Froch above Calzaghe?!

First topic message reminder :

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?

If Abraham and Bute can be dismissed as top class wins (not sure I agree) then can we also dismiss Lacy as just not that good? Joe gets a lot of credit for that performance.

Hopkins is the best win on either record.

Agreed. Bute was a better SM than Lacy.

Bute was to froch what lacy was to Calzaghe. Big reps that weren't entirely merited. But hindsight isn't always fair in boxing. Eg. Was Mugabi all hype or did hagler just take his heart and confidence? Often its a bit of both.

Lacey looked better before jc than after, though he 'd fought little of any note to really qualify judgement. Bute to me, always looked like a good boxer but from the andrade fight, an accident waiting to happen.

Good wins, not great ones, not as good as they perhaps seemed at the time.

Was thinking about this yesterday, and as much as I rate Joe, I now have Carl ahead.

Wins against Kessler, Taylor, Groves twice, Byte, Abraham, Direll and Pascal are certainly better than joes wins against Jones Jr and Manfredo Jr/Lacy. In my eyes.

Hopefully he finishes off against Ward in Vegas. Or Chavez.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Was thinking about this yesterday, and as much as I rate Joe, I now have Carl ahead.

Wins against Kessler, Taylor, Groves twice, Byte, Abraham, Direll and Pascal are certainly better than joes wins against Jones Jr and Manfredo Jr/Lacy. In my eyes.

Hopefully he finishes off against Ward in Vegas. Or Chavez.

Very balanced comparisons of opponents there.

milkyboy wrote:Bute was to froch what lacy was to Calzaghe. Big reps that weren't entirely merited. But hindsight isn't always fair in boxing. Eg. Was Mugabi all hype or did hagler just take his heart and confidence? Often its a bit of both.

Lacey looked better before jc than after, though he 'd fought little of any note to really qualify judgement. Bute to me, always looked like a good boxer but from the andrade fight, an accident waiting to happen.

Good wins, not great ones, not as good as they perhaps seemed at the time.

Yes I agree with this. But it seems Froch benefits more from his wins over decent but overrated opponents than Calzaghe does. I see Bute, Abraham and Johnson rattled off as top wins and Lacy, Brewer and Mitchell being dismissed.

At the end of the day Froch was beaten by the two top fighters he faced as well when Calzaghe wasnt and became a legit champion in two weight classes. Another aspect that seems to get lost when Frochs list of opponents are rattled off.

Can never see Froch getting ahead of Calzaghe (unless he magically beats Ward, who's better than anything JC ever fought) as, as close as their records may get, the h2h always splits them for me. Just can't see Carl beating Joe.

Froch will always be in Calzaghe's shadow, which is unlucky for him that his career immediately followed JC's.

If he beats Ward then you could start making a valid argument for him having the better career but unless that happens everything else is just further securing his legacy as Britain's second best super middle weight and topping up his retirement fund.

pretty much going with the consensus on this one. Froch would need to beat Ward for the comparison to be valid IMO. I suspect he has little interest in rematching Ward at this stage of his career anyway, so the discussion is moot.

IF however Froch were to beat Ward, then it would be very tight between the two. Froch would have the better wins, and better opposition in general, but Froch also has those two losses against the best fighters he faced.

First thing - Froch has an outstanding CV - I wish Calzaghe had been able to (whether this was will or joint failure, who knows) fight the same calibre of opponents as frequently.

For Froch to match Calzaghe - he'd need to be the best in his division, preferably in two - he can't quite do that on his record at the moment. Ward is a highly skilled and talented operator - but handled Froch pretty comprehensively. So whilst I respect his talent, resume and attitude, I can't promote him over Joe.

Now - on a different note - is there a David-Haye - what an absolute, complete, total, urine extractor thread? I feel there needs to be one in light of recent press reports

Think we're over-egging the pudding when it comes to Calzaghe here. Steffan can't be objective on the subject so ignore anything he says about Froch.

I have Calzaghe ahead, and I probably will until Froch beats Ward and goes up to light heavy. If he beats a champion there, a Kovalev or a Stevenson then he leapfrogs ahead of pretty much every other British post war fighter. He would have done what Lewis did, avenged his defeats, taken on the best of the best and been a champion at 2 weights while travelling all over the world to do so. He could do that in his next 2 fights. I'm not sure he ever beats Ward, but thats what he has to do.

We can't say Joe took on better opposition just because he beat a faded Roy Jones and a better version of Kessler. Joe has 3/4 career defining fights, Froch has had the same I feel. 2 more means he takes it in the ATG rankings. Lets not ignore the fact Calzaghe fought out of his back yard against stiffs to protect his record - not to take from his ability, but his record will be forever tainted by the fact he took on fighters post-prime. The Hopkins win was contentious as we all know and its hilarious Catchweight is as hypocritical as he is, holding Floyds record against him but doing no such thing for Calzaghe.

Calzaghe right now, Ward and Kovalev/Stevenson will put Froch higher.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Think we're over-egging the pudding when it comes to Calzaghe here. Steffan can't be objective on the subject so ignore anything he says about Froch.

I have Calzaghe ahead, and I probably will until Froch beats Ward and goes up to light heavy. If he beats a champion there, a Kovalev or a Stevenson then he leapfrogs ahead of pretty much every other British post war fighter. He would have done what Lewis did, avenged his defeats, taken on the best of the best and been a champion at 2 weights while travelling all over the world to do so. He could do that in his next 2 fights. I'm not sure he ever beats Ward, but thats what he has to do.

We can't say Joe took on better opposition just because he beat a faded Roy Jones and a better version of Kessler. Joe has 3/4 career defining fights, Froch has had the same I feel. 2 more means he takes it in the ATG rankings. Lets not ignore the fact Calzaghe fought out of his back yard against stiffs to protect his record - not to take from his ability, but his record will be forever tainted by the fact he took on fighters post-prime. The Hopkins win was contentious as we all know and its hilarious Catchweight is as hypocritical as he is, holding Floyds record against him but doing no such thing for Calzaghe.

Calzaghe right now, Ward and Kovalev/Stevenson will put Froch higher.

Yes, I felt Joe lost that one. I think if that had been a clear-cut victory, then there would be no question that Calzaghe should be above Froch. It is fag paper between them, though.

SugarRayBray wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Think we're over-egging the pudding when it comes to Calzaghe here. Steffan can't be objective on the subject so ignore anything he says about Froch.

I have Calzaghe ahead, and I probably will until Froch beats Ward and goes up to light heavy. If he beats a champion there, a Kovalev or a Stevenson then he leapfrogs ahead of pretty much every other British post war fighter. He would have done what Lewis did, avenged his defeats, taken on the best of the best and been a champion at 2 weights while travelling all over the world to do so. He could do that in his next 2 fights. I'm not sure he ever beats Ward, but thats what he has to do.

We can't say Joe took on better opposition just because he beat a faded Roy Jones and a better version of Kessler. Joe has 3/4 career defining fights, Froch has had the same I feel. 2 more means he takes it in the ATG rankings. Lets not ignore the fact Calzaghe fought out of his back yard against stiffs to protect his record - not to take from his ability, but his record will be forever tainted by the fact he took on fighters post-prime. The Hopkins win was contentious as we all know and its hilarious Catchweight is as hypocritical as he is, holding Floyds record against him but doing no such thing for Calzaghe.

Calzaghe right now, Ward and Kovalev/Stevenson will put Froch higher.

Yes, I felt Joe lost that one. I think if that had been a clear-cut victory, then there would be no question that Calzaghe should be above Froch. It is fag paper between them, though.

Watch the Hopkins fight again. Close on first viewing, clear to Joe on the second.

... Was it one of those quiet beatings?

I thought jc edged hoppo on workrate in the later rounds but there wasn't much in it, and to be honest what little work Hopkins did was better than anything Calzaghe managed.

It seems a better result in hindsight as Hopkins wasn't as washed up as we thought he might be. But at the time I felt it was disappointing from Calzaghe. I wasn't left in much doubt as to who would win prime v prime.

I managed to get locked into a boozer that night and watched the fight there. By the time the fight came around I'd had a few and was sure Calzaghe had lost. Hopkin's shot himself in the foot by not being active enough.

Calzaghe was right when he said it was a terrible fight to watch and to fight in. On a rewatch there isn't much separating them to my eye.

Brave people re watching it. It's in the pile of fights next to nelson v de Leon, Marquez v john etc that I have no interest in revisiting in this lifetime.

Calzaghe will always be considered the better boxer who didn't quite live up to his potential whereas Froch made far better use of his talent and did fight all comers. I know there are plenty of good arguements over why Calzaghe did not fight Roy Jones Jr earlier and I accept them, but there didn't seem much appetite to fight Sven Ottke. It takes two to tango, but to me, Ottke is the equivalent of Bute, but somehow the Bute fight was made.

I think there seemed a reluctance on joe's part to seek challenges in general. The possible reasons for which have been debated ad nauseum. Whichever, People's opinions vary as to whether sticking at your weight regardless of the calibre of the available competition is acceptable or not (in terms of legacy).

Money generally talks, and obviously it did to get bute to Nottingham, but ottke is the one where I actually have sympathy for jc. I don't think Ottke was leaving the comfort of home town officialdom for anyone, and it was a brave man who'd go to Germany and expect a decision, or even a ref that let's you throw punches against ottke. In the same way that its a brave, foolhardy, greedy or desperate fighter who comes to the uk these days to fight the local cash cow.