Comments Thread For: Calzaghe: It's Mad, I'm Still Living in Froch's Head After All These Years!

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I know the feeling Joe... I’ve been living in Chollo Vistas head since I schooled him about you and Froch.

[Chollo Vista]

Robin Reid snapped Joe's head back like a pez dispenser and an ancient Roy almost got him out in the first round

Froch is definitely greater. He just went on to have a better career.

I originally thought Joe would win head to head. After seeing the Reid fight and seeing Joe arguably lose in his prime to a very limited fighter, I'm not so sure anymore.

[Chollo Vista]

Hey RJJ Throat, maybe your War_Mandela alt can answer this:

This loser is literally stalking me. I’m not even quoting this clown yet I’m still pulling his strings.��

How are you even seeing my posts if I'm on iggy?

Just admit it. That Carl Froch post hit ya

Here it is again. The genesis to your downfall; enjoy:

WTF is this man???

I never said he was undisputed champ!!!!! Seriously bro work on your comprehension! Read what I post...

Actually, I think it's you that needs the comprehension skills. The initial argument was you rated Joe so highly because he was a "lineal champ". Something I said wasn't impressive; hell, Carlos Baldomir was a lineal champ as was Pascal. I said if you really want to be impressive, than Joe should've became undisputed champ which he never was. You then proceeded to list all the belts Joe held at 168 as if that somehow made him "undisputed". That's how it started and was my overall point.

Can we move on from the weak lineal champ accomplishment?

I said he was the undisputed #1 which he was. Calzaghe was undoubtedly the #1 fighter at 168 after he beat a Lacy and Kessler. Froch was never the #1 fighter at 168, Ward was.

Why do you keep using "undisputed #1"? Just say he was the #1 guy in the weight class. If you're going to say undisputed, it should only be used when referring to an undisputed champ. Language matters.

Secondly, after you said the above statement, I came back and agreed with you. I agreed with you with a caveat, that Joe reigned over a weak 168 lb division. In which it was. You can't be a fan of the sport and not admit that Joe was in a weak era? I mean Jeff Lacy was considered Mike Tyson of the weight class. Come on man.

Hopkins was an elite win. He went on to beat Pavlik, Pascal etc after the Calzaghe fight. But I did say it was close, you are the one who compared it to Dirrell NOT ME.

Ok and if Hopkins was an elite win, than what does that make Jermaine Taylor? You still haven't answered that. Maybe it's because you know that will add an extra feather in Froch's cap

And yes I compared the Dirrel victory to show you how you can't discredit Froch's victory over Dirrel, while giving Joe full credit over Hopkins. Both were close and could've gone either way. If you're going to give Joe credit for his win because that's what the record says, you also have to do the same for Froch.

Kessler retired after he fought Froch cause he was done. Hopkins remained at the highest level for another 6 years after Joe beat him. It’s common sense mate!!! Clearly Hopkins was still an elite fighter, he beat Pascal who is Froch’s BEST WIN.

For one, you still haven't explaned what was so great about Kessler to make him, as you put it "elite" in the first place? No one ever heard of the guy before he fought Joe. And Kessler was no more done after he fought Froch the first time than Ward was after he fought Kovalev the 2nd time. Both fighters didn't take a great deal of punishment and could've easily continued their careers.

As for Hopkins, if you followed his career, you'd know that Hopkins was well over the hill, but resorted to clinching, headbutts, holding and slowing down opponents punch rate as a means of survival at that point. Both fights against Dawson showed that. Hell, the Wright fight showed where Hopkins was in his career.

But if how you judge a fighter is based off how well they did after losing to {insert predetermined fighter}, then:

Dirrel - went on to become the first to defeat Abraham who reigned supreme at MW for many years.

Taylor - Beat Jeff Lacy who's only loss was to Calzaghe. Also went on to win the IBF after losing to Froch

Groves - Won the WBA and beat Chris Eubank Jr after losing to Froch.

Pascal - Won the WBC x2 and the WBA while defeating Jack, Browne, Dawson and Diaconu to name a few. All the while becoming Lineal Champ, which is your favorite.

Remind me what Lacy, Woodhall, Eubank and Brewer did after losing to Joe?

Woodhall - Retired right after Calzaghe loss

Reid - Not a thing

Brewer - lol

Lacy - lol

Eubank - Ended up losing back to back fights and then retiring after losing to Joe

Again, what's your standard??? Make up you mind and stick to it.

And as far as your elite win, what did Kessler do after losing to Joe outside of splitting with Froch?

Froch was never even the real WBA champ, Ward was the super champion. Joe held the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Ring and lineal titles during his career. Froch only held the WBC x2 and IBF, and then the WBA regular belt.

This is a silly point because as I've already told you, even Carlos Baldomir was the lineal champ. It's even sillier when we consider based off your own criteria, Joe Calzaghe didn't have an "elite" win until his 14 and 15 year of boxing.... Oh and get this, one of those elite wins came as a SD against a 43 year old Hopkins who was already beaten twice by Taylor.

So you’re trying to downplay an undefeated Kessler but big up an undefeated Bute? WTF man.����

No, I'm asking you to explain to me why Kessler was so elite; something I'm still waiting on you to do.

If I had to pick, Froch's win over Bute was more like Joe's win over Lacy.

If Kessler isn’t HOF’er how is Froch??? When they fought in their primes KESSLER BEAT HIM. Kessler literally proved he was BETTER than Froch.

Lol now you're saying Kessler was prime??

Secondly, you don't understand the difference between head to head and greater.

Oh and just because Kessler retired after he lost to Froch doesn't mean Kessler was over the hill. Froch retired after Groves and Ward retired after Kovalev. Were they over the hill? They were coming off their biggest wins yet chose to retire. Retirement doesn't alway mean shot to schit.

This is completely DELUSIONAL. Did you really have to get your computer out to come up with this kind of nonsense?

Relax dude, I'm just getting warmed up; meanwhile you're falling a part lol

The evidence is all there, when the truth is staring you in the face some people choose to smash the mirror

I agree the evidence is there, which is why it makes sense for you to refuse to set the standard and change the goal posts.

This is firmly my last response as I’m just gonna put this clown on ignore.