Hi Guys

I have produced my latest mailbag articles.

Topics include

1) Kell Brook still special?

2) Khan to KO Garcia?

3) Is Tyson Fury ready for Klitschko?

4) Is Froch's resume better than Calzaghe?

Check it out at http://uk.fighthype.com[/url]

Thanks

Scott Smith
Mailbag: Khan, Brook, Fury and Froch

1. Special, no but he has some damn fine fundamentals and that will get him far
2. Never really had that type of power, maybe TKO, outlasts him down the stretch?
3. No
4. Maybe if Froch beats Kessler

Will all that said I now realize it is your mailbag

1. I saw a couple loopholes, but hey, if it was his conditioning in his last fight, then okay. Other than that, I'll watch him fight again!
2. Maybe via body shots
3. Who is?
4. I think I remember seeing this thread a WHILE ago. I believe Calzaghe still edges it because of the Kessler, Hopkins, and RJJ wins. Not sure how many HOFers Froch has/will have on his resume by retirement, but that seriously, those Hopkins and RJJ fights still have him ahead of Froch.

Kell brook is still pretty good

He will probably stop him

No

Cannot agree with the rjj win, Hopkins yes. But if cal edges him its not by much, frotch fights top guy after top guy.

Well, as far as I know, RJJ is going to the HOF. I cant name any guys on Froch's resume that are headed to the HOF. That's how you rate a guy's resume.

a name doesn't mean shit, it's the age, and RJJ was past it, same with Hopkins, and I still had Hopkins winning that fight. While Calzaghe fought nobodies in his home town, and nobody relevant from his division, Froch had been fighting everybody thanks to the super six. That arguement is like me finding Mayweather in 40 years, when he's all old, and he's slow and half crippled, and I beat him and say, I beat Mayweather, cause I didn't I beat a shadow of Mayweather, same with RJJ and Calzaghe

I agree with the fact that Hopkins really beat Calzaghe. As a matter of fact MG, I watched that fight again last night (along with Pavlik/Taylor 1) and I actually scored it 114-113 in favor of Hopkins. Why did I have it so close? I believe we all know the answer to that...it was a nasty fight, and in all actually, there wasn't much going on.

Joe's slapping punches barely did enough to impress. His straight left landed on the button quite a few times from the middle rounds on. Hopkins on the other hand, wasn't doing shit but landing one punch at a time, and reaching for Joe's left arm and clinching...nasty fight, Hopkins style of course.

As for the point about names not meaning shit, names actually hold weight nowadays...it just has to be the right names. Joe just happened to fight the right "names" at the right time of his career (the end), and he was victorious, that's how people will remember him. In the eyes of the casual fan: Who is Kessler? Manfredo? Lacy? Bika? Skeika? Nobody knows. Who is Roy Jones Jr.? Who is Bernard Hopkins? "Ooh! He beat those two dudes? Man that dude is a HOFer!" - Casual fan

Froch still has some work to do in that department, in terms of fighting the "right" names. I agree that Froch's resume is better than Joe's, hands down, but in the eyes of the public (or the people that want to believe it), Joe has the better resume. Im not sure many people would've known him to the extent that they do, had he not fought Roy and Bernard.

1. A watchable fighter who can spoil someone's night on any given night but special...I'd have to say no.

2. As MG said, maybe TKO. Khan, at times, can be as busy as any fighter not named Paul Williams. I could see the ref stopping it if Khan gets on a roll but I don't see him cleaning Garcia's clock and KO'n him.

3. No. Not at all. I think the only two fighter who had a shot already lost to them (Chisora and Haye)

4. On paper no. In actuality, Froch has fought tougher guys, but he also has lost a lot of his big time fights. It's also disturbing that he was getting his ass handed to him by Jermain Taylor for most of that fight. That being said, I really don't respect Calzaghe as much as some people do.

1 -Yes. Carson Jones is a tough son of a biatch, but IMO It was mostly stamina and some poor D on Brook's part. He really hurt Jones in a couple of rounds and if he didn't lose power as he lost his stamina I think that he could've stopped Jones. I'd watch a rematch and I think that Brook wins much more comfortably next time. I was also impressed by Brook's ability to fight while moving backwards. Jones was clearly trying to cut off the ring, but Brook was sticking and moving nicely until he started getting tired.

2. Maybe...ha, maybe not!

3. You have to find out at some point and if Fury wants to make a real name for himself then he'd better take the Klitschko fight if he can get it. Klitschko is absolutely beatable. A big part of Klitschko's success is Emmanuel Steward. Yup, I said it!

4. Hard question. Knee jerk response, yes. Because of the condition (age) that their respective top opponents were in at the time that they fought them. That doesn't mean that Froch is necessarily better than Calzaghe. If there as a time machine to take today's Froch back to when Calzaghe was in his prime, that would be great!

thank you for feedback.

I have said this time and time again with Calzaghe and Froch it is borderline!

Pros and Cons for Calzaghe

Pro:
1) Hall of famers like Roy Jones and Hopkins
2) Unbeaten Kessler
3) Eubank
4) Unbeaten Lacy
5) retired unbeaten

Cons:
1) An Old Hopkins won that fight
2) Roy Jones was 4 years past his prime
3) Eubank was old and finished
4) Lacy was never the best fighter. The Bute factor, beat average guys, then stepped up with some ring know how and got battered, even since Calzaghe Lacy didn't beat anybody quality. I could step in the ring with top fighters and lose, that don't make him a good fighter
5) Retired unbeaten is debatable because many believe Reid beat him and Hopkins and ducked the rematch with Hopkins

I'm not a fan of Calzaghe at all, and the fact he did not fight any of the top fighters in their prime. The fact Froch is fighting at a time where the fighters are not as good as the very best that was around when Calzaghe fought is not his fault.

No Trinidad, No Winky Wright, No Pavlik, No Jones in his prime, No Hopkins in his prime,

Froch has fought all the best in his division, Kessler decision was debatable, Ward would beat Calzaghe,

It is really hard to judge. I think Froch's approach is better as he takes on all comers, Calzaghe happy to wait till these guys are finished before he fights them

calzaghe > froch

if dirrell was able to outbox him....i'm sure joe would have handled froch quite easily. arrogance aside...nothing about froch impresses me.

+1

froch lost to kessler, ward and i also thought he lost to dirrell. not exactly a solid showing in the super six tournament...but i get what ur saying.

we'll never know with joe calzaghe. i always thought he'd be beat by jones and all the other ppl he avoided while they were in their primes, but i still believe his skill set separates him from an ordinary guy like froch. i'll say this though....joe beat (very convincingly) a prime, undefeated kessler in his own backyard. froch couldn't even beat the twice beaten kessler.

Personally, I think kessler was relatively untested when he fought Joe. I believe he had more to fight for when he fought Froch. And he fought like it, but that's just my opinion. It was good fight even though I thought Froch took it but that could have just been karma from the dirrell fight