Where is Carl Froch ranked in British ATG's?

[M Bison]

Why would he be below Calzaghe? Frochs resume ****s all over zags I mean he was undefeated and beat a prime Kessler but what else is there really?

He schooled your idol Roy Jones Jr?

[Sparked_26]

I find it hard to rank Froch over Calzaghe because he just wouldn't be able to be competitive with Joe, IMO.

I know it is annoying that Joe is one of those guys that wins a lot of fantasy fights.

But Jesus - if Calzaghe even came back now after eating himself and enjoying ******* and being on the couch for what? five years? I still think he might beat Carl.

[zmm001]

I find it hard to rank Froch over Calzaghe because he just wouldn't be able to be competitive with Joe, IMO.

I know it is annoying that Joe is one of those guys that wins a lot of fantasy fights.

But Jesus - if Calzaghe even came back now after eating himself and enjoying ******* and being on the couch for what? five years? I still think he might beat Carl.

I think Carl would jump in front of a train if Calzaghe beat him now

[daggum]

I find it hard to rank Froch over Calzaghe because he just wouldn't be able to be competitive with Joe, IMO.

I know it is annoying that Joe is one of those guys that wins a lot of fantasy fights.

But Jesus - if Calzaghe even came back now after eating himself and enjoying ******* and being on the couch for what? five years? I still think he might beat Carl.

you put on your nostalgia glasses already? he's only been retired for 5 years and here comes the overrating! prime calzaghe went life and death with robin reid and even in his best wins over hopkins and kessler he should have lost to hopkins and beat kessler 7-5(crowd noise does not equal domination) yet it wouldn't be competitive?

[M Bison]

you put on your nostalgia glasses already? he's only been retired for 5 years and here comes the overrating! prime calzaghe went life and death with robin reid and even in his best wins over hopkins and kessler he should have lost to hopkins and beat kessler 7-5(crowd noise does not equal domination) yet it wouldn't be competitive?

The truth with the Hopkin fight is Bernard was very lucky to not be disqualified for the excessive clinching, it wasn't even clinching to put in effective work it was just pure clinching for nothing but wasting time in the round he done no effective work from utilizing it.
Hopkins got hit more times throughout the fight and fought negatively the entire fight.

[STEELHEAD]

He's close to the top.

Below Lennox, of course, but above the likes of Calzaghe and Hatton.

thats how i see it.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

you put on your nostalgia glasses already? he's only been retired for 5 years and here comes the overrating! prime calzaghe went life and death with robin reid and even in his best wins over hopkins and kessler he should have lost to hopkins and beat kessler 7-5(crowd noise does not equal domination) yet it wouldn't be competitive?

You really do reach with the idea that Calzaghe-Kessler was in any remote way a close fight or even comparable to the two fights Froch had with Kessler.

You're a bit shot these days anyway. Too one dimensional. Although your manlove for Golovkin I guess adds something new

[daggum]

The truth with the Hopkin fight is Bernard was very lucky to not be disqualified for the excessive clinching, it wasn't even clinching to put in effective work it was just pure clinching for nothing but wasting time in the round he done no effective work from utilizing it.
Hopkins got hit more times throughout the fight and fought negatively the entire fight.

well first of all hopkins did not get hit more so that's just wrong. calzaghe missed almost everything and continually ran into punches that you probably missed because instead of paying attention to punches you probably paid attention to commentators or crowd noise. i don't know maybe you just have bad eyesight. the entire fight has been broken down and it was proven that calzaghe missed a ton of his "220 punches" reality just isn't good enough for some people...maybe compubox is your reality?

as far as fighting negatively yes that is true. it wasn't one of the all time great clinch performances but it was annoying. that doens't mean he deserved to lose the fight on the cards though. no one would say povetkin beat wlad on the cards so its silly to give the fight to calzaghe just because you didn't like the way hopkins fought. also calzaghe himself clinched far more against lacy than hopkins did against calzaghe but i guess that fight had more action so it was ok?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

The truth with the Hopkin fight is Bernard was very lucky to not be disqualified for the excessive clinching, it wasn't even clinching to put in effective work it was just pure clinching for nothing but wasting time in the round he done no effective work from utilizing it.
Hopkins got hit more times throughout the fight and fought negatively the entire fight.

Daggum is currently on a huge crusade about clinching and dirty tactics yet for years, his sole purpose for posting on here was to laud Hopkins' "victory" over Calzaghe.

It's funny when people get found out

[daggum]

You really do reach with the idea that Calzaghe-Kessler was in any remote way a close fight or even comparable to the two fights Froch had with Kessler.

You're a bit shot these days anyway. Too one dimensional. Although your manlove for Golovkin I guess adds something new

well i scored calzaghe-kessler 7-5 for calzaghe and froch kessler 1 7-5 for froch and froch kessler 2 8-4 for froch so i don't really see how calzaghe did a lot better. i don't see how you can say calzaghe dominated kessler. through the first 5 rounds it was easy to score 3-2 kessler and kessler clearly won the 12th so that's 4 rounds right there. now did calzaghe dominate rounds 6-11 and clearly win all of them? no he did not. rounds 7 and 10 were super close and even the rounds calzaghe won weren't kovalev-hopkins type rounds where one guy completely dominated. it was two way action with calzaghe just getting in slightly more.

you seem to score more on how a fight "feels" where as i score a fight based on punches and it was kessler often landing the cleaner harder punches. i'm sure it "felt" like calzaghe was completely dominating with the crowd going wild and shouting(even if it was calzaghe being hit) but the reality shows something different. I thought he won a close fight. so did lots of other people. bbc scored it 7-5 but they must hate calzaghe as well? If the same exact fight played out in denmark with a danish crowd kessler almost certainly gets the win. not that I would agree because I don't agree with froch kessler 1 but that's the truth.