Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Froch resume vs Calazaghe
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
9oz
I personally think Carl Froch has a way better resume than Calazaghe. He has fought the best in Super Middleweight division and has a good shot at beating Ward. He also came to United States and didn't stay overseas for his whole career like Joe. Calazaghe best wins are overrated Jeff Lacy, old ass Roy Jones, who in his prime smokes Joe in 4 rounds, and Bernard Hopkins, which i think Bernard won. I believe Froch's body of work is way better. Thought's anybody?
neophyte7
Froch without question...
Cshel86
I gotta give this one to Froch, hands down. The names on his resume are better, and they are likely to get better over time. Calzaghe's wasn't too bad, but it wasn't the most impressive either. Manfredo, Kessler, Bika, Lacy, Hopkins, and RJJ. Froch on the hand has the likes of Pascal, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, and Ward (upcoming), on his resume. Hopefully a Pavlik and Bute bout will materialize soon.
9oz
QUOTE (cshel86 @ Oct 15 2011, 02:20 PM) *
I gotta give this one to Froch, hands down. The names on his resume are better, and they are likely to get better over time. Calzaghe's wasn't too bad, but it wasn't the most impressive either. Manfredo, Kessler, Bika, Lacy, Hopkins, and RJJ. Froch on the hand has the likes of Pascal, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, and Ward (upcoming), on his resume. Hopefully a Pavlik and Bute bout will materialize soon.



I forgot about Kessler win for Joe. Good posts. I think Froch deserves more credit. I just think Calazaghe waited way too long to come to the United States, he fought way too many bums.
SENTRAL
Froch has built a stellar resume over a shorter period of time but in terms of ability I can't look past Joe as the better superior fighter even though I prefer to watch Carl box.
Cshel86
QUOTE (9oz @ Oct 15 2011, 03:25 PM) *
I forgot about Kessler win for Joe. Good posts. I think Froch deserves more credit. I just think Calazaghe waited way too long to come to the United States, he fought way too many bums.

Yeah, Calzaghe did wait a little too long to come to the U.S., but when he did, he made his mark. He also had a great following! Cant argue with that!

QUOTE (SENTRAL @ Oct 15 2011, 03:47 PM) *
Froch has built a stellar resume over a shorter period of time but in terms of ability I can't look past Joe as the better superior fighter even though I prefer to watch Carl box.

+1
Joe's style was a sight to see. He had the style that systematically broke his opponents down, and was far more technical than Froch. I cant argue with Froch's style either, he has more of a rough edge to his style, a good one, more like a bully in the ring. Joe definitely has upper hand in hand speed, but like you said, Froch is better to watch than Joe.
mgrover
froch if he keeps the way hes going and takes the hard fights unlike calzaghe which really lost against hopkins and beat an out of date rjj but was the first to defeat kessler ill give him that.
Mean Mister Mustard
I was never a fan of Calzaghe, and I am a fan of Froch, but this issue about the better resume is not clear cut. Calzaghe beat some good fighters early on, maybe not pound for pounders but good tough solid guys like Sheika, Reid, Eubank ( world class), Brewer and then topped it off by beating Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. The Hopkins win was close and it has gotten better with time seeing as how Hopkins has went on to dominate Pavlik and Pascal. Froch has yet to have a win over a legend, and that is Calzaghe's trump card.
JONdaCON817
QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Oct 15 2011, 03:30 PM) *
I was never a fan of Calzaghe, and I am a fan of Froch, but this issue about the better resume is not clear cut. Calzaghe beat some good fighters early on, maybe not pound for pounders but good tough solid guys like Sheika, Reid, Eubank ( world class), Brewer and then topped it off by beating Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. The Hopkins win was close and it has gotten better with time seeing as how Hopkins has went on to dominate Pavlik and Pascal. Froch has yet to have a win over a legend, and that is Calzaghe's trump card.


++1

deff... i wasnt a huge Calzaghe fan, nor am i a personal fan of Froch (tho i am a fan of his wife) but i do like watchin Froch fight... its hard not to like his style and his heart...

When it comes to resume its hard not to overlook the fact JC retired undefeated.. i think he held that belt for a decade before moving up to LHW which i think is another trump card... if Froch can get past Ward (which i doubt) then itll help him a lil more but i think he still laccs that Legend on his resume...
Fitz
QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Oct 16 2011, 07:30 AM) *
I was never a fan of Calzaghe, and I am a fan of Froch, but this issue about the better resume is not clear cut. Calzaghe beat some good fighters early on, maybe not pound for pounders but good tough solid guys like Sheika, Reid, Eubank ( world class), Brewer and then topped it off by beating Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. The Hopkins win was close and it has gotten better with time seeing as how Hopkins has went on to dominate Pavlik and Pascal. Froch has yet to have a win over a legend, and that is Calzaghe's trump card.


Summed it up perfectly MMM.
Col Reb
I still have to give the edge to Calzaghe, though Froch may catch him down the road. Cal was champion for so long, and I think he would would have schooled Frock in the ring, but Froch avoids nobody and will have fought more top level opponents by the time he hangs up the gloves. That being said, I don't see Froch ever dominating this division the way Cal did, though it is a better division now.
BoxingEinstein

Froch has a better resume and when he retires will have a better resume. Calazaghe beat washed up legends and then retired like nothing happened. I must admit he dominated his division but it wasn't as competitive as the division that Froch is in. Calazaghe best wins to me is against a Undefeated promising Jeff Lacy, a undefeated Kessler who was knocking people out, and a undefeated prime Sakio Bika.

Froch beat a undefeated always game Tony Dodson, undefeated Pascal (in a slugfest war btw check it out), came from behind to stop Jermain Taylor, undefeated talented Andre Dirrel, dominated Abraham, and dominated Glen Johnson. And win or lose Froch will face Ward and if he beats and go to beat Bute and fight is mandatory who is Dirrel's brother (check him out, i think he's more of a brawler than his brother) then Froch will have beaten more talented and skilled guys than Calazaghe.
bnoles4life
Froch the better resume, Joe C the better fighter.
Cshel86
QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Oct 15 2011, 04:30 PM) *
I was never a fan of Calzaghe, and I am a fan of Froch, but this issue about the better resume is not clear cut. Calzaghe beat some good fighters early on, maybe not pound for pounders but good tough solid guys like Sheika, Reid, Eubank ( world class), Brewer and then topped it off by beating Kessler, Hopkins and Jones. The Hopkins win was close and it has gotten better with time seeing as how Hopkins has went on to dominate Pavlik and Pascal. Froch has yet to have a win over a legend, and that is Calzaghe's trump card.

This did it for me...changed my whole perception.
diamond
joe calzaghe fought a shot chris eubank who took the fight at 13 days notice and was 40 pounds over weight at the time and had too many wars by then he was shot.i wont mention joes first defence or his 12th defence against tocker pudwill.old pudding pudwill fought joe at xmas it was his 4th fight that year the other 3 men tocker beat had 166 losses between them.this was when the cracks started to appear between joe and frank warren.joe had pulled out of a fight with glenn johnson 3 ties in fact warren had to pay training fees of 100,000$ to johnson after 3rd time hense the name ...no show joe.robin reid and joe both threw 604 and 602 punches yet reid was 23% to joes 21% so a close fight should have been a split decision for reid but frank warren isnt called mr wbo for nothing. yet froch blew reid away in 5 rounds.??verdict a split for joe.so just like eubank and reid a bit of luck with timing and the decision.yes joe blasted them out but out of 21 defences take ibf champ jeff lacy who had fought no one froch wouldnt beat and kessler out the tale and its a bit bare.out 22 supermiddleweight world title fights only reid and 5 others were wbo top ten.kessler and lacy were champions eubank wasnt ranked due to inactivitie.its very bare.yes he beat jones and the hopkins one was close but in joes book he said jones was shot and he would not fight him ???????????? so we cant count joes last two fights chaps.kessler had a broken hand.would joe have got the nod in denmark.? i had it joe by 2 rounds same margin i had froch winning by in denmark.? like i said would joe ave got the nod in denmark.? froch beat pascal former #2 pound 4 pound undisputed champ taylor after beating future wbc and ring belt holder pascal.taylor beat hopkins twice.????dirrell lost to froch.kessler i had it by 2 rounds to froch same as showtime tv and primetime tv.he deatroyed abraham and johnson was left in a heap in changing room with broken ribs.kessler needed 16 month out and easy fights since against journey men.kessler has a 44-2 record yet 39 of the 46 fights were with men outside top 15.also 32 of them with men outside top 40 in rankings and thats all 4 bodys.43 fights at home for kessler were hes safe with sauerland.ward next for froch his cv at 168 beats joes by a massive country mile chaps.calzaghe had all them wbo defences before lacy fight then fought a light middleweight in manfredo.?????????? joe had the chance to fight carl but opted foreasier fights.then when carl was number 1 ranked by wbc joe ran the clock down the 270 allowed days while carl was kicking his heels and then gave belt up and moved up to 175 pound.when joe did that he lost my respect as he had no intention of fighting froch.just look at frochs 1st defence versus taylor who calzaghe avoided.? joe was great but he never knew it till the hunger had gone.frank warren knew as well and must take some of the blame for ruining a fighter with all them terrible miss matchs.to spot a miss match go see box rec and look at the fights joes opponents had before they fought joe.? some of it is awful viewing and an insult to joe.so the verdict is that calzaghe fought hand picked super middles and light middles and froch fought an incredible 7 striaght top men either champs or wbc #1 which ring magazine say is the hardest matched run in all divisions ever heard of.well done to both fighters but you have to question wether or not joe was content with half a million pound pay days and not 3 million pay days.....you have been reading a post done by diamond.
Cshel86
QUOTE (diamond @ Oct 18 2011, 05:11 PM) *
joe calzaghe fought a shot chris eubank who took the fight at 13 days notice and was 40 pounds over weight at the time and had too many wars by then he was shot.i wont mention joes first defence or his 12th defence against tocker pudwill.old pudding pudwill fought joe at xmas it was his 4th fight that year the other 3 men tocker beat had 166 losses between them.this was when the cracks started to appear between joe and frank warren.joe had pulled out of a fight with glenn johnson 3 ties in fact warren had to pay training fees of 100,000$ to johnson after 3rd time hense the name ...no show joe.robin reid and joe both threw 604 and 602 punches yet reid was 23% to joes 21% so a close fight should have been a split decision for reid but frank warren isnt called mr wbo for nothing. yet froch blew reid away in 5 rounds.??verdict a split for joe.so just like eubank and reid a bit of luck with timing and the decision.yes joe blasted them out but out of 21 defences take ibf champ jeff lacy who had fought no one froch wouldnt beat and kessler out the tale and its a bit bare.out 22 supermiddleweight world title fights only reid and 5 others were wbo top ten.kessler and lacy were champions eubank wasnt ranked due to inactivitie.its very bare.yes he beat jones and the hopkins one was close but in joes book he said jones was shot and he would not fight him ???????????? so we cant count joes last two fights chaps.kessler had a broken hand.would joe have got the nod in denmark.? i had it joe by 2 rounds same margin i had froch winning by in denmark.? like i said would joe ave got the nod in denmark.? froch beat pascal former #2 pound 4 pound undisputed champ taylor after beating future wbc and ring belt holder pascal.taylor beat hopkins twice.????dirrell lost to froch.kessler i had it by 2 rounds to froch same as showtime tv and primetime tv.he deatroyed abraham and johnson was left in a heap in changing room with broken ribs.kessler needed 16 month out and easy fights since against journey men.kessler has a 44-2 record yet 39 of the 46 fights were with men outside top 15.also 32 of them with men outside top 40 in rankings and thats all 4 bodys.43 fights at home for kessler were hes safe with sauerland.ward next for froch his cv at 168 beats joes by a massive country mile chaps.calzaghe had all them wbo defences before lacy fight then fought a light middleweight in manfredo.?????????? joe had the chance to fight carl but opted foreasier fights.then when carl was number 1 ranked by wbc joe ran the clock down the 270 allowed days while carl was kicking his heels and then gave belt up and moved up to 175 pound.when joe did that he lost my respect as he had no intention of fighting froch.just look at frochs 1st defence versus taylor who calzaghe avoided.? joe was great but he never knew it till the hunger had gone.frank warren knew as well and must take some of the blame for ruining a fighter with all them terrible miss matchs.to spot a miss match go see box rec and look at the fights joes opponents had before they fought joe.? some of it is awful viewing and an insult to joe.so the verdict is that calzaghe fought hand picked super middles and light middles and froch fought an incredible 7 striaght top men either champs or wbc #1 which ring magazine say is the hardest matched run in all divisions ever heard of.well done to both fighters but you have to question wether or not joe was content with half a million pound pay days and not 3 million pay days.....you have been reading a post done by diamond.



Using spaces would help others to read your post better. Great points, but my eyeballs are playing tennis right now.
checkleft
Calzaghe is very overrated. Though froch is a prick he's a hard nosed boxer, and he has the balls to compete against top contenders. Also he announced hes US bound, something calzaghe never had the courage to do.
blackbelt2003
Someone else said it already.


Froch the better resume, Cal the better fighter.



One thing to think about when looking at Calzaghe's 'reign', which is what his greatness is usually based on, is that it was predominantly involving the WBO belt, which is only semi-accepted.



If you exclude the WBO belt (which I do, it's called The Big Three, not four), then Calzaghe's title fight log is as follows:


W 12 Jeff Lacy, IBF belt
W 12 Sakio Bika, IBF belt
W 12 Mikkel Kessler, WBC/WBA belt



and that's it.



Is 3-0-0 in world title fights enough for greatness?






Black
pesticid
QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Oct 22 2011, 03:29 AM) *
Someone else said it already.


Froch the better resume, Cal the better fighter.



One thing to think about when looking at Calzaghe's 'reign', which is what his greatness is usually based on, is that it was predominantly involving the WBO belt, which is only semi-accepted.



If you exclude the WBO belt (which I do, it's called The Big Three, not four), then Calzaghe's title fight log is as follows:


W 12 Jeff Lacy, IBF belt
W 12 Sakio Bika, IBF belt
W 12 Mikkel Kessler, WBC/WBA belt



and that's it.



Is 3-0-0 in world title fights enough for greatness?






Black


I don't know but he did whoop on Hopkins, took Mikkel's heart, beat up Eubank and demolished Lacy, say what you want about Lacy but he was the only favourite against Calzaghe.
So yeah, Froch has the better resume but he would hardly win a round against Zaghe. He barely beat Pascal, he got a gift decision against Dirrel, he beat Johnson by 2 rounds and he lost to Kessler by 2 rounds as well. He was almost knocked out against Taylor and losing badly. I mean Froch has not been dominating, period. He has not dominated anyone of significance safe for Abraham.
blackbelt2003
QUOTE (pesticid @ Oct 22 2011, 12:35 PM) *
I don't know but he did whoop on Hopkins, took Mikkel's heart, beat up Eubank and demolished Lacy, say what you want about Lacy but he was the only favourite against Calzaghe.
So yeah, Froch has the better resume but he would hardly win a round against Zaghe. He barely beat Pascal, he got a gift decision against Dirrel, he beat Johnson by 2 rounds and he lost to Kessler by 2 rounds as well. He was almost knocked out against Taylor and losing badly. I mean Froch has not been dominating, period. He has not dominated anyone of significance safe for Abraham.




Dude, dude, dude....

1/ He didn't 'whoop on' Hopkins, it was a close decision. In fact, Hopkins did the 'whooping', Calzaghe was just more consistent down the stretch.
2/ He didn't take Kessler's heart. In fact, it was the opposite, he tried to match Kessler for strength in the early rounds and it didn't work, Kessler was stronger. Instead Calzaghe was forced to switch to boxing and used his speed to eke out the win (the best of his career).
3/ The fact that Lacy was 'the only favourite against Calzaghe' does little to help your argument.
4/ Froch did not 'barely beat Pascal'. He beat him more easily than Hopkins did.


Other than that, I agree with you that Froch would barely win a round against Calzaghe. That's not what's up for discussion here. It's the resume, and Calzaghe's does not stand up to scrutiny, especially at super-middleweight.




Black
pesticid
QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Oct 22 2011, 03:44 PM) *
Dude, dude, dude....

1/ He didn't 'whoop on' Hopkins, it was a close decision. In fact, Hopkins did the 'whooping', Calzaghe was just more consistent down the stretch.
2/ He didn't take Kessler's heart. In fact, it was the opposite, he tried to match Kessler for strength in the early rounds and it didn't work, Kessler was stronger. Instead Calzaghe was forced to switch to boxing and used his speed to eke out the win (the best of his career).
3/ The fact that Lacy was 'the only favourite against Calzaghe' does little to help your argument.
4/ Froch did not 'barely beat Pascal'. He beat him more easily than Hopkins did.


Other than that, I agree with you that Froch would barely win a round against Calzaghe. That's not what's up for discussion here. It's the resume, and Calzaghe's does not stand up to scrutiny, especially at super-middleweight.




Black


Ok, Hopkins did piss himself in the second half of the fight unlike any other fight he has been, that's a fact. Zaghe was boxing Kessler and he was getting outboxed, then he switched and beat him up, the referee helped out Kessler when Zaghe landed that vicious body shot. The fact that Lacy was the only favourite speaks volumes as everybody thought Zaghe would get run over and the opposite happened. Hopkins did not beat Pascal easily but he beat him better than Froch.

Zaghe beat Lacy undefeated champ, he beat Kessler undefeated champ, he beat a legend in Eubank and he beat a legend in Hopkins to become the undisputed at 175.

Who did Froch beat? Pascal? Abraham? Again who is Abraham at 168? Dirrel? Did he really win that fight, I mean Dirrel looked awful with the running but Froch didn't do squat. He lost to Kessler, beat a very old Johnson by 3 rounds. Taylor at 168, who is Taylor at 168 and he almost took out Froch outboxing him and what not. He lost to Kessler didn't he, after Kessler hot headbutted 10 000 times by Ward. So I take it back that Froch's resume is better, it is not. Was Froch ever undisputed at 168?
blackbelt2003
QUOTE (pesticid @ Oct 23 2011, 02:04 AM) *
Ok, Hopkins did piss himself in the second half of the fight unlike any other fight he has been, that's a fact. Zaghe was boxing Kessler and he was getting outboxed, then he switched and beat him up, the referee helped out Kessler when Zaghe landed that vicious body shot. The fact that Lacy was the only favourite speaks volumes as everybody thought Zaghe would get run over and the opposite happened. Hopkins did not beat Pascal easily but he beat him better than Froch.

Zaghe beat Lacy undefeated champ, he beat Kessler undefeated champ, he beat a legend in Eubank and he beat a legend in Hopkins to become the undisputed at 175.

Who did Froch beat? Pascal? Abraham? Again who is Abraham at 168? Dirrel? Did he really win that fight, I mean Dirrel looked awful with the running but Froch didn't do squat. He lost to Kessler, beat a very old Johnson by 3 rounds. Taylor at 168, who is Taylor at 168 and he almost took out Froch outboxing him and what not. He lost to Kessler didn't he, after Kessler hot headbutted 10 000 times by Ward. So I take it back that Froch's resume is better, it is not. Was Froch ever undisputed at 168?




Did you watch these fights? Kessler easily matched Calzaghe in the early rounds...he hurt Joe with a monster uppercut in the 4th (I think) and was slightly ahead at the halfway stage. Calzaghe then brought his speed into play and outboxed Mikkel, who is a little slow when the other guy is a pure boxer. Froch fought him toe to toe instead of boxing him, which was Froch's mistake (I still thought Froch deserved the verdict).

And Froch beat Pascal fairly easy. Just because it was an exciting, toe-to-toe fight it doesn't mean it was tight. Froch nearly stopped him in the opener and won a good majority of the rounds. It took Hops two attempts to do that...and Hops was hurt in 2nd fight remember.


And you can put question marks over all Froch's opponents....but I'd still pick them over Cal's 168 opponents.


Johnson > Lacy
Taylor > Eubank
Dirrell > Bika
Abraham > Brewer


and so on.




Black
pesticid
QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Oct 23 2011, 04:03 AM) *
Did you watch these fights? Kessler easily matched Calzaghe in the early rounds...he hurt Joe with a monster uppercut in the 4th (I think) and was slightly ahead at the halfway stage. Calzaghe then brought his speed into play and outboxed Mikkel, who is a little slow when the other guy is a pure boxer. Froch fought him toe to toe instead of boxing him, which was Froch's mistake (I still thought Froch deserved the verdict).

And Froch beat Pascal fairly easy. Just because it was an exciting, toe-to-toe fight it doesn't mean it was tight. Froch nearly stopped him in the opener and won a good majority of the rounds. It took Hops two attempts to do that...and Hops was hurt in 2nd fight remember.


And you can put question marks over all Froch's opponents....but I'd still pick them over Cal's 168 opponents.


Johnson > Lacy
Taylor > Eubank
Dirrell > Bika
Abraham > Brewer


and so on.




Black


I actually disagree with all of your points, but when you say that maybe I don't watch the fights and then you're saying that Calzaghe started to box Kessler, I don't know what you're talking about b/c yes Calzaghe got rocked not with just one uppercut, he was getting hit in the first 4,5 rounds when he was trying to be cute and box. So then he turned it up and roughed Kessler up and Kessler was kinda out of the fight by the 9, 10th round. I don't remember Zaghe going toe to toe early and then switching to boxing, I remmeber the exact opposite.

Johnson's resume at 168 is nada so Johnson when he fought Froch < Lacy when Jeff fought Joe, that's not even up for an argument and still the manner of which Froch won and the manner of which Joe won, there is quite a difference. Joe beat a young, undefeated champ that was favoured by everyone and ruined him for life. On the other hand, Froch beat an old fighter that came down in weight, and he didn't beat him impressively.

Taylor's resume at 168 is nada and when he fought Froch Taylor < Eubank. Taylor was coming off two bad losses against Pavlik at 160 and then knocked down Froch twice and wa giving it to Froch only for Froch to come back and stop him, which was impressive but only because he was getting his head blown up in the first half of the fight. Eubank was 29 when he fought Joe, he was coming off a SD loss against Steve Collins and Zaghe tore into him. You cannot seriously talk about Taylor better than Eubank, that doesn't make sense on any part of the universe.

Abraham's resume at 168 , he won against Taylor who had no resume at 168 and was already damaged anyway. Abraham was too small to compete at 168.

When Kessler fought Zaghe he was at his best and Zaghe beat him soundly. When Kessler fought Froch, he wasn't at his best, but he still beat Froch.

Froch should've lost against Dirrel, I thouth he won 4 rounds max.

Btw, can you compare one name on Froch's ledger to Hopkins? I didn't think so.

So Zaghe's resume is better not only because of who he fought but also because of how he defeated his opposition.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.