Who's greater? Froch or Calzaghe?

[RichCCFC]

great thread this, shows all the idiots on Bscene.

Enjoyed

[New England]

Triangle theories are great.

that's not really the traditional triangle theory, that's using common opponents to compare resume. what else is he going to do? they did fight common opponents. kessler in his prime is a better win than anything froch has got, as kessler beat froch.


now, if he says that a beats b, so he beats C, who lost to B, then that is a triangle theory in my understanding of it's connotation in boxing.



froch is on one of the toughest runs you will ever see for a top draw in modern boxing. dude has stones and so do his handlers ( :lol1 : .) he's a very good fighter, with a very good resume.

calzaghe was a great fighter, IMO, in terms of the package he put together on his best nights. that's not going off of the resume, though, and not how you rank a fighters accomplishments. he didnt fight enough top guys at their best for me to call him a great, if i'm using the same word to describe other, more accomplished fighters.

the resume are on a similar tier, i'd say. froch has more depth and a harder schedule. hopkins (faded, but went on to have nice success,) and kessler (prime, undefeated, very solid fighter that zaghe hurt and all but destroyed,) are better than anything froch has done.




as much as it sucks, i think they'll probably both be hall of famers. you've got complete jokes with cards to vote for the BWAA now. it's not what it was, and it will only get worse with the advent of unpaid internet writers.

[IronDanHamza]

that's not really the traditional triangle theory, that's using common opponents to compare resume. what else is he going to do? they did fight common opponents. kessler in his prime is a better win than anything froch has got, as kessler beat froch.


now, if he says that a beats b, so he beats C, who lost to B, then that is a triangle theory in my understanding of it's connotation in boxing.



froch is on one of the toughest runs you will ever see for a top draw in modern boxing. dude has stones and so do his handlers ( :lol1 : .) he's a very good fighter, with a very good resume.

calzaghe was a great fighter, IMO, in terms of the package he put together on his best nights. that's not going off of the resume, though, and not how you rank a fighters accomplishments. he didnt fight enough top guys at their best for me to call him a great, if i'm using the same word to describe other, more accomplished fighters.

the resume are on a similar tier, i'd say. froch has more depth and a harder schedule. hopkins (faded, but went on to have nice success,) and kessler (prime, undefeated, very solid fighter that zaghe hurt and all but destroyed,) are better than anything froch has done.




as much as it sucks, i think they'll probably both be hall of famers. you've got complete jokes with cards to vote for the BWAA now. it's not what it was, and it will only get worse with the advent of unpaid internet writers.

Agree with everything except Calzaghe being a great fighter.

I don't think Froch is greater than Calzaghe but he's one win away IMO.

[komodo]

Joe's win over an undefeated Kessler and Hopkins ****s on what Froch has ever/will ever do.

Don't understand the whole thing about Froch having a better resume. He was behind on all cards before he beat a shot Taylor, He arguably lost to Dirrell even though I had it a draw. Lost to Kessler who clearly wasn't the same fighter as when Joe fought him.

Beat a blown up MW in Abraham and a shot to **** Johnson. Outclassed in every department by Ward. And destroyed an overrated Bute. His best win is Pascal who Hopkins schooled at 46. Froch is one of my favourite fighters but come on is he supposed to be the greater fighter based on that resume? It's a joke and fact is Calzaghe would have beat him all day long.

[IronDanHamza]

That's true. Mack is a complete waste of time though.

It is.

There weren't many options for him though but I'd have like to have seen someone other than Mack.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Speaking of...


I always thought it was funny that Joes hand turned into glass whenever Glen Johnson came up.

He pulled out of several other fights because of his hands. Pretty sure the Roy Jones fight had to even be pushed back. This Glen Johnson thing is funny how its developed over the years.

[BoxingGenius27]

Froch lost to a slightly faded Kessler

- but prime Kessler was beaten by Joe

Froch beat a faded Taylor

- but Taylor lost to Pavlik who lost to Hopkins who lost to Joe

Froch beat Pascal

- but Pascal lost to Hopkins who lost to Joe


Joe Calzaghe is underrated and was clearly a better fighter than Froch

[IMDAZED]

Calzaghe and it's not very close.

[BoxingGenius27]

Why are people really clinging to the Hopkins and Kessler victories though?

If that's the case, you should annoint the man that ended Hopkins run at Middleweight over everyone (i.e Jermaine Taylor). He squeeked by Hopkins at that. And really if you want to get technical, some can argue that he lost that fight.

The Kessler victory was good also, but that's about it.

But you have to look at the "entire" body of work when comparing Calzaghe and Froch. If we don't, then that will make Buster Douglass one of the greatest HW's of all time for beating Tyson in his prime.

A few threads ago, I remember people were using Sakio Bika as a reference in rating how great Calzaghe's resume was. If you have to use Sakio Bika as a reference to put you as an ATG, then we have a problem.

[4Corners]

Why are people really clinging to the Hopkins and Kessler victories though?

If that's the case, you should annoint the man that ended Hopkins run at Middleweight over everyone (i.e Jermaine Taylor). He squeeked by Hopkins at that. And really if you want to get technical, some can argue that he lost that fight.

The Kessler victory was good also, but that's about it.

But you have to look at the "entire" body of work when comparing Calzaghe and Froch. If we don't, then that will make Buster Douglass one of the greatest HW's of all time for beating Tyson in his prime.

A few threads ago, I remember people were using Sakio Bika as a reference in rating how great Calzaghe's resume was. If you have to use Sakio Bika as a reference to put you as an ATG, then we have a problem.

No one saying Calzaghe is an ATG, he CLEARLY isn't. Bika was only used as a decent win over a Top 10 SMW.

He's beaten Hopkins (questionable), Kessler, Lacy, Bika, and not much of anything else.

Froch has beaten Pascal, Dirrell (questionable), Abraham, and Bute. I don't really rate the Taylor and Johnson wins at all for Froch.

So I'd have to go with Calzaghe on the strength of the Hopkins and Kessler wins. But if Froch gets say 3 more solid wins and/or goes up to 175 and grabs a title, I'd have a hard time saying his whole body of work isn't better than Calzaghe.