Froch within reach of Britian's all-time greatest

by hitmansam Mon 06 Jun 2011, 6:58 pm

First topic message reminder :

I'm not Froch's biggest fan but I can't help but respect the man.

Since leaving the domestic scene, he's fought: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham & Johnson.

He lost to Kessler but that was a close fight and had it been in Nottingham, Froch probably would have got the nod.

And all of these fights have taken place within the last 3-years!

He made his first championship defence in America - not in Cardiff against Branco Sobot!

He's fought in Denmark, Finland, and America twice. The final against Ward will also take place in America.

Froch puts Calzaghe's record to shame.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:13 pm

You seem to be using the "would haves" and "in my opinions" a lot. Forget them for just one second and look at the cold hard facts. Calzaghe proved beyond any doubt that he was the best Super-Middleweight in the world before moving up. Froch hasn't done this - yet. Calzaghe, at some stage, unified all four of the major belts. Froch hasn't done this - yet. Calzaghe soundly outpointed Kessler, who Froch lost to.
......................
As i've said, Froch wouldn't beat Calzaghe, his super middleweight record is MILES, MILES better, Tocker Pudwill, Richie Woodhall, etc until 2006, doesn't come close to the run Froch's on. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

by **88Chris05** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:25 pm

Young_Towzer wrote:As i've said, Froch wouldn't beat Calzaghe, his super middleweight record is MILES, MILES better, Tocker Pudwill, Richie Woodhall, etc until 2006, doesn't come close to the run Froch's on. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Answer me this, Towzer. Have Arthur Abraham, Jermain Taylor, Jean Pascal or Glen Johnson done anything to suggest that they are better SUPER-MIDDLEWEIGHTS than Mikkel Kessler, Byron Mitchell, Robin Reid or Chris Eubank? Forget their feats at Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight respectively - you're arguing that Froch's 168 lb record is "miles better" than Calzaghe's so tell me, what have Froch's victims done at 168 lb to show that they are any better than Calzaghe's victims AT THAT WEIGHT?

by ian_jamsie Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:26 pm

If Haye wins he will have beaten P4P number 3 and will have been unified at 2 weights. Add to that he is fighting guys at least a stone heavier than him in every fight.

Haye's win in theory will propel him to P4P number 1.

2 weight unified champ and 2 weight ring champ.

If he goes on to beat Vitali as well he could be called the greatest British boxer of all time.

Better than Lewis.

But there are some big buts in that.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:28 pm

If Haye wins he will have beaten P4P number 3 and will have been unified at 2 weights. Add to that he is fighting guys at least a stone heavier than him in every fight.

Haye's win in theory will propel him to P4P number 1.

2 weight unified champ and 2 weight ring champ.

If he goeson to beat Vitali as well he could be called the greates British boxer of all time.

Better than Lewis.

But there are some big buts in that.
.................................
Haye won't be rated better than Lewis, Lennox beat much better, IF being the operative word Haye beats Wladimir and Vitali he will be rated a great, lets see what happens first. However, likewise if Froch beats Ward, he doesn't have to beat Bute as Chris says, that guy's a fraud and has done nout, he has to fight someone, Bute.

by Guest Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:32 pm

Towzer,

I like your confidence in the public's willingness to give props where it's due but I have to tell you...you're wrong. As well as Froch my do in the next few years, I don't believe he'll ever scale the heights (popularity-wise) of the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Naz or Bruno.

THAT my friend is a crying shame and I hope it isn't true, but sadly, all evidence points to Froch ending up well respected by those in boxing circles and largley ignored by the public at large.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:35 pm

THAT my friend is a crying shame and I hope it isn't true, but sadly, all evidence points to Froch ending up well respected by those in boxing circles and largley ignored by the public at large.
....................................
Calzaghe doesn't come close to Hatton, nobody does, i never said he'd be popular with the public i said if he beats Ward and going off what he's already achieved he'll be a Brit legend. frankly who does come close to Ricky in terms of popularity, Hatton was a celeb not just a boxer, i have said time and time again Calzaghe is better than Froch, is record isnt. Naz was popular for people wanting to see him get knocked out, he wasn't a nice guy and Calzaghe, Witter to name 2 who were first hand around him, Calzaghe by being promoted by FW and Witter at the gym hated his arrogance, i remember Witter saying when he became world champ i want to be everything he wasnt. Now fair enough he wasn't in terms of defences but at least he wasnt arrogant.

by Guest Tue 07 Jun 2011, 12:58 pm

So how does he achieve legendary status by being Ward? What's a "Brit Legend"? What is a "legend"? Surely it's having your name and achievements known far and wide and spoken of with hushed reverence. Calzaghe didn't achieve it even by beating faded legends such as Jones and even Hopkins. Thus using that criteria, beating Andre Ward, ISN'T going to elevate Froch to legendary status.

Irrespective of whether Calzaghe is more popular than Hatton (as it's largely irrelevant to the point I'm making) the fact remains that whatever order you want to place the four I mentioned earlier in order of popularity, Froch will still not come anywhere close to them.

by Michaels, Sean Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:08 pm

DAVE667 wrote:So how does he achieve legendary status by being Ward? What's a "Brit Legend"? What is a "legend"? Surely it's having your name and achievements known far and wide and spoken of with hushed reverence. Calzaghe didn't achieve it even by beating faded legends such as Jones and even Hopkins. Thus using that criteria, beating Andre Ward, ISN'T going to elevate Froch to legendary status.

Irrespective of whether Calzaghe is more popular than Hatton (as it's largely irrelevant to the point I'm making) the fact remains that whatever order you want to place the four I mentioned earlier in order of popularity, Froch will still not come anywhere close to them.

Think you're wrong. Calzaghe's achievement were only really widely recognised after the Kessler fight. He won the BBC sports personality after that.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:11 pm

Answer me this, Towzer. Have Arthur Abraham, Jermain Taylor, Jean Pascal or Glen Johnson done anything to suggest that they are better SUPER-MIDDLEWEIGHTS than Mikkel Kessler, Byron Mitchell, Robin Reid or Chris Eubank? Forget their feats at Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight respectively - you're arguing that Froch's 168 lb record is "miles better" than Calzaghe's so tell me, what have Froch's victims done at 168 lb to show that they are any better than Calzaghe's victims AT THAT WEIGHT?
.........................................................
Abraham, Taylor, Pascal are better fighters, Robin Reid and Byron Mitchell don't come close, i'm not arguing with you, in terms of their records at SMW they aren't as good, as fighters there miles better, look what Pascal went on to achieve, he battered Dawson and won the ring mag title, Byron Mitchell Yahoo

...that will be all from me anyway i cant be bothered you bore me.

by **Union Cane** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:12 pm

ian_jamsie wrote:If Haye wins he will have beaten P4P number 3 and will have been unified at 2 weights. Add to that he is fighting guys at least a stone heavier than him in every fight.

Haye's win in theory will propel him to P4P number 1.

From P4P nowhere to P4P #1 just by beating the (you allege) P4P #3?

Methinks you have read too many reverse-linear articles.

by **88Chris05** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:15 pm

Young_Towzer wrote:that will be all from me anyway i cant be bothered you bore me.

Ah well, never mind. Had worse insults thrown at me; usually by the equally daft and abrasive Steven_89, who you appear to be taking lessons from! Take care, sweetheart!

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:18 pm

Jermain Taylor outhustled Hopkins twice, was a quality fighter, Byron Mitchell wasnt in the same league, don't care whether Taylor held a title or not, he was gonna until Froch smashed him in the 12th, Kessler's not in Pascal's league, who's he beat who's as good as Chad Dawson, Pascal battered him and became ring mag champ. Dirrell, Abraham are also better fighters. Victor Ortiz never held a title and absolutely battered Andre Berto, there's world class fighters who at the times of certain fights don't hold titles, i know boxing, as do many others, and i knew Ortiz would beat Berto as i predicted, i don't need someone telling me a B level fighter like Byron Mitchell comes close to a Taylor, Abraham, Pascal or Dirrell. Do me a favour as well, don't try and be funny, it doesn't work for you. Petal

by BoxingFan88 Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:19 pm

One on one Calzaghe beats him 10/10 for me. However Froch's record is really starting to catchup, if he wins the super six then rematches kessler and pascal and possibly fights bute he will far far exceed it.

by **88Chris05** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:20 pm

Young_Towzer wrote:Jermain Taylor outhustled Hopkins twice, was a quality fighter, Byron Mitchell wasnt in the same league, don't care whether Taylor held a title or not, he was gonna until Froch smashed him in the 12th, Kessler's not in Pascal's league, who's he beat who's as good as Chad Dawson, Pascal battered him and became ring mag champ. Dirrell, Abraham are also better fighters. Victor Ortiz never held a title and absolutely battered Andre Berto, there's world class fighters who at the times of certain fights don't hold titles, i know boxing, as do many others, and i knew Ortiz would beat Berto as i predicted, i don't need someone telling me a B level fighter like Byron Mitchell comes close to a Taylor, Abraham, Pascal or Dirrell. Do me a favour as well, don't try and be funny, it doesn't work for you. Petal

Erm, I thought you were done replying to me, Steven?

by huw Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:21 pm

Young_Towzer wrote:THAT my friend is a crying shame and I hope it isn't true, but sadly, all evidence points to Froch ending up well respected by those in boxing circles and largley ignored by the public at large.
....................................
Calzaghe doesn't come close to Hatton, nobody does, i never said he'd be popular with the public i said if he beats Ward and going off what he's already achieved he'll be a Brit legend. frankly who does come close to Ricky in terms of popularity, Hatton was a celeb not just a boxer, i have said time and time again Calzaghe is better than Froch, is record isnt. Naz was popular for people wanting to see him get knocked out, he wasn't a nice guy and Calzaghe, Witter to name 2 who were first hand around him, Calzaghe by being promoted by FW and Witter at the gym hated his arrogance, i remember Witter saying when he became world champ i want to be everything he wasnt. Now fair enough he wasn't in terms of defences but at least he wasnt arrogant.

To be fair Bruno was far more popular than Hatton.

Froch will hopefully go on to be a British legend, one more loss though and he'll be an also ran regardless of how good his opponents were. He has probably 2-3 years left before the battles catch up with him. This would be around 5-6 fights, not much time really and chances are his last fight will invlove him taking a beating.

by Michaels, Sean Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:22 pm

Young_Towzer wrote:Jermain Taylor outhustled Hopkins twice, was a quality fighter, Byron Mitchell wasnt in the same league, don't care whether Taylor held a title or not, he was gonna until Froch smashed him in the 12th, Kessler's not in Pascal's league, who's he beat who's as good as Chad Dawson, Pascal battered him and became ring mag champ. Dirrell, Abraham are also better fighters. Victor Ortiz never held a title and absolutely battered Andre Berto, there's world class fighters who at the times of certain fights don't hold titles, i know boxing, as do many others, and i knew Ortiz would beat Berto as i predicted, i don't need someone telling me a B level fighter like Byron Mitchell comes close to a Taylor, Abraham, Pascal or Dirrell. Do me a favour as well, don't try and be funny, it doesn't work for you. Petal

But Calzaghe beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson? Flower.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:22 pm

One on one Calzaghe beats him 10/10 for me. However Froch's record is really starting to catchup, if he wins the super six then rematches kessler and pascal and possibly fights bute he will far far exceed it.
...................
If he wins the super 6 he exceeds it, Ward battered Kessler and is genuine quality, lets get this straight, and get it straight early, if Froch beats Ward his record is by far and away better than fighting bonafied bums like Byron Mitchell and Veit, and i'm not knocking Joe, i rate him very highly but his opponents don't compare to Carl's, plus Ward is miles better than Kessler like he proved, so beating Ward and being the super 6 winner i'd like to see him fight Bute not Kessler, Kessler's better than Bute imo, but i'd like to see Froch shut him up, he doesn't need to fight Bute because Bute's proved nothing, i'd just like to see him on the floor again.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm

But Calzaghe beat Hopkins who beat Pascal who beat Dawson? Flower.
..............................
Pascal wasn't world class though was he? Joe said

Diaconu v Pascal Pascal W wins WBC title
Diaconu v Pascal Pascal W retains WBC title
Pascal v Dawson Pascal W retains WBC title, wins Ring magazine title

mmmmmm, sounds world level to me that Very Happy

by huw Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:26 pm

Young_Towzer wrote:One on one Calzaghe beats him 10/10 for me. However Froch's record is really starting to catchup, if he wins the super six then rematches kessler and pascal and possibly fights bute he will far far exceed it.
...................
If he wins the super 6 he exceeds it, Ward battered Kessler and is genuine quality, lets get this straight, and get it straight early, if Froch beats Ward his record is by far and away better than fighting bonafied bums like Byron Mitchell and Veit, and i'm not knocking Joe, i rate him very highly but his opponents don't compare to Carl's, plus Ward is miles better than Kessler like he proved, so beating Ward and being the super 6 winner i'd like to see him fight Bute not Kessler, Kessler's better than Bute imo, but i'd like to see Froch shut him up, he doesn't need to fight Bute because Bute's proved nothing, i'd just like to see him on the floor again.

A good way of looking at this is: who have they both been in with and how did the results compare.

Froch may well have fought better fighters but that doesn't mean he'd be ranked higher. Ali fought better fighters than Louis, yet the majority would rank Louis higher.

by kevchadders Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:27 pm

88Chris05 wrote:
Young_Towzer wrote:**Like it or not, Calzaghe proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was the best 168 lb fighter on the planet before he ventured up to Light-Heavyweight.
.........................
Calzaghe beats Froch imo, however, Froch's record is miles better and has beat 50/50 opponents throughout his championship career. Just because Calzaghe was unbeaten, so was Sven Ottke but was Hagler? lol

Froch's record most certainly is not "miles better" than Calzaghe's. He's had a run of half a dozen fights which show his ambition, risk taking and set of stones blow Calzaghe's out of the water, but it's a simple fact that Calzaghe, before moving up, was the undisputed number one at Super-Middleweight. It's also a clear as crystal fact that Froch, thus far, hasn't done this. There's every chance he will, of course. But as he hasn't yet, there's simply no way his 168 lb exploits can match Calzaghe's.

As I said, Calzaghe beat seven or eight Super-Middleweight champions. Froch has beaten one, who was years over the hill. Now I'll accept that some of the belt holders Calzaghe beat were no great shakes, but let's be realistic about some of Froch's wins, too. Abraham simply isn't much kop at 168 lb, and judging by his recent performances, isn't going to accomplish a whole lot more after Froch's win over him (given that the "they did nothing after he beat them!" argument has been chucked at Calzaghe many times already, I think it's only fair we take the same stance for Froch, too). Taylor, likewise, has a win over Jeff Lacy (a total hype job, you assure us) on his ledger at Super-Middleweight and absolutely nothing else, save for knockout defeats to Froch and Abraham (as well as a catchweight loss to Pavlik). No doubting those guys' class at 160 lb, but essentially Froch is a Super-Middleweight, as was Calzaghe. And the Nottingham man just doesn't have the longevity, consistency or total domination of that weight class which Calzaghe had. And while it's not the be all and end all, we can't ignore that Froch lost to the best 168 lb fighter he's faced so far in Kessler, a man who Calzaghe soundly outpointed.

Listen, I rate Froch, think he's doing great things and, of course, I think there's a very real chance he could be above Calzaghe one day. But right now, to rank him the higher of the two is ridiculous.

Agree with this.

One day he may surpass him, but that would mean (at least) a win over Ward.... clean up the 168 division and have some success at light heavy. Right now, if Froch ventured up to LH to take on Hopkins, he would lose by a wide decision.

by kevchadders Tue 07 Jun 2011, 1:33 pm

ian_jamsie wrote:If Haye wins he will have beaten P4P number 3 and will have been unified at 2 weights. Add to that he is fighting guys at least a stone heavier than him in every fight.

Haye's win in theory will propel him to P4P number 1.

2 weight unified champ and 2 weight ring champ.

If he goes on to beat Vitali as well he could be called the greatest British boxer of all time.

Better than Lewis.

But there are some big buts in that.

If Haye gets win over Wlad then he's got to be back above Froch in terms of achievement. In fact Froch would probably need a win over Hopkins (or some other champ at LH) to even be within a shout of going back above Haye)

by fearlessBamber Tue 07 Jun 2011, 2:43 pm

88Chris05 wrote:
Young_Towzer wrote:As i've said, Froch wouldn't beat Calzaghe, his super middleweight record is MILES, MILES better, Tocker Pudwill, Richie Woodhall, etc until 2006, doesn't come close to the run Froch's on. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Answer me this, Towzer. Have Arthur Abraham, Jermain Taylor, Jean Pascal or Glen Johnson done anything to suggest that they are better SUPER-MIDDLEWEIGHTS than Mikkel Kessler, Byron Mitchell, Robin Reid or Chris Eubank? Forget their feats at Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight respectively - you're arguing that Froch's 168 lb record is "miles better" than Calzaghe's so tell me, what have Froch's victims done at 168 lb to show that they are any better than Calzaghe's victims AT THAT WEIGHT?

I am going to have to call you on this Chris because it is nonsense.

It is absurd to suggest that a fighters achievements in the two (very close in terms of lbs) adjacent divisions do not count when assessing their value as an opponent.

I suppose if Pryor had knocked out Roberto Duran in a one off title defence it would have meant nothing as he only ever really campaigned at lightweight, welterweight, light middle and middle.

Froch is well on his way to eclipsing Calzaghe. Sure head to head most of us would pick the Strictly Come Dancing Star, but trying to salvage your career by fighting one over the hill and one shot legend does not give you immunity from being overtaken by more ambitious, if less talented fighters.

by Young_Towzer Tue 07 Jun 2011, 2:46 pm

@bamber
.......................
I second that, he does talk some bile, but how on earth can anyone even mention 'Byron Mitchell' in the calibre as Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Dirrell, its stupid imo.

by **oxring** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 2:49 pm

Woah bamber - Hopkins over the hill? The guy has gone on to become the lineal LHW champ.

Yes - Froch could eclipse Calzaghe.

But lets not forget - his first 20something fights were no-marks. He beats the limited Pascal, the slightly shot Taylor and then squeaks Dirrell. Loses to a one-eyed Kessler before beating the exposed Abraham and a pensioner in Johnson.

Put the other way around - the record doesn't sound quite as amazing really.

by azania Tue 07 Jun 2011, 2:52 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:
Young_Towzer wrote:As i've said, Froch wouldn't beat Calzaghe, his super middleweight record is MILES, MILES better, Tocker Pudwill, Richie Woodhall, etc until 2006, doesn't come close to the run Froch's on. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Answer me this, Towzer. Have Arthur Abraham, Jermain Taylor, Jean Pascal or Glen Johnson done anything to suggest that they are better SUPER-MIDDLEWEIGHTS than Mikkel Kessler, Byron Mitchell, Robin Reid or Chris Eubank? Forget their feats at Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight respectively - you're arguing that Froch's 168 lb record is "miles better" than Calzaghe's so tell me, what have Froch's victims done at 168 lb to show that they are any better than Calzaghe's victims AT THAT WEIGHT?

I am going to have to call you on this Chris because it is nonsense.

It is absurd to suggest that a fighters achievements in the two (very close in terms of lbs) adjacent divisions do not count when assessing their value as an opponent.

I suppose if Pryor had knocked out Roberto Duran in a one off title defence it would have meant nothing as he only ever really campaigned at lightweight, welterweight, light middle and middle.

Froch is well on his way to eclipsing Calzaghe. Sure head to head most of us would pick the Strictly Come Dancing Star, but trying to salvage your career by fighting one over the hill and one shot legend does not give you immunity from being overtaken by more ambitious, if less talented fighters.

Granted RJJ was shot more than John F Kennedy. But when was Hopkins over the hill. Look at what he has gone on to do. JC went to his backyard and got a W. That speaks volumes.

by **88Chris05** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 2:59 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:Froch is well on his way to eclipsing Calzaghe. Sure head to head most of us would pick the Strictly Come Dancing Star, but trying to salvage your career by fighting one over the hill and one shot legend does not give you immunity from being overtaken by more ambitious, if less talented fighters.

Never said it did, and for Christ's sake, I've stated over and over on this thread already that Froch may well surpass Calzaghe in the future, and that he's going the right way about it. But he hasn't so far, because his record right now simply isn't as good as Calzaghe's.

Bamber, answer me this question with a straight answer, please. If you were asked RIGHT NOW to rank the pair of them in both the Super-Middleweight all-time standings or British all-time standings, are you saying that Froch would be higher?

by Knowsit17 Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:04 pm

A HMS thread, catalogues of names being mentioned, the great debate on what an 0 proves, the current status of whether Joe Bloggs is more shot than Mr X is in his prime...

It's like stepping back in time Very Happy

by fearlessBamber Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:05 pm

azania wrote:Granted RJJ was shot more than John F Kennedy. But when was Hopkins over the hill. Look at what he has gone on to do. JC went to his backyard and got a W. That speaks volumes.

At the time he was seem as over the hill and I think he was past his best. Besides, I thought Hopkins exposed Calzaghe and deserved the nod in that fight.

Anyway that's not the point I was making. I was pointing out that the exploits of Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson and Pascal in other divisions have to be considered when evaluating them as opponents.

These guys were favourites or extremely live underdogs in all these fights. Everyone on here was going on how Abraham was going to do this and that to Froch and he totally outclassed him.

Calzaghe's record is all about Lacy, Kessler and Old Man Hopkins. Medium fish in a little pond and his place as Britain's best 12 stoner is right within Froch's grasp.

by Rowley Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:06 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:A HMS thread, catalogues of names being mentioned, the great debate on what an 0 proves, the current status of whether Joe Bloggs is more shot than Mr X is in his prime...

It's like stepping back in time

Just wait till I finish writing my Hatton Witter thread.

by fearlessBamber Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:06 pm

88Chris05 wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Froch is well on his way to eclipsing Calzaghe. Sure head to head most of us would pick the Strictly Come Dancing Star, but trying to salvage your career by fighting one over the hill and one shot legend does not give you immunity from being overtaken by more ambitious, if less talented fighters.

Never said it did, and for Christ's sake, I've stated over and over on this thread already that Froch may well surpass Calzaghe in the future, and that he's going the right way about it. But he hasn't so far, because his record right now simply isn't as good as Calzaghe's.

Bamber, answer me this question with a straight answer, please. If you were asked RIGHT NOW to rank the pair of them in both the Super-Middleweight all-time standings or British all-time standings, are you saying that Froch would be higher?

No - I wouldn't.

Beat Ward, Bute and Kessler and I would say yes.

by **88Chris05** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:10 pm

[quote="fearlessBamber"[/quote]No - I wouldn't.

Beat Ward, Bute and Kessler and I would say yes.[/quote]

So after all this nonsense I've supposed to have been speaking, you actually agree with me?

Christ Almighty, it's been a long day...

by azania Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:11 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
azania wrote:Granted RJJ was shot more than John F Kennedy. But when was Hopkins over the hill. Look at what he has gone on to do. JC went to his backyard and got a W. That speaks volumes.

At the time he was seem as over the hill and I think he was past his best. Besides, I thought Hopkins exposed Calzaghe and deserved the nod in that fight.

Anyway that's not the point I was making. I was pointing out that the exploits of Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson and Pascal in other divisions have to be considered when evaluating them as opponents.

These guys were favourites or extremely live underdogs in all these fights. Everyone on here was going on how Abraham was going to do this and that to Froch and he totally outclassed him.

Calzaghe's record is all about Lacy, Kessler and Old Man Hopkins. Medium fish in a little pond and his place as Britain's best 12 stoner is right within Froch's grasp.

What Hop has shown after that fight is that he was not past his best. I had JC winning by 2 rounds. I was amazed it was a SD.

Add Eubank to that list. Plus Lacy was the favoured fighter against JC. Reid was a very live opponent and Kessler went on to beat Froch. Their one common opponent tells an interesting story.

But we can all pick holes in the record of every boxers active or non active.

by Michaels, Sean Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:14 pm

if he beats ward bute and kessler he's got a shoutas being the best middle to light heavy boxer of all time.

by Knowsit17 Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:16 pm

rowley wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:A HMS thread, catalogues of names being mentioned, the great debate on what an 0 proves, the current status of whether Joe Bloggs is more shot than Mr X is in his prime...

It's like stepping back in time

Just wait till I finish writing my Hatton Witter thread.

Hatton would win. I couldn't care less if Witter had invisibility gloves, it's achievements that say more and Hatton is still undefeated and has beaten bigger names like Tszyu and Castillo. He's well out of Witter's league, hence why he's agreed to fight PBF in December.

by hitmansam Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:17 pm

Dariusz Michalczewski made 23 championship defences at light-heavyweight, remained unbeaten to 48-0 and beat some good fighters - is he an all-time great? Hell no.

Joe Calzaghe ranks alongside the likes of a Michalczewski. A good but not great fighter.

Calzaghe simply didn't step into the ring with the best of his era. He fought Hopkins (to a questionable decision) and Jones way too late. The onus was on him to make these fights happen.

It's easy to beat former champions - De La Hoya beat over TWENTY. It's what those champions go on to achieve. The majority of champions Calzaghe beat achieved zilch after losing to him.

It's pointless arguing with Calzaghe's fans because they're in complete denial. Calzaghe had ample opportunity in fighting the best - he didn't - and Pavlik was the last example of that - a fighter he could easily have beaten.

by Rowley Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:20 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
rowley wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:A HMS thread, catalogues of names being mentioned, the great debate on what an 0 proves, the current status of whether Joe Bloggs is more shot than Mr X is in his prime...

It's like stepping back in time

Just wait till I finish writing my Hatton Witter thread.

Hatton would win. I couldn't care less if Witter had invisibility gloves, it's achievements that say more and Hatton is still undefeated and has beaten bigger names like Tszyu and Castillo. He's well out of Witter's league, hence why he's agreed to fight PBF in December.

Doesn't explain why he was avoiding the European, British and Commonwealth Champion in his WBU days and fighting such names as Stephen Smith instead, he has never fancied the Witter fight and there have been plenty times when he has fought far less qualified fighters. ( ahh happy days)

by manos de piedra Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:26 pm

People seem to think that because Froch has acheived more in less than time that this accounts for him having the better career.

Froch is well ahead in terms of ambition and how he has fit so much into a short stretch of time but this doesnt equate to his career being better at the moment. He hasnt even proved hes the best SMW out there at the moment.

Calzaghe might have taken an absolute age to do what he could have done in a few years but he did eventually get round to unifying the division, proving he was the best SMW and then stepping up to beat the number one LH (who has since re-established himself as the number 1 LH 3 years on).

The Super 6 has also glamourised some of these fights. Johnson and Abraham are not premier wins, especially at SMW. Johnson was ancient and has lost nearly every big fight hes had since 2004. If it wasnt for the S6 this would not even be a particularly credible fight.

Hopkins was far less over the hill than the Jermaine Taylor Froch beat. Lacy was no more overrated than Abraham.

Calzaghe beat Kessler - who beat Froch. Calzaghe also stepped up at a young age to beat a decent champion in Eubank when it took Froch til his 30s to win a world title.

Theres plenty to criticised in Calzaghes career but from many of the comments it seems people are basing the respective ratings on attitude. Calzaghe wasted a great many years and never really displayed Frochs ambition, but at the end of the day he got it done. Just because it took him an age and he wasted a good many years doesnt mean he didnt actually acheive.

Also, Froch has the luxury of not being around with peak versions of Hopkins and Jones which Calzaghe gets slammed for not fighting. If he was then he either does what Calzaghe did and waits or else becomes a footnote in boxing when they destroy him.

by Knowsit17 Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:31 pm

rowley wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:
rowley wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:A HMS thread, catalogues of names being mentioned, the great debate on what an 0 proves, the current status of whether Joe Bloggs is more shot than Mr X is in his prime...

It's like stepping back in time

Just wait till I finish writing my Hatton Witter thread.

Hatton would win. I couldn't care less if Witter had invisibility gloves, it's achievements that say more and Hatton is still undefeated and has beaten bigger names like Tszyu and Castillo. He's well out of Witter's league, hence why he's agreed to fight PBF in December.

Doesn't explain why he was avoiding the European, British and Commonwealth Champion in his WBU days and fighting such names as Stephen Smith instead, he has never fancied the Witter fight and there have been plenty times when he has fought far less qualified fighters. ( ahh happy days)

Ah but who hasn't fought the odd tomato can or ten? For every Michael Spinks there is a Peter McNeeley and for every James Toney a David Telesco if you get my gist...

by huw Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:34 pm

hitmansam wrote:Dariusz Michalczewski made 23 championship defences at light-heavyweight, remained unbeaten to 48-0 and beat some good fighters - is he an all-time great? Hell no.

Joe Calzaghe ranks alongside the likes of a Michalczewski. A good but not great fighter.

Calzaghe simply didn't step into the ring with the best of his era. He fought Hopkins (to a questionable decision) and Jones way too late. The onus was on him to make these fights happen.

It's easy to beat former champions - De La Hoya beat over TWENTY. It's what those champions go on to achieve. The majority of champions Calzaghe beat achieved zilch after losing to him.

It's pointless arguing with Calzaghe's fans because they're in complete denial. Calzaghe had ample opportunity in fighting the best - he didn't - and Pavlik was the last example of that - a fighter he could easily have beaten.

OK, I'll bite. Who did Calzaghe not fight that he should have. He did fight both RJJ and BHop, yes it would have been good if he had fought them earlier but it takes two to tango.

RJJ was in a different weight class when he should have fought him so would you prefer that he went up in weight to fight RJJ prior to cleaning up the Super Middles? Would this not then be a case of RJJ taking on someone who is too light for him?

It's funny how it is completely Calzaghe's fault they never fought, do people question whether RJJ or BHop should have fought Calzaghe? Why not? He was a recognised world champion you'd have thought they'd want his title.

So, who was the best of Calzaghe's era that he didn't fight, I'm just curious.

by Rowley Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:44 pm

Personally think the only definitive way to settle this is when Carl's career is finished he should go onto Strictly Come Dancing and if he goes further on the show than Joe think it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt he is greater than him. If we can all agree on this we can put the debate to bed and look forward to some top Saturday evening primetime sequined ballroom action.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:47 pm

rowley wrote:If we can all agree on this we can put the debate to bed and look forward to some top Saturday evening primetime sequined ballroom action.

If that's what rocks your boat, jeff, just wait for the new football season and go watch Manchester City.

by **88Chris05** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:48 pm

rowley wrote:Personally think the only definitive way to settle this is when Carl's career is finished he should go onto Strictly Come Dancing and if he goes further on the show than Joe think it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt he is greater than him. If we can all agree on this we can put the debate to bed and look forward to some top Saturday evening primetime sequined ballroom action.

For me, Rowley, Froch's dancing achievements on Sports Relief back in 2009 far outweigh anything Calzaghe achieved on Strictly. A unification dance-off on Strictly Sports Relief would have been nice, mind you.

by fearlessBamber Tue 07 Jun 2011, 3:48 pm

rowley wrote:Personally think the only definitive way to settle this is when Carl's career is finished he should go onto Strictly Come Dancing and if he goes further on the show than Joe think it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt he is greater than him. If we can all agree on this we can put the debate to bed and look forward to some top Saturday evening primetime sequined ballroom action.

There's no point - Carl's Rumba would destroy Joe's Waltz .... FACT !!!!

by Rowley Tue 07 Jun 2011, 4:06 pm

HumanWindmill wrote:
rowley wrote:If we can all agree on this we can put the debate to bed and look forward to some top Saturday evening primetime sequined ballroom action.

If that's what rocks your boat, jeff, just wait for the new football season and go watch Manchester City.

It's the missus that watches it Windy, have never seen it myself, honest

by Michaels, Sean Tue 07 Jun 2011, 4:10 pm

huw wrote:
hitmansam wrote:Dariusz Michalczewski made 23 championship defences at light-heavyweight, remained unbeaten to 48-0 and beat some good fighters - is he an all-time great? Hell no.

Joe Calzaghe ranks alongside the likes of a Michalczewski. A good but not great fighter.

Calzaghe simply didn't step into the ring with the best of his era. He fought Hopkins (to a questionable decision) and Jones way too late. The onus was on him to make these fights happen.

It's easy to beat former champions - De La Hoya beat over TWENTY. It's what those champions go on to achieve. The majority of champions Calzaghe beat achieved zilch after losing to him.

It's pointless arguing with Calzaghe's fans because they're in complete denial. Calzaghe had ample opportunity in fighting the best - he didn't - and Pavlik was the last example of that - a fighter he could easily have beaten.

OK, I'll bite. Who did Calzaghe not fight that he should have. He did fight both RJJ and BHop, yes it would have been good if he had fought them earlier but it takes two to tango.

RJJ was in a different weight class when he should have fought him so would you prefer that he went up in weight to fight RJJ prior to cleaning up the Super Middles? Would this not then be a case of RJJ taking on someone who is too light for him?

It's funny how it is completely Calzaghe's fault they never fought, do people question whether RJJ or BHop should have fought Calzaghe? Why not? He was a recognised world champion you'd have thought they'd want his title.

So, who was the best of Calzaghe's era that he didn't fight, I'm just curious.

Glen Johnson. He would have travelled to Wales as well......

by huw Tue 07 Jun 2011, 4:13 pm

Michaels, Sean wrote:

Glen Johnson. He would have travelled to Wales as well......

So in his whole career there is only one fighter he didn't face, on the basis of that I think we should rate him higher!

by Michaels, Sean Tue 07 Jun 2011, 4:14 pm

Robin reid re-match.

by **oxring** Tue 07 Jun 2011, 5:53 pm

Reid didn't really push himself up there for a rematch.

Its priceless really. 10 years after the fight, people have the idea that it was some kind of awful robbery. AT THE TIME - even Reid said it was a fair decision.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

by J.Benson II Tue 07 Jun 2011, 6:27 pm

I think Froch will find it hard to match Calzaghe's overall record.
Calzaghe's win against Hopkins will probably remain a bigger win than anything Froch will manage. Also, the fact remains that the only name on both men's resume is Kessler....and while Calzaghe beat the Dane, Froch fell just short.

However, one thing that should be noted, is that although Calzaghe unified the SMW division, he did it at a time when the division was alot weaker than it currently is.
Kessler aside, there wasnt really any genuine, world class boxer operating in the division to trouble Joe's unification quest.

As things stand, I would argue that the division now contains several world class fighters, making a sole unified champion far more unlikely.

In a head to head between Froch and Calzaghe, I think the result would be similar to Joe's fight with Kessler.
The Welsh Dragon taking an entertaining 116-112 UD with a few edgy moments thrown in.

by OasisBFC Tue 07 Jun 2011, 8:29 pm

i think its pretty much the opinion of most people that calzaghe was better, but froch should go down as having the better career.

by Sponsored content