Kovalev vs. Pascal thread...

at pre-watson Eubank. The guy needed a gift wrapped decision to beat him the first time, and a hail mary desesperation punch to beat him the second time.

 

That was the funniest shit I've read here in years

 

Eubank and Eric Lucas, pretty much neck and neck in historical rankings, same calibre of fighter.

 

Antonio Cervantes and Carlos Maussa have basically interchangeable careers

 

That's right, because Cervantes got beaten from pillar to post by Locche, and Maussa beat a top 5 p4p fighter.

 

:cheer:

 

And he picked Ottke over Calxaghe, numerous times ::

JoM absolutely HATES Brit fighters (with the lone exception of Frock) and Brit posters, routinely accusing them of 'euro bias' and other crap. He's a troll, and not a very good one.

MTF

 

Pure fabulation, never picked Ottke (who was even more of a fraud and a coward than calzaghe) over JC.

I don't hate brits fighters, I only point that they get absolutely overrated by an uncritical local fan base. In fact, their is a lot of similitude between the britain and qc fan base, which is why I'm usually a detractor of most qc fighter.

The uncoditional praise that average pug like Eubanks gets from british fans, make me think of the constant overrating that fraud like Bute and Lucas got over here.

And unlike most on this site, I refuse to rate highly a fighter that hasn't fought good opposition. As i said, its easy to look impressive and destructive when you're getting feed a constant diet of no-hopper.

 

Joe clearly beat a peak Kessler, whilst Froch lost to a Kessler that was already on the decline.

Joe would have beaten Froch by 8-4, or 9-3 UD.

The farmer is simply too slow.

I pick Kov over Joe because Kov has fast hands, and fight ending power.

Froch has relatively slow hands, and is a heavy handed puncher, but not a devastating one.

Calz was a helluva lot more durable than George Groves.........

 

It's a waste of time talking about how anyone would do against Calzaghe. At his worst, he loses to the guys worth mentioning. At his best, his style and lack of losses are such that there aren't going to be any suitable comparisons. We'll never know.

 

It amazes me that someone that has followed boxing for so long can still rely on such logic. Boxing history have shwon numerous times that these kind of algebra doesnt work. Not to mention that Froch turned the table around easily in the rematch, And i don't see any reason to claims that Kessler was in decline when he fought Froch the first time around nor even the second time, as he looked as good as he ever did against Magee..

By the same logic, I could say that since Froch wiped his ass with Reid, while Calz needed frienly judges to beat him, Froch would beat him without any problem

 

No doubt, nowadays everyone act like if they alway's knew he was garbage, but I remember most of the posters here saying he was elite and that he would beat a proven tough guy like Froch easily and that he was far better than Pascal alm:


Pascal ain't all that, but he's far from garbage. He's strong, fast and got some sneaky moves. I'd pick Joe over him but it would be super close and Pascal would be a very live underdog. Kovalev literally kills Calzaghe if he somehow had find the balls to get in the ring with him.

 

That's how I see it too.

 

The eye test doesn't lie.

Kessler was quicker and sharper circa 06-07 than he was in 2010 when he first fought Froch. But in their first fight, he was still pretty close to his prime.

In the REMATCH, Kessler was CLEARLY a faded fighter. It's not like Froch had improved since their first fight. He was still the same fighter. Kessler had declined, which is why Froch thrashed him so clearly.

How do you figure Froch beats Calz?

He doesn't have the power to stop him, and is too slow of both hand and foot to outpoint him.

 

You don't need to be super fast to beat calzaghe, he struggled against guys who weren't exactly speed merchant. I see Froch long jab disrupting calzaghe rythm. And his strenght would trouble him a lot also. I think ot would be a super ugly fight, with a lot of clinching, and a disputed decision. Some would like calzaghe ''activity'' will other would like the cleaner punches of Froch. It baffles me that most think it's a sure shot that calzaghe wins, as he hasn't done anything in his career that suggest he's level above Froch. But Froch has always been severely underrated on this site, I rebember that most (you included) picked Bute to beat him easily. I was one of the only one to pick Froch. Hell most picked Abraham easilly over him (you included iirc)

And weird that you claim Kessler had declined as he looked as good as ever in his fight just before the Froch rematch against Magee.

 

::

There was a nine year gap between Calzaghe fighting Reid and Froch fighting Reid. That is a ridiculous comparison, Reid was beyond finished at the point he fought Froch. The two and a half year gap between Calzaghe and Froch fighting Kessler is a far more reliable indicator of their respective talents.

 

That wasn't meant as a serious comparaison. Weird that you haven't been able to realise this.
concerning your second point, I think that the second Kessler fight is a better comparaison to the calzaghe fight, since the conditions were more similar (in both, Kessler was fighting in front of a hostile crowd).


Here's another comparaison for you. Bute beats johnson a lot more impressively than Froch did a fight before. Surely, that means this Bute chap will beat Froch handily.

 

eric lucas :giggle:

 

ray close:crying:

 

Even though Froch faced better opponents than Calzaghe, styles make fights.

And Joe was just too quick for Froch. I think it would competitive early, but Joe would win the clear decision based on his speed and workrate.

 

Agreed. Froch would be well above the quality of most of the guys Calzaghe beat in his career but in a mythical matchup head to head Joe wins.