Froch greater than calzaghe

If froch beat Kessler, does he have a claim to being greater than calzage ?


I think he would.

 

mmm. no.

 

No

 

I think that

Pascal
Kessler
Dirrell (especially if he beat Abraham)
Taylor
Robin reid (old and decrepit)

is almost the same as

Hopkin (old and decrepit)
Jones (same as above)
Eubank (same as above)
Kessler
lacy:atu:
robin reid (robbed)
mitchell
Brewer


Ok calz resume might be a bit better ,but not by much

 

No.

 

::

 

no

 

If he beats Kessler his SMW resume is superior, therefore Calzaghe shouldn´t be considered the greatest 168 pounder anymore.

 

, he wont be far off.opcorn: Add Abraham's the the list and he's pretty much there. Score another one for the guys not wasting their careers avoiding risk.

 

Yes, he has a claim. As I said elsewhere, the KTFO win over Taylor is ARGUABLY better than anything Calzaghe did. The Kessler win is probably Calzaghe's best (or at least one of the best two or three) and if Froch wins, in Denmark, he strengthens his claim.

MTF

 

no

 

No it isn't. He showed great balls and determination in his TKO win over Taylor, but he was LOSING to a shopworn Taylor.

I like Frock, and he might even beat Kessler, but he is not as good as Joe, and his resumé is not as good either.

If he beats Kessler and Arabham by stoppage though, you would have an argument.

And the Kessler win is not Calzaghe's best, because Kessler is not a great fighter. His win over Hopkins is his best win, Hopkins can still fight, as evidenced by the Pavilk domination.

 

Even if calz would have a resume a bit better, Froch willngness to fight anyone would make him a greater fighter

 

Taylor beat hops as convingcingly as Calz. BHOPs is a shopworn fighter, he still have some good performance in him once in a while, but that mostly depend on the style of his opponent. And why was Taylor shopworn, he was coming off a decent performance against pavlik

 

I don't think for a minute that Froch is a better FIGHTER than Joe. In fact, if the two had ever fought, I'd wager it would be a complete mismatch in Joe's favour; another Lacy fight IMHO.

BUT he went to America and beat the former undisputed MW champion in his own backyard. I don't care what the 'official' scorecards said- that fight was a one point fight going into the last round for me and Froch should have won simply by virtue of the decisive, 10-8 final round.

Anyway, he won by KTFO. That is as decisive as boxing gets.

The Kessler win is ARGUABLY Joe's best win. Even accepting that the Hopkins win was better, and perhaps adding the Lacy schooling, the Kessler win was one of Joe's best three wins. If Froch goes to Kessler's backyard and wins impressively, then he will have at LEAST matched one of Joe's best three (at worst) wins, as well as KTFO the man who beat the man who Joe beat in his other signature win (Hopkins).

Froch has a CLAIM to surpass Joe if he beats Kessler. If he wins the Super Six, IMHO he surpasses Joe. And this is from probably the biggest Calzaghe groupie on this site... ::

MTF

 

Pretty much how I see it.

 

watching the two fight tells me calzaghe was superior. he wouldve given froch a beating

 

Couldn't agree more.

I've said for years that Froch has always been lucky that Calzahe didn't rise to Carl's constant baiting. He would have given Froch, with his sloppy defense, wide looping hooks and tendancy to block punches with his face, a terrible beating.

MTF

 

That's an opinion. It's irrevelant in a who's greater discussion

 

the whole thread is based on opinions.

if these were two guys who fought in the 1920's and there was no film of either guy then maybe we could compare resumes. Ive seen both guys and froch brings nothing to the table that would give him the ability to defeat calzaghe.

 

It's like this, Calzaghe is clearly the better fighter of the two, and would have beaten the shit out of Froch, that I'm certain of. However, if Froch remains undefeated and wins the Super Six it is pretty much better than anything Joe has done and Froch would deserve to be considered greater historically.

 

This is not a mm, it's not about who can beat who. It's about who's a greater fighter, who has proven more. In the opinion of many, Tony ayala jr could have beaten almost anyone, doesn't make him a great fighter

 

Yep, calzaghe looked excellent against the pressure of the excellent Kabary Salem. No way Froch beat hims

 

Watching guys fight is often misleading!:stir: Guys with physical gifts will always look flashier beating bumskies and old men.

 

i determine who is greater based on my own evaluation of what i have seen. I have seen froch, he is not a great fighter. he just isnt.

 

And if he beats Kessler and Abraham?

 

He could end his career with the better wins thats for sure but I'm pretty sure Calzaghe would have beat his ass.

 

that's ridiculous. so, no matter who froch beat, you won't call him a great fighter cause you don't like how he fights

 

He would have a claim. His claim would be bogus.

Carl is full of shit. He is the midget child of the British fight scene.

"Oh! Look at me!!! Look at me!!!

The lad's a twat. Period.

 

its not that i dont like how he fights, its that he doesnt fight well enough to be considered great by anyone who knows anything about boxing.