Frochs Comments about Hatton

First topic message reminder :

I read these comments Froch made and it sounds to me like he is being very disrespectful of Hatton who is making his comeback soon:

"I have not won every single fight every time I have stepped through the ropes but I don't get outclassed. I lose close points decisions but I can put it right against Kessler and Ward - I know I can."

Froch defended his IBF super middleweight by flooring his opponent in the first round before leaving Mack on the canvas again in the third.

He added: "I don't get spectacularly knocked out like some other British fighters who think they are superstars.

"I am in my prime and I am ready for anybody. I have proved that with the people I have fought.

His comments about being knocked out must be a dig at Hatton who he is probably jealous of and what planet is he living on when he said he does not get outclassed?? He has lost twice already! Someone needs to remind Froch how overrated he is thanks to Sky and that he is not in the same league as fighters like Hatton and Calzaghe who he is obsessed with. Hatton was a class act and was only beaten by the two best fighters in the world not by the kind of fighters Froch has lost to. Somebody tell this guy to get a grip!

Yeah but Michales you're just a Cobra nuthugger. Making one quote does not make Froch "admired around the world". Oh yes and the fact he's "English" no doubt pleases you. But I dare say most people in Asia, Australasia, South America, most of America and even Europe have barely heard of Carl Froch!

As for Calzaghe being dull the same could be levelled on Andre Ward. As good as he is almost each of his fights ends up in 6 minutes of boxing and half an hour of wrestling. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as it were.

Not really. Stopped watching boxing 12 months ago because it was generally uninspiring and full of greedy, self serving people. Froch is the only guy I still tune in to. In spite of his occasional undesirable arrogance he has been the best 'watch' for the last 3 or 4 years now. It's just a throwback to another time when a decent boxer would fight the best people around him.

What is a nuthugger?!

Gordy wrote:What is a nuthugger?!

It is a colloquialism Gordy. Someone who has a non-heterosexual admiration of another.

DAVE667 wrote:Calzaghe's record in no way reflects his actual ability. If they fought "peak for peak" I'd look at Calzaghe doing to Froch what Ward did to him. No disrespect to Carl but Calzaghe was a much more skilled fighter.

Daruisz M may have been one tough nut but RJJ was always going to run rings around him if they fought. It's all about levels and I believe that whilst no-one is getting widely outclassed, Calzaghe has the edge for me.

Pretty much agree with this. JC was half a level above Froch in terms of ability and I'd back him to take a decision over Froch 4 times out of 5. On balance I'd probably say Froch's record makes better reading. Eubank, Lacy, Kessler & Hopkins are all excellent wins for Joe, but there's no doubt he spent far too much of his career in his comfort zone, defending in Wales against the Manfredo Juniors & Pudwells of the world - to say he retired an undefeated champ with a ten year reign his record is actually quite thin. That said, he outstrips Froch in terms of achievements. Froch has the losses to his name but he's a risk taker, you have to wonder if Joe took more risks over the years would he have come unstuck? Maybe. On balance Joe is the better fighter and the bigger achiever, but I prefer Froch and his career.

.....again I write a direct reply, see sense, and then delete it.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Calzaghe's record in no way reflects his actual ability. If they fought "peak for peak" I'd look at Calzaghe doing to Froch what Ward did to him. No disrespect to Carl but Calzaghe was a much more skilled fighter.

Daruisz M may have been one tough nut but RJJ was always going to run rings around him if they fought. It's all about levels and I believe that whilst no-one is getting widely outclassed, Calzaghe has the edge for me.

Pretty much agree with this. JC was half a level above Froch in terms of ability and I'd back him to take a decision over Froch 4 times out of 5. On balance I'd probably say Froch's record makes better reading. Eubank, Lacy, Kessler & Hopkins are all excellent wins for Joe, but there's no doubt he spent far too much of his career in his comfort zone, defending in Wales against the Manfredo Juniors & Pudwells of the world - to say he retired an undefeated champ with a ten year reign his record is actually quite thin. That said, he outstrips Froch in terms of achievements. Froch has the losses to his name but he's a risk taker, you have to wonder if Joe took more risks over the years would he have come unstuck? Maybe. On balance Joe is the better fighter and the bigger achiever, but I prefer Froch and his career.

I knew I should have voted for you on the speaks most sense award.

It is an understandable huge leap of incorrect logic to go straight to Hatton. It is unforgiveable to be faced with so much evidence that he wasn't talking about Hatton and still say everyone else is wrong. Admit your wrong and you will get a lot more respect.

That said, I am disappointed in Froch comments. He should have just let his performance speak for itself.

seanmichaels wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Calzaghe's record in no way reflects his actual ability. If they fought "peak for peak" I'd look at Calzaghe doing to Froch what Ward did to him. No disrespect to Carl but Calzaghe was a much more skilled fighter.

Daruisz M may have been one tough nut but RJJ was always going to run rings around him if they fought. It's all about levels and I believe that whilst no-one is getting widely outclassed, Calzaghe has the edge for me.

Pretty much agree with this. JC was half a level above Froch in terms of ability and I'd back him to take a decision over Froch 4 times out of 5. On balance I'd probably say Froch's record makes better reading. Eubank, Lacy, Kessler & Hopkins are all excellent wins for Joe, but there's no doubt he spent far too much of his career in his comfort zone, defending in Wales against the Manfredo Juniors & Pudwells of the world - to say he retired an undefeated champ with a ten year reign his record is actually quite thin. That said, he outstrips Froch in terms of achievements. Froch has the losses to his name but he's a risk taker, you have to wonder if Joe took more risks over the years would he have come unstuck? Maybe. On balance Joe is the better fighter and the bigger achiever, but I prefer Froch and his career.

I knew I should have voted for you on the speaks most sense award.

I'd be happy with a nod for most underrated poster

Alma, I agree that Calzaghe wins, but a much wider points victory. However, if I had the choice of seeing a Calzaghe fight or a Froch fight, I would go for Froch. I really respect his take on all comers attitude and I hope it continues for a couple more years at least.

I think Calzaghe wins by 5 or 6 rounds in the US. In the UK I'm not so sure.

Funny how Calzaghe never had to withdraw with hand troubles when he was fighting absolute gash.

Calzaghe avoided every big name out there. He fought Eubank when Eubank was well past his best fought hopkins when hopkins had recently lost 2 fights. fought jones when he was well past it.

lets not forget hopkins was about 43 when he fought calzaghe

victorgarco wrote:Calzaghe avoided every big name out there. He fought Eubank when Eubank was well past his best fought hopkins when hopkins had recently lost 2 fights. fought jones when he was well past it.

I'm not a great Calzaghe fan (despite Herman's accusations that I spend my time writing books about him and wistfully gazing at posters of him), but let's be reasonable, Victor. Calzaghe never chose Eubank as an opponent. He was signed to fight Collins for the WBO Super-Middleweight title, but Collins retired on medical grounds not long before the fight, at which point Eubank stepped in as a replacement. And he gave Calzaghe a damn good fight, too.

As for Hopkins, well yes, he'd been beaten twice by Taylor, albeit controversially second time out. But in the meantime he'd dazzled Tarver to defeat, defying the bookies again, and had also beaten Wright, admittedly a little overmatched in terms of size. Forty-three or not, he was the top man at Light-Heavyweight when Calzaghe fought him, and a few months after that fight was handing out a boxing lesson to the hitherto unbeaten (and highly fancied) Pavlik, once more leaving the bookies weeping, and was still good enough to claim a very legimitate world title as late as last year against Pascal.

victorgarco wrote:Calzaghe avoided every big name out there

Like who?

victorgarco wrote:He fought Eubank when Eubank was well past his best

And that was Calzaghes fault? That Steve Collins retired and Eubank came in for the vacant title late?

victorgarco wrote:fought hopkins when hopkins had recently lost 2 fights

Hopkins was coming into to the Calzaghe fight with wins over Tarver and Winky Wright at LHW and was the Ring Champion?

victorgarco wrote:fought jones when he was well past it

I agree. You do speak some sense here. 1 out of 4 aint bad I guess

88Chris05 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Calzaghe avoided every big name out there. He fought Eubank when Eubank was well past his best fought hopkins when hopkins had recently lost 2 fights. fought jones when he was well past it.

I'm not a great Calzaghe fan (despite Herman's accusations that I spend my time writing books about him and wistfully gazing at posters of him), but let's be reasonable, Victor. Calzaghe never chose Eubank as an opponent. He was signed to fight Collins for the WBO Super-Middleweight title, but Collins retired on medical grounds not long before the fight, at which point Eubank stepped in as a replacement. And he gave Calzaghe a damn good fight, too.

As for Hopkins, well yes, he'd been beaten twice by Taylor, albeit controversially second time out. But in the meantime he'd dazzled Tarver to defeat, defying the bookies again, and had also beaten Wright, admittedly a little overmatched in terms of size. Forty-three or not, he was the top man at Light-Heavyweight when Calzaghe fought him, and a few months after that fight was handing out a boxing lesson to the hitherto unbeaten (and highly fancied) Pavlik, once more leaving the bookies weeping, and was still good enough to claim a very legimitate world title as late as last year against Pascal.

When people list calzaghes great wins they usually list Eubank lacy, hopkins, kessler and jones. I would only rate Kessler and lacy as great wins. With regards to Hopkins I think it was a good win but when you are fighting a guy who is 43 who at the time had I think 5 losses to his name including 2 losses in his last 4 fights I can't rate it as a great win. A solid victory but not a great win.

Calzaghe had I think 46 fights and only 2/3 of them are against highly rated opponents.

"When people list calzaghes great wins they usually list Eubank lacy, hopkins, kessler and jones. " A fair statement I'd say, with a nine year gap between Eubank and Lacy. In nine years, he could have and should have fought a better class of opposition. He had the talent, but not the ambition.

A lot of fighters are rated at the time and are subsequently found wanting still have to be fought. Veit, Reid, Brewer, mitchell all not great fighters but decent level operators. Veit in particular was rated very highly - Calzaghe totalled him. Then again in the rematch for the title. Ottke was the only one he didn't fight and after what happened to reid - I'm not surprised.

Curry was better than all of them............

Sha, a fair enough comment if these were the fighters he fought in between the top level fights. Instead, these were the best with some pretty woeful match ups inbetween them. A talent wasted

Not very subtle, Truss, even by your lofty standards!

Thats true enough yet hattons only win is an old Tzysu and he got humiliated in both his matches at the elite level. A lot of little fighters along the way but his only genuine high level win is Kosta. Add malignaggi Collazo and lazcano and an ancient castillo the moderate level wins then whats left. Hatton didn't even have the caveat of being awkward and hard to sell.

Fair enough comment about talent wasted - he ought to have fought Roy Jones at least but I think unintentionally (and in some cases intentionally) these things are overlooked. Calzaghe broke his hand three times prior to the lacy fight twice before Glen Johnson fights (cancelled) and once in the fight immediately before Lacy. He also broke it in the 8th or 9th round of the Lacy fight. Warren said that it was nearly impossible to get him a big fight as he was awkward, not a big name and people were reluctant to sign with a guy who could cancel at any minute due to his frail hands.

I think there was a whole lot calzaghe could have done to make the big fights but the blame doesn't rest squarely on his shoulders - circumstance, Warren, and general boxing politics have to shoulder their part too.

Warren said it was impossible to get him in a big fight because he didn't have the confidence actually.

What a mean-spirited thing to say.

Frock's comments just demonstrate that not only is he a bad loser (Kessler) but he is also a bad winner.

No class at all.

JC would run rings around this crude, face first, one dimensional slugger.



emancipator

Its Amir Khan all day, he doesn't get the recognition of Amir Khan despite being more exciting and a better fighter.

Some people are so sensitive... He called someone a name, boo hoo... It has been an ongoing spat for years now.

Odious creature.

Shah, all reasonable comments and I also put a lot of the blame firmly at Warren. When he says Calzaghe was difficult to get big fights for because he was akward, then he should explain why no one in his stable tends to get big fights. One common denominator!

88Chris05 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Calzaghe avoided every big name out there. He fought Eubank when Eubank was well past his best fought hopkins when hopkins had recently lost 2 fights. fought jones when he was well past it.

I'm not a great Calzaghe fan (despite Herman's accusations that I spend my time writing books about him and wistfully gazing at posters of him), but let's be reasonable, Victor. Calzaghe never chose Eubank as an opponent. He was signed to fight Collins for the WBO Super-Middleweight title, but Collins retired on medical grounds not long before the fight, at which point Eubank stepped in as a replacement. And he gave Calzaghe a damn good fight, too.

As for Hopkins, well yes, he'd been beaten twice by Taylor, albeit controversially second time out. But in the meantime he'd dazzled Tarver to defeat, defying the bookies again, and had also beaten Wright, admittedly a little overmatched in terms of size. Forty-three or not, he was the top man at Light-Heavyweight when Calzaghe fought him, and a few months after that fight was handing out a boxing lesson to the hitherto unbeaten (and highly fancied) Pavlik, once more leaving the bookies weeping, and was still good enough to claim a very legimitate world title as late as last year against Pascal.

Hopkins would be the bookies best friend! They prefer the favourite to lose normally.

Most astute, Manos. Swap 'bookies' with 'punters', please everyone! One of my dafter moments, there....

victorgarco wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Calzaghe avoided every big name out there. He fought Eubank when Eubank was well past his best fought hopkins when hopkins had recently lost 2 fights. fought jones when he was well past it.

I'm not a great Calzaghe fan (despite Herman's accusations that I spend my time writing books about him and wistfully gazing at posters of him), but let's be reasonable, Victor. Calzaghe never chose Eubank as an opponent. He was signed to fight Collins for the WBO Super-Middleweight title, but Collins retired on medical grounds not long before the fight, at which point Eubank stepped in as a replacement. And he gave Calzaghe a damn good fight, too.

As for Hopkins, well yes, he'd been beaten twice by Taylor, albeit controversially second time out. But in the meantime he'd dazzled Tarver to defeat, defying the bookies again, and had also beaten Wright, admittedly a little overmatched in terms of size. Forty-three or not, he was the top man at Light-Heavyweight when Calzaghe fought him, and a few months after that fight was handing out a boxing lesson to the hitherto unbeaten (and highly fancied) Pavlik, once more leaving the bookies weeping, and was still good enough to claim a very legimitate world title as late as last year against Pascal.

When people list calzaghes great wins they usually list Eubank lacy, hopkins, kessler and jones. I would only rate Kessler and lacy as great wins. With regards to Hopkins I think it was a good win but when you are fighting a guy who is 43 who at the time had I think 5 losses to his name including 2 losses in his last 4 fights I can't rate it as a great win. A solid victory but not a great win.

Calzaghe had I think 46 fights and only 2/3 of them are against highly rated opponents.

I think Hopkins is a better win than that by virtue of him outclassing Tarver and then going on to beat Pavlik and Pascal proving he was by now means finished. But I would agree with you in terms of the diluted nature of Calzaghe record.

Froch will never have the stigma of avoiding big fights or fighting no marks, but if one is drawing a comparison with Calzaghe I think its important to recognie he did actually lose to the two top guys he faced. Something Calzaghe avoided. In terms of opposition beat Frochs is alot more compact in sofar as he fought them one after another but I still think Calzaghes overall is comparable in terms of Eubank, Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and then supporting fights such as Bika, Mitchell, Reid, Brewer. Some of his fights can be picked at but you can do the same to Froch.

For me, the only area that Froch can really trump Calzaghe in is in terms of ambition. In nearly every other aspect of a legacy I think Calzaghe rates higher, from actual ability, to longetivity, to acheivements etc

Froch lost to Kessler yea, but these things happen when you fight umpteen top quality fighters in a row. I'm pretty confident if Joe fought Ward he would also lose.

Manos de Piedra: Froch will never have the stigma of avoiding big fights or fighting no marks, but if one is drawing a comparison with Calzaghe I think its important to recognie he did actually lose to the two top guys he faced
-------------
Ward yes, but I believe Bute was rated higher than Kessler for the last couple of years - certainly when Froch fought each if them? It could be said of the top two guys he's fought he's 1-1. I do think Kessler is an excellent fighter, but when I look at his record I wonder where the quality is; Froch himself is kesslers biggest win, could it be argued that Kessler gets looked upon generously because of his style and good performance in the first half if the JC fight? Just a thought.

Interesting one isn't it, Sugar Boy.

I think there was perhaps more hype around Buté when he fought Froch than there was Kessler, for sure, but I don't think I'd put him ahead of the Dane. With Buté, although it's clear that he was a good world level operator, there was still a bit of guesswork afoot when people rated him. I think that he was perhaps rated to a degree on what people thought me might be capable of and who they thought he could beat.

With Kessler, it's different, as he was more tested at the top level; unified the WBC and WBA, was the first man to fully extend Calzaghe at 168 lb in years, and had not had the deck stacked in his favour as often as Buté had (for instance, going to Australia and doing a job on Mundine).

Kessler was soundly outboxed against the elite, whereas Buté was absolutely annihilated once he stepped up to take on Froch. It's worth noting that Kessler also rebounded from his defeats to Calzaghe and Ward pretty well, whereas the jury is still out on Buté. What he does in the future will help to shape this debate.

But right now, I think you'd have to put Kessler ahead. You could maybe argue that Pascal, given his 175 lb exploits, could conceivably be seen as better than Kessler, mind you. But at 168 lb at the very least, Froch losing to the two best men he's faced is a harsh but also inescapable truth, for me.

calzaghe would beat froch, for me calzaghe at home had a style that was very very hard to beat. he fought more often than not in front of home fans who every time he would unless his combos (something he did a lot of) the crowd would go wild and they would score well with the judges even though not all of them hit and they lacked power. added to that his great chin and great stamina to be able to do this over 12 rounds tough one to beat on points.

if he fought over in the us he would have had a harder times of things, his only meaning full fight over there was a split decision. which there wasnt much between them at all. i have a younger hopkins with more gas in his tank beating calzaghe in the us. i will never watch that fight again but there really wasnt much in it imo, calzaghe barely landed a clean punch all fight.

so one very tight fight in the us against a atg who even though was still a very tough test was certainly past his best isnt great, he shouldnt even have these question marks over him. at least with froch and hatton we know as they went over and fought the best in thier back yard when they were at thier peak something which calzaghe never did

Interesting point about the crowd's influence. I reckon if the Kessler Froch fight was in Nottingham it would have gone Froch's way. Likewise would Calzaghe have had such a dominant second half against Kessler if he'd been in Denmark? It is why it is so difficult to compare these guys.

In fairness to Froch, there are a couple of interviews in which he acknowledges that he'd have little chance of outpointing Calzaghe over twelve, and that he'd have to be aiming to put him (and keep him) down.

It's interesting that all of Calzaghe's four career knockdowns (this is going from memory, mind you!) came inside the first couple of rounds. There might be a suggestion, then, that Froch would need to set an unbelievable pace early on and try to catch Calzaghe cold, which was perhaps a pitfall the Welshman was vulnerable against on this evidence.

Froch hasn't been the best or quickest starter himself in the past, but has been taking steps towards correcting that against Buté and Mack. I think he probably needs to take Calzaghe out very, very early to win this one. If Calzaghe is given time to settle and get his engine going then he pulls away from Froch, I think.

Can't see Froch taking Calzaghe out, though. Calzaghe by a hard-fought but well-deserved decision for me, still.

88Chris05 wrote:

Can't see Froch taking Calzaghe out, though. Calzaghe by a hard-fought but well-deserved decision for me, still.

still hugging that nut I see Chris, how is the book getting on?

88Chris05 wrote:
It's interesting that all of Calzaghe's four career knockdowns (this is going from memory, mind you!) came inside the first couple of rounds. There might be a suggestion, then, that Froch would need to set an unbelievable pace early on and try to catch Calzaghe cold, which was perhaps a pitfall the Welshman was vulnerable against on this evidence.

The only caveat I would add to that, Chris, is that Eubank hurt Joe badly right at the end of round 12 the night Joe won his first title. Calzaghe was clinging on for dear life and if that had been at the beginning of the round, he would have been in big trouble. Joe was green at the time and maybe didn't pace himself as well as later in his career, but I wouldn't rule out Froch stopping him late either. He showed against Taylor that he is dangerous right to the end of 12 rounds. Taylor is no Calzaghe, I appreciate that, but it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that in a tough grueling fight, Froch could catch a tiring Calzaghe late and take him out. Froch is hard man with great fitness.

Having said that, I would expect Joe to outpoint Carl more often than not, but it would be a treacherous nights work for him throughout.

Not bad thanks Jeff, suffering with a bit of writer's block at the moment though as I try to do justice to the Tocker Pudwill fight. Will likely devote a whole chapter to it.

88Chris05 wrote:Not bad thanks Jeff, suffering with a bit of writer's block at the moment though as I try to do justice to the Tocker Pudwill fight. Will likely devote a whole chapter to it.

Think The Last Great Fight Chris or Shelby's Folly, some fights are of such a magnitude they require a book all of their own.

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Not bad thanks Jeff, suffering with a bit of writer's block at the moment though as I try to do justice to the Tocker Pudwill fight. Will likely devote a whole chapter to it.

Think The Last Great Fight Chris or Shelby's Folly, some fights are of such a magnitude they require a book all of their own.

I am going to put it out there, I think The Last Great Fight is overrated. It is a decent book but I really don't get the hype around it. The parts on Buster's emotional state are very good but apart from that, it is just a decent effort at describing a great event.

There, I have said it now.

You're entitled to your opinion Tina, as misguided as it clearly is, will accept it's no No Ordinary Joe but it is still a good read.

Pudwill was of course the inspiration for Michael Jackson's Smooth Criminal "lean" dance move...

Spoiler:

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:You're entitled to your opinion Tina, as misguided as it clearly is, will accept it's no No Ordinary Joe but it is still a good read.

I put it somewhere between No Ordinary Joe and Oscar De La Hoya's gem of a book that should have been up for a Pulitzer.

It’s an odd one Alma because with Haye it is clear what he is interested in at heavy and that is making the maximum amount of money for as little effort or risk as possible, that is why he fights guys he has previously dismissed such as Harrison or Chisora the minute the money is right for doing so, however you would struggle to imagine this is the case with Joe because how much money can there be in the likes of Thornberry and Pudwill.

However you do have to question why, if Joe was genuinely wanting to test himself against the best he would be ten years with a promoter who for so long failed to deliver anything that come close to meeting that criteria.

Wasn't Hopkins the first guy to break Calzaghe's nose?

Haye is actually coming across as quite likeable on I'm A Celebrity (according to the missus).

Have great respect for Froch but he consistently seems like a jealous so and so when he comes out with inferencing digs like this. Why he can't just get on with his own fights and quit these jibes, is beyond me. It does nothing for his image which isn't the most charasmatic as it is!

Gordy wrote:He doesnt mention anyone by name but it could only be aimed at Hatton. Guys like Haye, Khan and Harrison are not superstars but Hatton was. Sounds like more jealousy from Froch. Maybe Hatton shoul remind him he has lost to fighters far worse or Calzaghe should remind him he beat Kessler and never lost!

Trolling or simpleton: which is it?