If Froch Beats Ward Is His SMW Reign Better Than Calzaghes?

question is in the title really.
got to weigh up the longetivity with the quality of opponents and think the two kessler fights are difficult. JC dealt with him in the uk whereas froch fought him away from home and arguably lost a hometown decision. is ward a better name than anything on JCs record?
debate

edit. and remember its just the SMW reign

That wasn't a hometown decision, Alex. Froch lost to Kessler, it was tight, but he lost.

He needed to be more active and then he may have pulled it off.

In hindsight, it's difficult to say that Ward is a better name than B-Hop, as B-Hop has since proven that he was far from finished at the time he fought Joe.

He certainly will have a stronger record overall if he pulls it off, though. That's if he doesn't already, anyway.

No.....Calzaghe had more longevity and in Eubank, Reid, Kessler and brewer some quality...How many defences and years did he reign without losing???

some way to go yet...

Lacy too....

Fists of Fury wrote:That wasn't a hometown decision, Alex. Froch lost to Kessler, it was tight, but he lost.

He needed to be more active and then he may have pulled it off.

reason i said arguably as some will disagree and say if it was in nottingham he would have got the nod. to be honest i probably have to watch the fight again cos i cant remember it properly.

Whilst I think there is far more to admire in Froch's approach to his career (willingness to travel, no Pudwill defences etc) Chris makes a fair point about Carl when this debate comes up. For all his admirable traits the fact remains even if he beats Ward he will still never have established at any point in his career he is the best supermiddle weight in the world. whatever one thinks of Calzaghe there is little to no question on the back of beating Lacy or perhaps Kessler Joe was the best supermiddle in the world.

Personally much prefer Froch but think he perhaps got his world title at too late an age to have the time to overturn Calzaghe.

It wasn't a robbery but the cards-in particularly (surprise surprise) the Roger Tillemann one-were a little wide.

BALTIMORA wrote:It wasn't a robbery but the cards-in particularly (surprise surprise) the Roger Tillemann one-were a little wide.

But then the Dirrell fight was mighty close - and the cards for the Pascal fight were way too wide as well.

oxring wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:It wasn't a robbery but the cards-in particularly (surprise surprise) the Roger Tillemann one-were a little wide.

But then the Dirrell fight was mighty close - and the cards for the Pascal fight were way too wide as well.

The Dirrell result was fair. The Pascal fight I haven't seen since it happened. Not sure if any of the judges involved have been at the centre of any kind of officiating controversy before. Tillemann had.

It's a tough one because you have to admire Froch and all he's achieved so far, i feel he's still a touch away from Calzaghe's career and i don't know if there's enough fights out there for him to change my view. Calzaghe has longevity, and of also a few really good wins under his belt. We've been really lucky having Froch continuing on from Calzaghe and there's not too much between them, think it may be split down the middle by the time Froch retires if he continues winning.

He's a touch away.....

Lost to Kessler and lacks a good five years and about 12 defences.....to be exact..

Not saying he won't be better but nowhere near yet..

BALTIMORA wrote:

oxring wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:It wasn't a robbery but the cards-in particularly (surprise surprise) the Roger Tillemann one-were a little wide.

But then the Dirrell fight was mighty close - and the cards for the Pascal fight were way too wide as well.

The Dirrell result was fair. The Pascal fight I haven't seen since it happened. Not sure if any of the judges involved have been at the centre of any kind of officiating controversy before. Tillemann had.

I didn't say it was a robbery did I? I said it was mighty close. Which it was.

Froch's reign has definitely been more interesting, for me anyway. I didn't dislike JC but I know I yawned a few times when I heard who he was fighting next. I reckon Kessler was JC's best win not Hopkins.

If Froch beats Ward, Bute and manages a few more defenses I would rate his reign as better than JC's.

oxring wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

oxring wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:It wasn't a robbery but the cards-in particularly (surprise surprise) the Roger Tillemann one-were a little wide.

But then the Dirrell fight was mighty close - and the cards for the Pascal fight were way too wide as well.

The Dirrell result was fair. The Pascal fight I haven't seen since it happened. Not sure if any of the judges involved have been at the centre of any kind of officiating controversy before. Tillemann had.

I didn't say it was a robbery did I? I said it was mighty close. Which it was.

That's all good then.

The Galveston Giant wrote:It's a tough one because you have to admire Froch and all he's achieved so far, i feel he's still a touch away from Calzaghe's career and i don't know if there's enough fights out there for him to change my view. Calzaghe has longevity, and of also a few really good wins under his belt. We've been really lucky having Froch continuing on from Calzaghe and there's not too much between them, think it may be split down the middle by the time Froch retires if he continues winning.

really? not enough fights out there? a bute fight and an avenged loss from kessler puts it beyond doubt for me. providing he gets past ward. the overall quality beats the longevity for me.

Calzaghe's longevity gives him the edge, but Froch is willing to fight anyone anywhere to become the best in the division.
Calzaghe will always be criticised by some for his reluctance to travel to the US to take the big fights even though Joe's record is exceptional, the twice he fought in America both Hopkins and particularily Jones where past there best. I feel Joe could have been a bigger name had he travelled to the US.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:It's a tough one because you have to admire Froch and all he's achieved so far, i feel he's still a touch away from Calzaghe's career and i don't know if there's enough fights out there for him to change my view. Calzaghe has longevity, and of also a few really good wins under his belt. We've been really lucky having Froch continuing on from Calzaghe and there's not too much between them, think it may be split down the middle by the time Froch retires if he continues winning.

really? not enough fights out there? a bute fight and an avenged loss from kessler puts it beyond doubt for me. providing he gets past ward. the overall quality beats the longevity for me.

Like i said, i think it will be split down the middle if he keeps winning. That could all change if he loses to Ward. I'm not particularly fond of Bute at the minute.


L

The Galveston Giant wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:It's a tough one because you have to admire Froch and all he's achieved so far, i feel he's still a touch away from Calzaghe's career and i don't know if there's enough fights out there for him to change my view. Calzaghe has longevity, and of also a few really good wins under his belt. We've been really lucky having Froch continuing on from Calzaghe and there's not too much between them, think it may be split down the middle by the time Froch retires if he continues winning.

really? not enough fights out there? a bute fight and an avenged loss from kessler puts it beyond doubt for me. providing he gets past ward. the overall quality beats the longevity for me.

Like i said, i think it will be split down the middle if he keeps winning. That could all change if he loses to Ward. I'm not particularly fond of Bute at the minute.


L

not many are but the quality bute has is there for all to see. but do get a feeling someone that can stand up to his shots may find him out. but no doubt up there with the andre wards of this world.

If Froch wasn't such a dull character...was better looking and had more charisma maybe he'd fair better...

Let's face it he's the best fighter in Britain p4p probably and no one has heard of him outside the Boxing party!

Not like Pacquiao's razor wit and close, exciting matchups. Manny seems popular enough

On paper - I'd agree that Froch may surpass him - but they are rated in the same weightclass so the head to head should come into play. This is where Froch loses with a wide UD.

On the matter of the reign - if he beats Ward,Bute and a rematch with Kessler then yes - He has a better record despite the longevity of Calzaghe, as he has the more consistent higher level opponent.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Froch wasn't such a dull character...was better looking and had more charisma maybe he'd fair better...

Let's face it he's the best fighter in Britain p4p probably and no one has heard of him outside the Boxing party!

come off it truss hes no more dull than khan and the main reason not many have heard of him is because when he was coming up he wasnt exactly handled well. tv networks make you in this game and he didnt have the big one behind him.

if he beats ward, for me he's more impressive than calzaghe.

that loss to kessler says a lot however, especially as joe beat him previously.

calzaghe could have done so much more, he would have beaten anyone but only started to push himself in the latter stage of his career.

the 10 year reign as wbo champ without fighting another champion is just a joke.

OasisBFC wrote:if he beats ward, for me he's more impressive than calzaghe.

that loss to kessler says a lot however, especially as joe beat him previously.

calzaghe could have done so much more, he would have beaten anyone but only started to push himself in the latter stage of his career.

the 10 year reign as wbo champ without fighting another champion is just a joke.

Do you say the same for Martinez? Holding on to 1 belt (just) w/o fighting the other titlists?

Calzaghe beat 9 former/current world champions, with a total of 121 championship fights; as well as 7 former world title challengers.

So to say he didn't fight another champion isn't strictly true.

oxring wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:if he beats ward, for me he's more impressive than calzaghe.

that loss to kessler says a lot however, especially as joe beat him previously.

calzaghe could have done so much more, he would have beaten anyone but only started to push himself in the latter stage of his career.

the 10 year reign as wbo champ without fighting another champion is just a joke.

Do you say the same for Martinez? Holding on to 1 belt (just) w/o fighting the other titlists?

Calzaghe beat 9 former/current world champions, with a total of 121 championship fights; as well as 7 former world title challengers.

So to say he didn't fight another champion isn't strictly true.

Past it ex-Champs don't really count for me. Like Saul Alvarez beat Baldomir who was the linear Welterweight for years but the time he beat him he was way past it. I don't class that as a quality win though.

So would you rather Martinez had fought Pirog than Williams II? Would you prefer that Maidana had fought Petrov instead of Morales? You'd have deprived us of a KO of the year and a fight of the year candidate.

Foolish to dismiss them all as past-it. Revisionist history and as such, relatively worthless.

RJJ can be accused of having suffered a serious decline. No arguments from me there. Eubank wasn't what he once was - but Calzaghe was green and wasn't what he was going to be. The rest were relatively real - the likes of Mitchell, Brewer might still have been champion, but for a robbery in Germany.

Much is made of the "weakness" in Joe's resume - and whilst it is not the greatest he could have achieved, to hold a title for 10 years is actually quite difficult. Which is why so few people have done it.

Martinez had a very good reason to rematch Williams, and was a bigger threat to him than Pirog was despite Pirog being there.

The fact is if you don't face the very best whilst you are a champion or the biggest threats you are going to be accused of this kind of thing.

Too many Euro bums on his record whilst he was champion. No doubt that it is impressive to have held it for so long with so many defences, but if you look at the quality there there isn't an awful lot of it.

oxring wrote:to hold a title for 10 years is actually quite difficult. Which is why so few people have done it.

That depends on who you're fighting. Let's be honest here, the WBO was a very lightly regarded title when JC won it and most of his challengers weren't regarded at all. For me, the WBO title is like the League Cup, it's better than nothing so you might as well take it if that's all you can get.

I wonder if JC would have reigned for 10 years if he'd been the only champ? If there was no WBC, IBF and WBA champs around and he had to fight all the contenders instead of being able to pick from a collection of WBO misfits, how would he have done?

Atila wrote:

oxring wrote:to hold a title for 10 years is actually quite difficult. Which is why so few people have done it.

That depends on who you're fighting. Let's be honest here, the WBO was a very lightly regarded title when JC won it and most of his challengers weren't regarded at all. For me, the WBO title is like the League Cup, it's better than nothing so you might as well take it if that's all you can get.

I wonder if JC would have reigned for 10 years if he'd been the only champ? If there was no WBC, IBF and WBA champs around and he had to fight all the contenders instead of being able to pick from a collection of WBO misfits, how would he have done?

Precisely, it is a fantastic achievement on paper, but you need to look at it a little closer to see that it sounds better than it truly is. taking on the guys like Tocker Pudwill and Manfredo Jr pads it massively...

[quote="oxring"]

OasisBFC wrote:

Calzaghe beat 9 former/current world champions, with a total of 121 championship fights; as well as 7 former world title challengers.

So to say he didn't fight another champion isn't strictly true.

it's not only strictly true, it's the cold, hard truth.
his wbo run starting at 1997 or there abouts its woeful, and arguably many of his best years were wasted.

the great champions challenge themselves. calzaghe wasted many years.

hatton went straight for the WBA belt and the moved up and won another belt in another weight straight after becoming champ.
look at khan, he won the belt and aimed to unify the division straight away with bradey. bradley chickened out so he got the IBF and he wants to move up to challenge the best.

those 2 i mentioned may have losses, they may not be the best, but they had ambition.

just checked on box rec....he wins wbo title in 1997 which was vacant.
he next challenged for another title in 2006.

no words can cover that fact.
i love him, think he's great and was much, much better than his record suggests. i just wish he would have pushed himself. it was as if the lacey fight gave him the confidence he was lacking.

Calzaghe may have longevity and numbers, but it should be noted just how pisspoor the depth of quality SMW had during his reign. Mostly washed up middleweights.
Now, finally, we are getting quality fighters who are starting their career at the weight, rather than passing through.

Bob wrote:Calzaghe may have longevity and numbers, but it should be noted just how pisspoor the depth of quality SMW had during his reign. Mostly washed up middleweights.
Now, finally, we are getting quality fighters who are starting their career at the weight, rather than passing through.

I agree. The division was terrible. It should have taken Calzaghe no more than 5/6 years to clear it out really. The division had few quality fighters which makes it all the more extraordinary that he managed to fight the amount of unranked challengers he did - the Thornberrys, Staries, McIntyres, Pudwills, Myrthchyans, Salems, Ashiras the list never seems to end. These giys were not even considered top 10 in an already depleted division. Even if you excuse the Ottke fight not happening due to Ottke, the obvious move would be to move up to light heavyweight in the early 2000s where you had names like Tarver, Jones, Johnson, Griffen, Michaelsewski which were much bigger fights.

manos de piedra wrote:

Bob wrote:Calzaghe may have longevity and numbers, but it should be noted just how pisspoor the depth of quality SMW had during his reign. Mostly washed up middleweights.
Now, finally, we are getting quality fighters who are starting their career at the weight, rather than passing through.

I agree. The division was terrible. It should have taken Calzaghe no more than 5/6 years to clear it out really. The division had few quality fighters which makes it all the more extraordinary that he managed to fight the amount of unranked challengers he did - the Thornberrys, Staries, McIntyres, Pudwills, Myrthchyans, Salems, Ashiras the list never seems to end. These giys were not even considered top 10 in an already depleted division. Even if you excuse the Ottke fight not happening due to Ottke, the obvious move would be to move up to light heavyweight in the early 2000s where you had names like Tarver, Jones, Johnson, Griffen, Michaelsewski which were much bigger fights.

A legitimate argument Manos, when Calzaghe admitted he used to kill himself to make 168 pounds, the natural progression would be vacate the title and move up to Light Heavy and challenge the best in the division.Calzaghe will always have the doubters because of his reluctance to go to the US and fight the best out there.

Froch did not lose a "hometown" decision to Kessler, he lost fair and square. Only controversy was one card by the clown Tillerman but nothing wrong with the result.

Calzaghe's resume would still be better. A lot more quality than people think despite a lot of guff. If Froch can beat Ward, avenge Kessler loss and beat Bute then there's an argument to be made.

Super D Boon wrote:Froch did not lose a "hometown" decision to Kessler, he lost fair and square. Only controversy was one card by the clown Tillerman but nothing wrong with the result.

Calzaghe's resume would still be better. A lot more quality than people think despite a lot of guff. If Froch can beat Ward, avenge Kessler loss and beat Bute then there's an argument to be made.

In terms of quality I think its about even now if we are talking Super Middleweight. I wouldnt really be convinved of there being alot more quality on Calzaghes record at all. Which fighters in particular? The top guys Calzaghe beat in rough order I would say were: Kessler, Eubank, Lacy, Reid, Bika, Brewer, Woodhall, Mitchell. Outside of that its basically unranked mediocrity. And within that I wouldnt particularly rate many of those as quality.

Froch has Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Johnson, Magee, Reid. If we were to add Ward to that then I think Froch probably edges it.If he went on to beat Kessler and Bute after then its no contest in my view.

manos de piedra wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Froch did not lose a "hometown" decision to Kessler, he lost fair and square. Only controversy was one card by the clown Tillerman but nothing wrong with the result.

Calzaghe's resume would still be better. A lot more quality than people think despite a lot of guff. If Froch can beat Ward, avenge Kessler loss and beat Bute then there's an argument to be made.

In terms of quality I think its about even now if we are talking Super Middleweight. I wouldnt really be convinved of there being alot more quality on Calzaghes record at all. Which fighters in particular? The top guys Calzaghe beat in rough order I would say were: Kessler, Eubank, Lacy, Reid, Bika, Brewer, Woodhall, Mitchell. Outside of that its basically unranked mediocrity. And within that I wouldnt particularly rate many of those as quality.

Froch has Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Johnson, Magee, Reid. If we were to add Ward to that then I think Froch probably edges it.If he went on to beat Kessler and Bute after then its no contest in my view.

literally see it the exact same way manos.

[quote="manos de piedra"]

Super D Boon wrote: Froch has Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Johnson, Magee, Reid. If we were to add Ward to that then I think Froch probably edges it.

No he doesn't. Bear in mind that Froch is yet to beat a genuine quality super middleweight. Not one established champion beaten. Taylor, Abraham, middleweights, Johnson, Pascal light heavyweights. The only major champion at the weight Froch has fought, he lost to. Adding Ward will not eclipse Calzaghe. Adding a revenge win against Kessler and then Bute might.

[quote="Super D Boon"]

manos de piedra wrote:

Super D Boon wrote: Froch has Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Johnson, Magee, Reid. If we were to add Ward to that then I think Froch probably edges it.

No he doesn't. Bear in mind that Froch is yet to beat a genuine quality super middleweight. Not one established champion beaten. Taylor, Abraham, middleweights, Johnson, Pascal light heavyweights. The only major champion at the weight Froch has fought, he lost to. Adding Ward will not eclipse Calzaghe. Adding a revenge win against Kessler and then Bute might.

That's a rather disingenous view - in his last five fights Froch has fought five world class opponents - Boxing Monthly did an article a few months ago where they compared his current run against previous British "World" champs' consecutive run of opponents & Froch's was by far the superior, even against Hatton, Naz, & as far back as Buchanan.
For me [even being a JC fan] an argument could easily be made that Froch's resume is as impressive if not more than Joe's.

[quote="Super D Boon"]

manos de piedra wrote:

Super D Boon wrote: Froch has Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Johnson, Magee, Reid. If we were to add Ward to that then I think Froch probably edges it.

No he doesn't. Bear in mind that Froch is yet to beat a genuine quality super middleweight. Not one established champion beaten. Taylor, Abraham, middleweights, Johnson, Pascal light heavyweights. The only major champion at the weight Froch has fought, he lost to. Adding Ward will not eclipse Calzaghe. Adding a revenge win against Kessler and then Bute might.

Pascal arguably Froch's best win - which subsequently looks less impressive when we see how poorly Jean does against boxers. Taylor failed to convince at 168. Abraham had already been found out by Dirrell - and has done SFA since. Dirrell still hasn't won a title. Johnson a solid win. Magee and Reid? It was Reid's ghost for a start - the guy had already retired FFS. Did he even bother to train for the fight? Trussman wanted his purse withheld for lack of effort and Magee?

So yeah - prove the loss to a 1-eyed Kessler was an aberration and beat Bute and Ward - there's a good argument to rate him higher.

But we return again to the original point - winning and holding a title for 10 years is very difficult - even in a weak division. How many 10 year CW champions have there been again?

Careers can't be defined on numbers i.e. people like Calzaghe would top many P4P lists. You always need to look at who they fought, when they fought them and who else they could have fought.

IMO Froch has already has a better CV of opponents faced and if he was to beat Ward then surely surpass the Ordinary Joe?

That's not saying Froch's CV is legend worthy by any means but Joe's was certainly far from it.

Most champions would rather test themselves in another division than hang around beating bums in a weak division. Calzaghe chose to avoid 175 for those ten years. That's another way to look at it.

I like both fighters but do get annoyed when it always seems with the anti-Calzaghe crew that:

Froch beats a shot Robin Reid and gets credit for it. Calzaghe beat a prime Reid and everyone says he lost the fight

Froch beats a 30 year old Arthur Abraham who has seen better days to win the WBC vacant belt and gets credit for it. Calzaghe beats a 31 year old Chris Eubank who has seen better days to win the vacant WBO belt and gets stick for it

Froch beats an undefeated Jean Pascal to win the WBC title and everyone gives him credit and says what a great fight it was. Calzaghe beats an undefeated Jeff Lacy in a boxing masterclass and everyone says Lacy was overhyped

Froch beats a 42 year old Glen Johnson and gets credit for it. Calzaghe stops Omar Sheika who had previously beaten a prime Glen Johnson in his last fight but gets stick for it as Sheika was never a big name

Froch loses to beats Mikkel Kessler and everyone gives him credit for fighting in Denmark. Calzaghe beats him and everyone says Kessler was one dimensional

Froch takes a close decision in Nottingham against an unproven Andre Dirrell and gets credit for it. Calzaghe goes to America and takes a close decision against the linear light heavyweight champion of the world and fellow P4P top 10 rated fighter and everyone says he lost or even if he did win Bernard Hopkins was old

Froch beats former Middleweight champion Jermain Taylor in the last 20 seconds and get credit for it. Calzaghe beats former Supermiddleweight champions Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell, Richie Woodhall and they all get classed as cherry picked bums

And the only reason Froch travelled more than Calzaghe is because big fat Mick couldn’t get him the fights in England. Froch would of loved to have fought at home a lot like Calzaghe did

As I say I'm a Froch fan but also being a big Calzaghe fan I do get annoyed at a lot of the hypocrisy from people who slate Joe and use Carl as a weapon.

There are two ways of looking at it, if one takes both their five or six best opponents there is not much in it, the middleweight caveat you can attach to Froch's is somewhat valid but is probably balanced by the fact that in Eubank and or Brewer Mitchell there was definitely an argument to be made that Joe was catching them on the downslide so swings and roundabouts.

It then becomes a question if you prize the fact Carl has had his best fights pretty much back to back or favour the countless other defences Joe has made as well as the five or six best. Is difficult as oxy has said remaining focussed and unbeaten is impressive but by the same token fighting quality back to back with no gimmes in between is no picnic.

Personally as I said earlier as much as Froch is admirable in his approach to the game it does not alter the fact that at the minute he has not proved he is the best supermiddle in the game, something Joe did beyond any question, given this much as I would love to say otherwise Joe has to have the edge for me.

Bravo Jimmy totally agree with you

[quote="Super D Boon"]

manos de piedra wrote:

Super D Boon wrote: Froch has Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, Johnson, Magee, Reid. If we were to add Ward to that then I think Froch probably edges it.

No he doesn't. Bear in mind that Froch is yet to beat a genuine quality super middleweight. Not one established champion beaten. Taylor, Abraham, middleweights, Johnson, Pascal light heavyweights. The only major champion at the weight Froch has fought, he lost to. Adding Ward will not eclipse Calzaghe. Adding a revenge win against Kessler and then Bute might.

I dont really buy that argument personally. I would rate wins Pascal and Taylor as better than Mitchell/Brewer for example notwithstanding the latter held titles at the weight. I just think Pascal and Taylor were better quality fighters and nobody outside of Calzaghe/Ottke had any real Super Middleweight legacy from that period anyhow.

A bit of a one sided view there, Jimmy. Calzaghe rightly gets a lot of kudos for his win over Lacey and against Kessler, but between them we had Bika and Manfredo!! Froch has fought class opponents at all times. Now, I do like Froch, but he did lose to Kessler in my opinion and would lose to a fit Joe. Is Froch the best super middleweight in the world? Only time will tell, but he is willing to test himself.

Even if Froch gets past Ward - and I'm not all that sure that he can - I'd still say his 168 lb reign is a little way off Calzaghe's, and I also share the already-mentioned idea that maybe, at thirty-four, he simply doesn't have enough years and fights left at Super-Middleweight to oust Joe.

That said, if he can get past Ward and avenge the Kessler loss, it's a very interesting argument. My gut feeling is that Froch may not have long enough left at 168 lb to displace Calzaghe as Britain's best ever Super-Middleweight, but maybe he could make his whole career better in collective terms if he scores a few significant wins at Light-Heavyweight. Think he'd beat the likes of Cleverly if he took him on tomorrow, to be honest, and with Hopkins soon to be gone there are lot of attractive and winnable fights at 175 lb - but of course, that's conditional on him beating Ward.

Cleverley is a much easier fight than Ward. I couldn't see Cleverley taking it as Warren would know that the belt would go to Froch

Longetivity counts in boxing so in an overall sense I dont think Froch is capable of surpassing Calzaghe (also will never be able to shake the belief Calzaghe was just a better boxer all around). But if he beats Ward I think theyre best wins column will be pretty much equal for Super Middleweight.

I think the the respective fights with Kessler indicate pretty reasonably the difference in level. Calzaghe is that bit ahead of Froch as a fighter. It doesnt always work that way in boxing but in this instance I think theyre respective fights against Kessler give a pretty fair reflection of the quality difference.

Its not hard to see why people have more admiration for Frochs way of doing things though. Calzaghe was fighting a top ten ranked Super Middleweight on average every 3 fights And in many cases the guy had already been beaten by his main rival Ottke who he never fought. Froch will never have many of the stigmas that are attached to Calzaghes career, even if he falls short of overtaking it (which I think he will).