Where is Carl Froch ranked in British ATG's?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

How can you say Froch would never have beaten Kessler?

Prime froch couldn't beat Kessler in super 6, and struggled at times with an ancient Kessler, I don't think he beats an undefeated unified champion Kessler like calzaghe did...

It's obviously all hypothetical, but if froch couldnt beat super 6 Kessler, I find it hard to believe he could beat a fresher and probably peak version of Kessler that was around in the calzaghe era

[Tom Cruise]

crowd going crazy does not equal outclassing. dropping your hands doesn't mean you are in control. if he was dominating why was kessler still landing hard shots constantly to the head and body? i just watched rounds 6-11 with the sound off of course...

round 6 was a pretty clear calzaghe round,
round 7 very very close round kessler had calzaghe briefly staggered but calazaghe landed good shots of his own in back and forth action,
round 8 kessler was having a very good round and winning until he got hurt late with a body shot which tipped it to calzaghe,
round 9 another close round with two way action but calzaghe slightly better,
round 10 another very very close round kessler briefly staggered calzaghe but calzaghe came back well in the last 45 to make it razor close,
round 11 another close round with 2 way action and calzaghe just won it

you call that a period of outclassing? yes he won more rounds during that period but not by much and every single round was very close. there was no outclassing but maybe you have calzaghe-kessler special edition on blu-ray which has added calzaghe punches?

Youre reaching here Daggum. Calzaghe won that fight pretty clearly

[Dirk Diggler UK]

crowd going crazy does not equal outclassing. dropping your hands doesn't mean you are in control. if he was dominating why was kessler still landing hard shots constantly to the head and body? i just watched rounds 6-11 with the sound off of course...

round 6 was a pretty clear calzaghe round,
round 7 very very close round kessler had calzaghe briefly staggered but calazaghe landed good shots of his own in back and forth action,
round 8 kessler was having a very good round and winning until he got hurt late with a body shot which tipped it to calzaghe,
round 9 another close round with two way action but calzaghe slightly better,
round 10 another very very close round kessler briefly staggered calzaghe but calzaghe came back well in the last 45 to make it razor close,
round 11 another close round with 2 way action and calzaghe just won it

you call that a period of outclassing? yes he won more rounds during that period but not by much and every single round was very close. there was no outclassing but maybe you have calzaghe-kessler special edition on blu-ray which has added calzaghe punches?

No point discussing anything Calzaghe related with you. I mean you had something of a point with the Hopkins fight but you're just sounding completely shot to **** and desperate now.

"Both 7-5 so they were basically da same fight"

[Sugar Adam Ali]

If you're not #1 of a past era does that mean you can't be better than a guy who was #1 of a different era?

Tommy Hearns wasnt #1 of his WW era does that mean Mayweather is better than Hearns?

Is Bob Foster better or greater than Harold Johnson? Not in my estimation.

That's a valid point and logic, but hearns and floyd have zero mutual opponents... And hearns was very competitve vs leonard... Froch got shutdown by a one handed ward

With calzaghe/froch there is common opponents and both were active at the same time

It's just hard to rank a guy that has zero #1 titles, over a guy that has 2 #1 titles at different weight classes

[IronDanHamza]

Prime froch couldn't beat Kessler in super 6, and struggled at times with an ancient Kessler, I don't think he beats an undefeated unified champion Kessler like calzaghe did...

It's obviously all hypothetical, but if froch couldnt beat super 6 Kessler, I find it hard to believe he could beat a fresher and probably peak version of Kessler that was around in the calzaghe era

He arguably beat him both times.

Pretty obvious that he COULD beat Kessler.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Youre reaching here Daggum. Calzaghe won that fight pretty clearly

I haven't heard him use this argument until recently. It's always been the Hopkins fight. And now he even says Matthysse won the Garcia fight

The guy has really become a caricature of himself now. Still comes out with the odd zinger but he's lost the plot overall.

[IronDanHamza]

Yeah even I'll say that Calzaghe beat Kessler well.

8-4 I had it and I was being generous really.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

He arguably beat him both times.

Pretty obvious that he COULD beat Kessler.

Ok, I guess he COULD beat him, but given the chance he didn't (first time) though both fights were close.. The rematch should have been a wide win for froch as Kessler was way past it by that point

[IronDanHamza]

Ok, I guess he COULD beat him, but given the chance he didn't (first time) though both fights were close.. The rematch should have been a wide win for froch as Kessler was way past it by that point

Rematch was pretty clear win IMO. 8-4 Froch.

The first fight was much closer.

[daggum]

But but but Hopkins clinched Calzaghe and didn't let him punch him. Isn't that your current excuse for why all the fighters you like keep losing?

I never said Calzaghe won because Hopkins clinched too much lol lies. So no that's not "my sole reason" why Calzaghe won. I knew Hopkins was going to do that.

Projecting and making things up now? You've lost it.

so how did calzaghe win then? it certainly wasn't with clean punches as the calzaghe deception video clearly proved. hopkins outlanded calzaghe easily in 7 rounds and with the harder punches so what was it? calzaghe came to fight? calzaghe made the fight? calzaghe was fighting his fight? or how about the scoring criteria of hopkins faked low blows? we all know that's one of the 4 scoring criteria. how about calzaghe made hopkins tired in the later rounds therefore calzaghe deserves to win the early rounds that he clearly lost? maybe you will just get frustrated and quote compubox.

I remember how great you thought brook looked when he beat porter even though he clinched way more than hopkins so you are just a hypocrite. it seems that whatever the british boxer does=winning to you where as I think hopkins won because he landed the better punches and I think brook won because he landed the better punches. The clinching was bad in both fights but then again it was bad in calzaghe-lacy but you wouldn't say a peep about that fight. you picked this one fight to pretend you cared about clinching because calzaghe looked like complete ass. I hate clinching in every fight but that doesn't mean i ignore who is punching the other guy.