Froch above Calzaghe?!

Good evening all !

Just interested in getting people's opinions on what Carl Froch would have to do, to be ranked above Calzaghe in the all time British p4p.. For me he's not far of now at all. I realise he has never shown the dominance that Calzaghe has, nor does he have the unbeaten record and undisputed number 1 in the division, but I just feel even without that the fighters he has fought and beat is vastly superior to Joe's record.. Now for me he is still slightly behind Calzage but hypothetically speaking if he was to rematch and beat Ward then finish of with a win against say a GGG at super middle or step up to light heavy and beat a Stevenson or a Kovalev, he would be above Calzaghe in my eyes definitely ! thoughts?

Nope......

If you read mate I said and I quote "he is still slightly behind Calzaghe for me" and the question was what does he have to do to climb above him in the all time rankings !!?

If he beat Ward before he retired, maybe picked up a strap at light heavy then he would surely have a case. Ward would be the best name on either resume.

I dont think either of those are going to happen though, and I would bet my house on him ending up below Calzaghe on any decent list. No shame in that though.


Is your username a reference to the mediocre south korean beer cass?

For me he is already ahead. Calzaghe lost to Reid and Hopkins in my opinion. Froch's resume is superior.

Cass1234 wrote:If you read mate I said and I quote "he is still slightly behind Calzaghe for me" and the question was what does he have to do to climb above him in the all time rankings !!?

I was replying to the question in the header...mate.

SugarRayBray wrote:For me he is already ahead. Calzaghe lost to Reid and Hopkins in my opinion. Froch's resume is superior.

Come on Sugar.......How many fights has Froch lost then..Certainly isn't two !!

Agree with all of that to be honest, but for me personally all he would have to do is beat Ward to be ranked above him.. Calzaghe's career for me while amazing isn't as good as it could have been, as harsh as it sounds he underachieved with the talent he had, his oppenents from 99-05 was simply dreadful and I don't understand how he got away with fighting such a low quality of opposition, also he knocked my old man out so I'm looking for any excuse to rank him slightly lower !   

If you hold Hopkins and Reid against Calzaghe, you would have to do the same for Froch against Dirrell.. I was there that night and even with the bias of being a Froch fan felt Dirrell had done enough to won..

Calzaghe has the edge in regard to not losing and beating a prime Kessler also he was a far better boxer but record wise Froch has the better names.

Hopkins is currently making Calzaghe look better every time he wins yet another world title fight so its neck and neck for me.

I think Froch has a better CV. Calzaghe would beat him 10/10 if they had ever fought

No I dont even think its close. Calzaghe was a much better fight who cleared out and unified the super middleweight division to become the real champion and then went up and beat the top recognised light heavyweight of the time. A legit 2 weight champion. Better fighter, better record, better achievements.

Do you think Calzaghe would clear out this current division?? I wouldn't say he had a better record either, I think at the moment the 3 things that are keeping him above Froch are
1. He beat a better Kessler.
2. Froch isn't undisputed (hasn't beat Ward)
3. He would beat Froch 8/10.
Now if Froch did beat Ward, he would then be undisputed would of cleared out a much better division, fought a much higher standard of opponents than Calzaghe, and by beating Ward I think would lend credibility to him potentially beating Joe head to head

The only way in which I could ever place Froch above Calzaghe is in the event of him beating Ward, I think. Even if he had lost against Groves, Carl would not have moved significantly from his place on my list of UK fighters, at somewhere around the 11 or 12 mark. Among post-war British fighters, Froch stands fifth for me, while Calzaghe is third (and sixth on my all-time list).

There isn't a vast amount in it; however, Froch's marginally superior list of opponents (is Abraham really that much better than Byron Mitchell, is Ward so much superior to Hopkins and which version of Kessler was closer to his peak?) is not sufficient for me to ignore the facts that he was well beaten by his best opponent, lost to the most significant among the opponents that he has in common with Calzaghe and has never established himself as the number one fighter in his division. That's without my opinion that Calzaghe woud have beaten him handily if they had ever faced each other in the ring.

I want to emphasise that I am a huge admirer of Froch, who is a bona fide British great in his own right. Knocking out Groves, however, does not alter his historical standing. At this stage of his career, only beating Ward can do that and it is surely significant that a rematch is the one fight for which Froch has not banged an especially enthusiastic drum.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:For me he is already ahead. Calzaghe lost to Reid and Hopkins in my opinion. Froch's resume is superior.

Come on Sugar.......How many fights has Froch lost then..Certainly isn't two !!

I just meant in respect of Calzaghe's unbeaten record being a reason for being placed above Froch.

Whereas Froch took on Groves, Calzaghe wanted no part of Froch. Similar to the way Collins laughed off facing Calzaghe.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The only way in which I could ever place Froch above Calzaghe is in the event of him beating Ward, I think. Even if he had lost against Groves, Carl would not have moved significantly from his place on my list of UK fighters, at somewhere around the 11 or 12 mark. Among post-war British fighters, Froch stands fifth for me, while Calzaghe is third (and sixth on my all-time list).

There isn't a vast amount in it; however, Froch's marginally superior list of opponents (is Abraham really that much better than Byron Mitchell, is Ward so much superior to Hopkins and which version of Kessler was closer to his peak?) is not sufficient for me to ignore the facts that he was well beaten by his best opponent, lost to the most significant among the opponents that he has in common with Calzaghe and has never established himself as the number one fighter in his division. That's without my opinion that Calzaghe woud have beaten him handily if they had ever faced each other in the ring.

I want to emphasise that I am a huge admirer of Froch, who is a bona fide British great in his own right. Knocking out Groves, however, does not alter his historical standing. At this stage of his career, only beating Ward can do that and it is surely significant that a rematch is the one fight for which Froch has not banged an especially enthusiastic drum.

This echoes my sentiments entirely, For me if Froch did beat ward and it is a massive if, I think you could make a much more convincing argument for him to beat Calzaghe, It also would mean he has avenged all his losses, beat every fighter in the division and is the established number one in the division.

I agree as well the result last night didn't alter his standings at all, I think he has cemented his place now on anyones list (whether it be top 10 or just outside) and can only go up with potential fights against Ward/GGG/Stevenson/Kolovkin

You also need to compare the list of Supermiddleweight World Champions they have beaten as well

Calzaghe has beaten:

Roy Jones Jnr
Mikkel Kessler
Jeff Lacy
Byron Mitchell
Charles Brewer
Richie Woodhall
Robin Reid
Chris Eubank

Froch has beaten:

Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler (rematch)
Robin Reid

If I have missed any Supermiddleweight Champions out on either fighter then feel free to add them

captain carrantuohil wrote:The only way in which I could ever place Froch above Calzaghe is in the event of him beating Ward, I think. Even if he had lost against Groves, Carl would not have moved significantly from his place on my list of UK fighters, at somewhere around the 11 or 12 mark. Among post-war British fighters, Froch stands fifth for me, while Calzaghe is third (and sixth on my all-time list).

There isn't a vast amount in it; however, Froch's marginally superior list of opponents (is Abraham really that much better than Byron Mitchell, is Ward so much superior to Hopkins and which version of Kessler was closer to his peak?) is not sufficient for me to ignore the facts that he was well beaten by his best opponent, lost to the most significant among the opponents that he has in common with Calzaghe and has never established himself as the number one fighter in his division. That's without my opinion that Calzaghe woud have beaten him handily if they had ever faced each other in the ring.

I want to emphasise that I am a huge admirer of Froch, who is a bona fide British great in his own right. Knocking out Groves, however, does not alter his historical standing. At this stage of his career, only beating Ward can do that and it is surely significant that a rematch is the one fight for which Froch has not banged an especially enthusiastic drum.

Don't know if you heard Froch on talksport this morning but he basically admitted that Ward is a far better fighter then himself and should they meet for a rematch then Froch's only hope would be a ko. Have to give Froch credit for saying something most fighters would never admit.

I sense that the reason Froch v Ward 2 is not being hyped is because Froch simply does not fancy it. Having shared a ring with Ward he knows how good he is and knows his limitations that were exposed by Ward.

Calzaghe was a great fighter, but I sometimes question his willingness to fight the best in their pomp. Would Calzaghe have taken on Ward like Froch did?

SugarRayBray wrote:Calzaghe was a great fighter, but I sometimes question his willingness to fight the best in their pomp. Would Calzaghe have taken on Ward like Froch did?

I guess we will never know. If Calzaghe had been a bit younger and had been in the Super 6 then he probably would have had to

Steffan wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:Calzaghe was a great fighter, but I sometimes question his willingness to fight the best in their pomp. Would Calzaghe have taken on Ward like Froch did?

I guess we will never know. If Calzaghe had been a bit younger and had been in the Super 6 then he probably would have had to

I think he obsessed over keeping his 0 intact, and that may have prevented him from entering the Super 6?

SugarRayBray wrote:

Steffan wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:Calzaghe was a great fighter, but I sometimes question his willingness to fight the best in their pomp. Would Calzaghe have taken on Ward like Froch did?

I guess we will never know. If Calzaghe had been a bit younger and had been in the Super 6 then he probably would have had to

I think he obsessed over keeping his 0 intact, and that may have prevented him from entering the Super 6?

Again something we will never know. Agree he was a bit obsessed with his 0. Had he broken away from Warren though prior to the Super 6 then this might have influenced it

My gut feeling is Calzaghe would have avoided Ward like the plague though for me it would be a 50/50 fight.. As I said previously Im not the biggest fan of Joe at all.. But people go on about Naz not fulfilling his talent but I think Joe is just as guilty...

Cass1234 wrote:My gut feeling is Calzaghe would have avoided Ward like the plague though for me it would be a 50/50 fight.. As I said previously Im not the biggest fan of Joe at all.. But people go on about Naz not fulfilling his talent but I think Joe is just as guilty...

Why did Joe knockout your old man for then?

Beat him in the ring mate, and anyone that did that I took an instant dislike to !!   

He has always spoke very highly of Calzaghe though, said he was the hardest puncher he fought which I think he doesn't get enough credit for the power he had before his hands went..

Steffan wrote:

Cass1234 wrote:My gut feeling is Calzaghe would have avoided Ward like the plague though for me it would be a 50/50 fight.. As I said previously Im not the biggest fan of Joe at all.. But people go on about Naz not fulfilling his talent but I think Joe is just as guilty...

Why did Joe knockout your old man for then?

Who are we talking about? :-p

Your old man sounds a decent enough bloke. Was this during the amateurs then?

No one anyone but the most avid of 90s boxing fans would know, fought most the top british super middles though.. more of a journey man to be honest with you, and 10000 times more successful at kickboxing, took most the fights short notice as well, in fact when he fought Robin Reid he got offered the fight the night before at a family BBQ accepted it steaming, got woken up the next day by his manager, hungover and no idea he had agreed to the fight ..   

Steffan wrote:Your old man sounds a decent enough bloke. Was this during the amateurs then?

ha Im sure anyone who praises Calzaghe does to you   No Pro mate!

I prefer Froch's attitude to taking on a challenge and whilst his recent run of opponents is mightily impressive, 11 top ten ranked opponents in his 12 title fights is almost untouchable today he doesn't have the ability of Calzaghe.

Calzaghe has every attribute Froch has and more, he's got the granite chin, toughness and has better stamina but on top of that he's quicker, slicker and trickier, there isn't a single area where Froch has the upper hand other than power. His power advantage is negated by the fact he doesn't hit hard enough to stop Joe nor is he quick enough to hit him often enough.

As for records, well Froch has the better win column by a significant margin but losing to the two best men he's faced does unfortunately put Calzaghe's overall record above him.

Combine Froch's take on anybody attitude and Calzaghe's natural talent then you would have one hell of a boxer and record.

For me there is no British fighter ever that has all round high quality attributes like Calzaghe. yet there is at least 7 for me that rank above him in an all time list..
I think if Froch beat Ward you could definitely make a compelling argument for him beating Calzaghe, as I think they are on a similar level..
Definitely if Calzaghe had the take all comers on attitude of Froch we would be talking about the greatest British fight ever.

Froch must be seriously close to Calzaghe now in terms of resume, however in a fight Calzaghe would clown Froch and probably make him look as bad as lacy.

I wouldn't quite that far, he'd win comfortably but Froch is in a different stratosphere to Lacy, would expect a similar margin of victory he had over Kessler.

While Calzgahe may be rated over Froch, I have to say that Froch's reign has definitely been more exciting than Calzaghe's. The truth of it was even though I'm a boxing fan, I would yawn when I heard who Calzaghe was fighting next. His reign generally did nothing for me and was about as exciting as washing the dishes. On top of that, he held the WBO strap, the weakest belt of the four major belts and with some of the most dubious challengers I've ever seen ranked. Calzaghe was a good fighter with plenty of abilty, which is were he edges Froch but as title reigns go, he's behind Froch for me.

I wouldn't use the two losses against Froch either in this debate. Nobody knows how Calzaghe would have done against Ward either, or whether Calzaghe would have taken the fight at all.

A tougher comparison might be between Froch and Kessler in an overall sense. Far harder to split, I would have thought. Each has lost in the other's backyard, losing little caste in doing so; each has travelled to take on tough fighters throughout his career and generally beaten them; each has met Ward on the American's own territory (Kessler absolutely so) and has been outclassed for his pains.

Kessler, of course, has the extra loss to Calzaghe on his CV, but I agree totally with HH's assessment that the Froch of 2007/8 would have lost by a similar margin to Kessler if he had fought Joe then. Not much in it, either, if one considers the two fighters' quality of opposition, really. Slight edge to Froch perhaps, certainly over the last two or three years, but in general, I find calling the difference between Kessler and Froch to be an extremely difficult objective task. With that in mind, it suddenly seems much easier to place Calzaghe clearly above both of them.

I guess you could argue that jc got Kessler at home and froch got the better version of the two Kessler's he fought, away. But ultimately, Kessler is the only direct comparable we have. Ignoring any style's make fights stuff, Calzaghe was clearly the more impressive.

Agree with the captain, that the gap between Kessler and froch is wafer thin. Froch has the better win column I'd say, but you can argue that Kessler won the fight in which he was nearer to prime.

I think it's a really close call between the two. Few things to consider:

Calzaghe beat Kessler in Wales; Froch took him on (and lost) in Denmark. As the Super Six showed, home advantage can prove crucial.

Froch took on Ward (again away from home); Calzaghe didn't show any inclination to face Jones - the Ward of his era - in his pomp.

Calzaghe's greatest win came against Hopkins. That was a really close, scrappy fight that could quite easily have gone the other way.

.. And jc took on the unbeaten younger, arguably fresher more confident Kessler.

Who wins head to head, for you haz? Can't see past Calzaghe UD myself.

Head to head I think Joe widely outscores him.

Looking at their records, though, it's a closer call.

Steady, haz! To be fair to Calzaghe, he became WBO super-middleweight champ for the first time a year after Jones won his first light-heavyweight belt. As late as 1999-2000, Joe was struggling past men such as Thornberry, Robin Reid and Starie - the idea of him appearing on the same bill as Jones at that stage was ridiculous, let alone the sharing the same ring, forgetting for one moment the fact that they were operating in different divisions.

By the time Joe was properly box-office news, Roy had become a busted flush. When, precisely, could Joe possibly have taken on RJJ "in his pomp" and at what weight?

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/i-am-the-best-says-honest-joe-6352495.html

While it may not have been viable (realistically) due to Jones having bigger fish to fry Calzaghe didn't help matters by being content to fight men he knew he had the beating of (usually at home).

Calzaghe missed a fair few big name fighters that he could have made an offer to. An admittedly aggrieved Warren claimed he had confidence issues - he very nearly withdrew from the fight that made him against Lacy.

Great fighter but I much prefer Froch's approach to taking risky fights.

Not necessarily on this thread but i find the Froch bashing on the board pretty tiresome. People are entitled to their opinions but as a successful British boxer shouldn't we celebrate his achievements? Sure, the guy isn't the most technically blessed boxer but one thing he has in abundance is heart and bottle. I thought us Brits loved that. He's never ducked anyone. He's fought in America, fought in Denmark, and has been in a dozen consecutive world title fights. Unlike 'national heroes' like Hatton and Calzaghe, Froch is never in the news for the wrong reasons. He's a devoted family man. He trains hard and fights harder.

I'm not his number one fan but after I watched him beat Pascal boy do I respect what he's done since then. Credit to the guy, he probably wouldn't beat a prime, slick Calzaghe but as a British boxing fan there are a lot more pros than cons against Carl Froch's legacy in my eyes.

Amen to all of that, Mr H. His accomplishments have been extraordinary and he well deserves all his accolades. A triumph of substance over style.

Its a boxing board mr h, people have their favourites. Someone bigs someone up, it leads to someone else countering it. It's just what happens. I've done some froch bashing, because I find some of the superlatives for a guy who is the number 2 super middle in the world a little ott. However, i don't think its bashing him to rate Calzaghe higher, and I think pretty much everyone, who has any semblance of objectivity is a great admirer of his attitude to matchmaking , his professionalism and his belligerence and toughness in the ring.

Belligerent is the best way of describing him.

the level of constantly high opposition fight after fight makes me think of froch in a higher regard to calzaghe. however, joe was a very special talent, a better boxer and a 2 weight undefeated champ. it's just his resume isn't anywhere near what froch's is. he has a win over hopkins which is great, but so does dawson and he isn't anything special.

Froch isn't on Calzaghe's level, Joe is the greatest British fighter of modern times in my opinion. More talented than Lennox in my eyes.

The Kessler that fought Calzaghe would easy beat Froch. A slightly shop worn Kessler put Froch away in the first fight.

Frochs opposition is overrated in relation to Calzahe. Guys like Abraham and Bute had big reps when they fought him but actually werent all that good. Abraham especially was seriousy average.

The likes of Jones and Hopkins were never actually in Calzaghes super middleweight divion which Calzaghe cleared out in the end. He did step up and beat Hopkins. Calzaghe gets stick for not facing them but if you are going to do that then you have to give Froch the same standards for not moving up and beating the top light heavyweight (which Calzaghe also did.)

Froch fought and lost to Ward and Kessler which were the two best opponents he faced in my opinion. Calzaghe beat Kessler and Hopkins which were the two best he faced probably. If Jones Jr was in the light heavyweight division all the while Froch was at Super middleweight would Froch be accused of avoiding him for not stepping up? If so then why not obligate Froch to face a top light heavyweight?

I dont really think its close between Calzaghe and Froch. Calzaghe by a distance.