were both guys with potential and both never reached it. Lacy though was considers a hell of a lot better/hyped than Dirrell. It's no different.

Groves is the same so far. He hasn't done anything, two losses in his only title fights, except beat an inexperienced 10 fight Degale. Maybe he'll beat Badou Jack, but that's not exactly putting him in the HOF is it?

How do these two wins, against literal contenders in an age where it's harder to be a contender than it is champion, say great things about Froch resume compared to the same types of fighters for Calzaghe like a Mario Veit or David Starie? You don't remember them because they don't fight today, but as a comparison, Starie beat future LHW champ Clinton Woods before losing to Calzaghe and was all but undefeated. How's that different to Groves or Dirrell?

Even if Groves or Dirrell do manage to win some half baked title, they'll be comparative to a Richie Woodhall. Brief champions that got beat by the good guys.

Hopkins and prime Kessler. Better than any wins Froch has.

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.

[The Champions]

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.

Calzhage fans are like cult members.

They don't even make sense to themselves.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

30's yes but obviously still young in boxing years.

Calzaghe was world champion too.

Froch when he fought Bute for example was obviously a different animal.

What's the difference with how the fights panned out?

I saw a 44 year old Hopkins embarrass Calzaghe at times.

I don't know why you keep referring to the triangle theory. It means nothing.

Calzaghe was a young world champion facing an older former world champ.

Froch was a pretty experienced fighter taking on a prospect.

The fights panned out in that Calzaghe and Reid was a close fight where both guys had moments. Calzaghe got injured and hit with a few right hands. At worse, it was a 7-5 fight either way or a draw.

Froch-Dirrell....some may argue wasn't even that close. I had it 6-5-1 Dirrell but you could have had it wider for him. He made Froch miss all night and look amateurish. The only reason he didn't clearly school Froch is because of his weak mental game.

I see them as two completely different fights and they told us different things about each fighter. And we've seen Froch get his ears boxed off in other fights too.

Are we really comparing Bernard Hopkins to the likes of Andre Dirrell now?

[Weebler I]

lol what? Abraham has something like 14 title defences. Pascal went on to become light heavyweight champion, Bute had 10 defences or whatever.. How are they nothing special?

How was Taylor damaged goods when Froch fought him?

They are far better win's than the reid's of the world.

Taylor holding two wins over Hopkins prior to Calzaghe beating Hopkins actually works in Carl's favor. Taylor beat Lacy wide too, who hadn't lost since Calzaghe.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Taylor holding two wins over Hopkins prior to Calzaghe beating Hopkins actually works in Carl's favor. Taylor beat Lacy wide too, who hadn't lost since Calzaghe.

It doesn't really at all. Both decisions were highly disputed and Taylor then got KO'd by Pavlik and looked gunshy in the rematch which admittedly was a lot closer.

Taylor wasn't shot but I disagree with your post.

[IronDanHamza]

Calzaghe was a young world champion facing an older former world champ.

Froch was a pretty experienced fighter taking on a prospect.

The fights panned out in that Calzaghe and Reid was a close fight where both guys had moments. Calzaghe got injured and hit with a few right hands. At worse, it was a 7-5 fight either way or a draw.

Froch-Dirrell....some may argue wasn't even that close. I had it 6-5-1 Dirrell but you could have had it wider for him. He made Froch miss all night and look amateurish. The only reason he didn't clearly school Froch is because of his weak mental game.

I see them as two completely different fights and they told us different things about each fighter. And we've seen Froch get his ears boxed off in other fights too.

Are we really comparing Bernard Hopkins to the likes of Andre Dirrell now?

Froch was a young world champion (in boxing years). He wasn't oretty experienced.

Both were close fights that could have gone either way. Reid did make Calzaghe look amateurish at times. There's no difference at all. And to be bow at Dirrell is better than Reid aswell.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Froch was a young world champion (in boxing years). He wasn't oretty experienced.

Both were close fights that could have gone either way. Reid did make Calzaghe look amateurish at times. There's no difference at all. And to be bow at Dirrell is better than Reid aswell.

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.