Better Resume: Calzhage or Froch?

[sunny31]

I think Calzaghe was a better all around fighter but I think Froch fought and beat better competition.

This. End of thread.

[pillowfists98]

Calzaghe's wins over a prime Kessler plus HOFer B-Hop ****s on everything Froch has ever done. Even Joe's win over an older Eubank is better than all of Froch's wins bar Pascal and Groves.

[GhostofDempsey]

Calzaghe, better resume and better fighter.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I think I have to go with Joe on this one. Hopkins, Jones, Lacy, Kessler, Eubank, Sr., Bika.

Froch is no slouch though- 1-1 against Kessler, Jean Pascal, Jermain Taylor, Arthur Abraham, Glen Johnson, Lucien Bute, George Groves.

It's very close, but I favor Joe. Hopkins was 43, but went on to win titles after that, against Pascal even. Jones was 39 and not nearly the same fighter for sure, but he was still danergous because he's Roy Jones. Lacy was never great but he brought in a very dangerous hook and was a champion and many thought he would beat Joe, but he didn't. And beating an unbeaten champion always looks good. I think the Kessler win was actually Joe's best. Kessler was damn good and was in his prime when they met. Eubank was past it but it's still a good win since it's Eubank. And Bika is never an easy fight for anybody but Joe handled him well.

[Madison Boxing]

calzaghe. froch was a very good fighter but calzaghe was a level above and would have boxed rings around him. he simply could not be beat at 168

[W1LL]

Joe Calzaghe beat ATGs and retired undefeated. Carl Froch got outclassed by Andre Ward and needed a dodgey ref stoppage to save him in the first George Groves fight. Calzaghe also outclassed the best version of Mikkel Kessler.

[redmish]

I think froch fought better opposition, however, I think calzaghe would beat him comfortably.

[EasternEuroFan]

Calzaghe was already 36 and had fought his last fight by the time Froch had his first significant fight and victory (Pascal).

Yep. Calzaghe and Froch's careers never really crossed paths. The thing about them being rivals that never fought is one of boxings biggest myths.

Calzaghe was already at light-heavyweight when Froch was still fighting British title fights in the division below. He had already retired before Froch fought at world level for the first time.

So it was never even really that much of a thing back then. In modern day terms, It'd basically be like Andre Ward about to retire and Callum Johnson before the Betervbiev fight. That's what levels they were at when they were both active at the same time.

It only really become a talking point when Froch kept talking about it long after Joe retired, but the truth is they were at totally different levels at the time. Joe was fighting in big fights with Kessler, Bernard and RJJ and about to retire. Froch was fighting in British title fights on Mick Hennessy's cards.

[Kezzer]

Froch had the better resume.

Calzhage was more picky when and who to fight, including avoiding Froch who he perceived as a risk long before he was proven.

[Nash out]

Both great fighters. But Calzaghe without a doubt, based on these facts. He was 1-0 against Kessler, Froch was 1-1. And then add to it that he beat a prime Bernard Hopkins, and Roy Jones JR at the end of his prime but still in it.