Carl Froch - Too late to catch up with Calzaghe ???

What will a Kessler win mean????????....... 1-1 with a guy an old Calzaghe beat. The lost to Ward was also decisive. Calzaghe never lost.

I regard Calzaghe as an alltime great....Anyone who reigns for ten years beating good fighters deserves that accolade.

I'm struggling to find a road map which can lead to Froch gaining the same status!!...........Expect him to beat the Dane comfortably......

An unexpected victory over Ward would be a great win but enough to catch up with Joe..........Not for me.....

Cleverly unproven.....Hoppo ancient (and Joe has been there).............

Too late the hero.............reckon it is!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What will a Kessler win mean????????....... 1-1 with a guy an old Calzaghe beat. The lost to Ward was also decisive. Calzaghe never lost.

I regard Calzaghe as an alltime great....Anyone who reigns for ten years beating good fighters deserves that accolade.

I'm struggling to find a road map which can lead to Froch gaining the same status!!...........Expect him to beat the Dane comfortably......

An unexpected victory over Ward would be a great win but enough to catch up with Joe..........Not for me.....

Cleverly unproven.....Hoppo ancient (and Joe has been there).............

Too late the hero.............reckon it is!!

Tut tut, I'm sure Calzaghe would suggest he was somewhere near his peak when he fought Kessler.
Anyway, Froch would have to annihilate Kessler, given Ward a boxing lesson, move up to LH and take out Hopkins, Dawson and Cleverley in one evening then take on Groves et al before people thought he was worthy of being up there with Calzaghe.

Not saying I agree with that but those two losses do hurt Froch's ability to be compared favourably to Calzaghe

I think if he beat Kessler and Ward he'd have eclipsed Calzaghe. Ward is very highly rated for his skills.

His first loss to Kessler has already pretty much secured the fact that he'll rank below Calzaghe regardless of what he does in the rematch.

And Froch isnt beating Ward in a million years.

Not sure if it's time that's going to prevent Froch from catching up, because for me he could conceivably outstrip Calzaghe in his next three fights in the space of a year if those fights are against the right men and he wins them all. Avenge Kessler in May, somehow beat Ward in late 2013 and then repeat the trick in a rubber in early 2014, and I think he'd at least be on the same kind of level as Joe.

In this case, I wouldn't think that matching Calzaghe's 175 lb title would be a necessity because the Super-Middleweight division which Froch would have (in theory) cleared out is so much better than the one Calzaghe presided over.

Rather, I just don't think Carl is quite good enough to do it, as much as it pains me to say it.

Comparisons between the pair's ledgers just strike me as being a little pointless until Froch establishes himself as THE proper Super-Middleweight champion of the world. That means beating Ward who, right now, is just different gravy to all the twelve stoners out there.

I think Froch is good for another year or two yet, so time is not so much of an issue. But he'd effectively have to make himself a contender for the pound for pound number one spot (or at least carve out a top three spot, ala Calzaghe in 2008 when he beat Hopkins) within his next three fights to give himself a shot of overhauling Calzaghe, and I don't think he could quite manage that.

If he beat Kessler and Ward and moved up to beat Dawson (assuming he is still the main man at LH) then he would overhaul Calzaghe for me. I don’t really see him beating Ward though.

A more plausible scenario would be beating Kessler and then moving up right after to beat Dawson which would make him the top guy in at light heavyweight. You would think given Froch and Dawson have fought practically everyone worth fighting in their divisions that a fight between the pair could happen. If Froch were to do that then I think he has a decent case to rank above Calzaghe. He is hamstrung by being second best to Ward but he could still compile a win column to match Calzaghe which along with a more ambitious approach might make up for it. Plus Ward could go on to be an outstanding fighter in which case being second best to him would be seen as more forgiveable.

If Froch got beat by Kessler in the rematch and then still went on to beat Ward THAT win would be better than anyone Calzaghe ever beat.

Who was Calzaghe's Ward?? Lacy?? Give me a break.

I already have them about level. Beats Kessler and he overtakes him. Calzaghe record is full of gash. Being unbeaten doesn't hold water with me. Should Marciano rank ahead of Ali?

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:If Froch got beat by Kessler in the rematch and then still went on to beat Ward THAT win would be better than anyone Calzaghe ever beat.

Who was Calzaghe's Ward?? Lacy?? Give me a break.

However it would still cast doubt over Froch as he fails to beat Kessler twice who himself was soundly beaten by Ward. How does that make Froch better than Calzaghe...it isn't conkers.

Agree with reborn ward is better than anything calzaghe beat!

Diamond in the rough wrote:Agree with reborn ward is better than anything calzaghe beat!

but he'd still be unable to beat a poorer version of the man Calzaghe handled with relative ease and that ultimately marks him down!

Anyway, it's all irrelevant as the chances of Froch beating Ward are the same as Audley unifying the HW titles.

DAVE667 wrote:

Diamond in the rough wrote:Agree with reborn ward is better than anything calzaghe beat!

but he'd still be unable to beat a poorer version of the man Calzaghe handled with relative ease and that ultimately marks him down!

Anyway, it's all irrelevant as the chances of Froch beating Ward are the same as Audley unifying the HW titles.

Haha yeah that is true

I see Froch taking care of Kessler and then ending up against Cleverley. Steffan would love, I say love it, if that fight came about. Excites me more than Frach v Ward as well.

DAVE667 wrote:

Diamond in the rough wrote:Agree with reborn ward is better than anything calzaghe beat!

but he'd still be unable to beat a poorer version of the man Calzaghe handled with relative ease and that ultimately marks him down!

Not sure about that. wasn't Kessler ahead at the halfway point. Rocked Calzaghe with a huge uppercut if I remember rightly as well. Froch flew to Denmark pretty much last minute and 'allegedly' was suffering from a perforated eardrum. Take everything with a pinch of salt but the Kessler in Denmark Froch fought was a tougher task than the Kessler in Cardiff with 50,00 fans against him

There's an old saying that "It's never too late".

If Froch beats Kessler and Ward, moves up to light heavy and beats Dawson. Then cruiser and beats one of those champs that'll put him over Calzaghe in my book. But to be really sure, if he moves up from crusier and takes on and beats one of the Klits, then there can be no argument from even the most diehard Calzaghe fan that Froch has passed him. Throw in a win at heavy over David Haye and Froch could be a true British legend.

Atila wrote:There's an old saying that "It's never too late".

If Froch beats Kessler and Ward, moves up to light heavy and beats Dawson. Then cruiser and beats one of those champs that'll put him over Calzaghe in my book. But to be really sure, if he moves up from crusier and takes on and beats one of the Klits, then there can be no argument from even the most diehard Calzaghe fan that Froch has passed him. Throw in a win at heavy over David Haye and Froch could be a true British legend.

That would never happen. Froch said he would never move up to Heavyweight as him and David Haye are friends and he wouldnt want to tread on his toes

Why does Froch get beat with a "Shot Kessler" stick when Froch is knockin on 40's door as well or not far off. Ward never get tagged with beating a Shot Carl Froch.

And from what I've seen from Kessler since his surgery he is packing some serious power again.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:And from what I've seen from Kessler since his surgery he is packing some serious power again.

Lets hope he puts that power into Frochs face then

Kessler and Dawson at LHW will do it for me

Ward would beat Calzaghe so dont really take into account that loss when comparing the 2

Steffan wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:And from what I've seen from Kessler since his surgery he is packing some serious power again.

Lets hope he puts that power into Frochs face then

I actually would like Kessler to win. Met him at the presser for the Magee fight. Top bloke! Never met Carl, but hate when he talks about being a warrior.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:And from what I've seen from Kessler since his surgery he is packing some serious power again.

Lets hope he puts that power into Frochs face then

I actually would like Kessler to win. Met him at the presser for the Magee fight. Top bloke! Never met Carl, but hate when he talks about being a warrior.

Yeah Kessler seems like a decent bloke. He has been my favourite SMW since Joe retired. Think he won over quite a lot of people in Wales due to being such a good sport when they fought. Froch is just loathable to me. But he is a warrior after all and when him and Kessler fight it will be two warriors in the ring and the best warrior will win which will be Froch proving what a warrior he is

He won over a lot of people in Wales when he beat the English-man the first time..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He won over a lot of people in Wales when he beat the English-man the first time..

True

And Froch is not a Man......he is a Warrior

In an Achilles sort of way

Yea, they ill be throwing bombs for 12 rounds, two warriors who will put it all on the line because they are warriors who throw bombs

Froch can be outboxed - as was the case against Ward, Direll and Taylor.

However, when he's faced with a tough relatively stationary target he invariably wins - Pascal, Johnson and Abraham being good examples.

Kessler is a box fighter. In their last encounter Kessler was the better boxer and was equally as tough. Advantage Kessler

This time round Kessler's slipped slightly. Less mobile but just as tough. Advantage Froch.

Froch UD (won't put him on par with Calzaghe though)

Calzaghe didn't get outboxed or 'out toughed'

If Froch beating Kessler puts him up there with JC, where does Kessler rate if he beats Froch again ? Is he getting close to being comparable with JC even though he lost to him ?

He could go down in weight, cut his nose off and fight Martinez.

He could take that chip off his shoulder and fight Manny

Just seen the Froch fight again. God knows what Carl was thinking when he said he thought he won. Clearly outboxed, out thought and out fought.

To compare Carl to JC is a joke. Look at his recent career. Lost to Kessler. Lost to Ward. Got gifted a hometown decision against Dirrell and was losing for 35 minutes and 44 seconds against a washed up Middleweight in Taylor.

Good win against AA regardless of what people say about AA. He was a huge puncher and Carl did what he had to do to win. Brushed aside Bute who at the time was considered Number 2 in the division. In hindsight one can say But was over rated. Well froch exposed him and should get credit for him.

Good career but not on par with JC and even if he beats Ward and Kessler he should not be considered on par or better than JC.

Froch rightfully gets credit for seeking out and fighting the best. But against the best he will always come up short.

Be reasonable, Az! I appreciate you're trying to drive home the point that Calzaghe's CV reads better than Froch's and that he was the better all-round fighter (points I'd agree with), but I don't think you need to be so unnecessarily harsh on Carl and his own accomplishments to do so. Froch is definitely behind, but not by lightyears.

First up, the Dirrell decision wasn't a gift. It was a razor thin one which, I believe, could have gone to either man by a point, perhaps two. If you're arguing that Dirrell had the tools and style to beat Froch and should have won given those factors, then I'd agree. He perhaps won his rounds clearer than Froch won his, too. But in others, some work (albeit scrappy) is better than no work at all and he crossed the line from defence to pure running and not engaging.

Dirrell should have kicked himself all the way back to the USA for that one. Froch didn't look particularly great there, but let's cool this talk of a hometowner, please.

No need to give Froch a hard time over the Taylor fight either, for me. For a "shot" fighter, Taylor didn't half perform exceptionally well in the first half of that fight! The knockout at the hands of Pavlik did blunt Taylor's edge in fairness, but he wasn't a decrepit old fart.

Like Nunn-Toney (sorry, Milky!), Taylor-Froch has a myth or two which has built up around it, namely that Carl got boxed all over the ring for eleven and a half rounds. Taylor shut him out for six and probably earned a share of one of the rounds after that, but the second half of the fight saw Froch slowly getting a foothold. Around the seventh, Froch finally started moving his head, negating Taylor's jab and, for the first time, started making himself hard to counter when he threw his own. Taylor's stamina problems helped him, no doubt about that, but Froch still had to pull it out - and he did.

Besides, Taylor was an experienced fighter who'd been in with some of the top fighters going at world title level; bangers like Pavlik, slicksters like Winky, cagey guys like Hopkins and the old warhorse in Joppy. For a very first title defence, it was an exceptionally tough task for a fighter with Froch's (then) very limited experience to go over to America and take on a fighter of Taylor's reputation.

Do you think, for argument's sake, that a 1997 version of Calzaghe, immediately after beating Eubank for his WBO belt, would have had it all his own way if he'd have had to go over to the States to defend against someone like Reggie Johnson or Joppy? He may well have won but I don't think he'd have done so without some serious issues.

With his lack of experience and the fact that Taylor had that blistering speed which Carl hates, I think Froch acquitted himself very well in that one.

Anyway, apologies as I don't mean to rant on - just think that's a needlessly harsh appraisal of Froch you've put forward there.

I gave him credit where credit was due. My appraisal was honest and accurate. Carl got a hometown decision against dirrell. Pulled a good win out of the bag against Taylor. But let's not go overboard here. Taylor had already been brutalised by AA and gassed badly.

Carl isca true warrior. Had he been a Warren fighter he would be rematching tucker pudwill.

'My appraisal was honest and accurate......Taylor had already been brutalised by AA and gassed badly.'


Oh dear.


I do wish people would at least check their facts before any attempt at serious debate.


Carl Froch vs Jermain Taylor 25/04/09 Ledyard, Connecticut


AA vs Jermain Taylor 17/10/09 Kreuzberg, Berlin


-*-*-*-*-*-*-


'In hindsight one can say Bute was over rated.'



Yeah by you. You predicted a Bute win.

My bad. Beaten twice by Pavlik.

The Bute win was a great win. No ifs or buts. Most picked Bute to win but Carl did a number on him. Perhaps Carl is underrated. But never on par with JC.

Carl Froch is by global discussion (and by that I mean Americans) a lot closer to Calzaghe than you lot think. Personally, I find it difficult to rate an umdefeated fighter vs a guy who lost a few times. I mean, if a guy never lost (assuming he never got a blatant hometown,) and he faced class opponents (assuming he wasnt doing this on a cold winters night in Stoke), then you cant rate him with a guy who has. There are obvious exceptions, no one who wasnt Mexican gave Chavez jr. a prayer against Martinez, despite him being the unbeaten one. Calzaghe's marque wins were against a finished Jones Junior, and in my opinion, a a horrible, visually scarring razor-thin win vs the ageless (obviously doping) Hopkins. I scored 114-113, Hopkins, I didnt mind a score that went the other way, long as you dont make me watch it again to show me why!

On talent perhaps not. In mythical head to head match ups maybe not. But his record is at least as good if he beats Kessler.

Ward would comfortably beat both so it is hard to hold that against him. Being undefeated isn't as important as most make out.

in terms of being unbeaten and having a long run then calzaghe is unbeatable.

but in terms of heart and willingness to fight the best fight after fight, and winning all but 2, he's miles ahead of joe.

If Calzaghe had rematched and beaten Hopkins, then I'd probably still have Calzaghe slightly ahead. He didn't though, so just instinctively I'd say things are pretty close now. Don't mind who anyone has ahead in truth. Joe's got the longevity and unbeaten tag, though his reign only really started with Kessler, while Carl's probably got the better people and the away wins. Carl maybe could get a few brownies for forcing Joe to relinquish the lumpiest bit of bling in Joe's collection. But JC fans would argue that Joe was on his way down and lost his hunger, while Carl was ascending. Some truth in that, though Joe of course had just taken on his most important fight. Froch would have been a nice baton fight for him and in hindsight a win there would have done wonders, but Joe of course was under no obligation there.

Rematches have to be paid for...Who wanted to see that stinker again.

TRUSS

How does Calzaghe qualify for ATG status???...what by beating ''good'' fighters as you say?...So you don't have to beat GREAT fighters to achieve this accolade then.

Silly,silly statement. Having a dig at Froch who has a far greater resume the Calslapps.

Think please before you post.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:TRUSS

How does Calzaghe qualify for ATG status???...what by beating ''good'' fighters as you say?...So you don't have to beat GREAT fighters to achieve this accolade then.

Silly,silly statement. Having a dig at Froch who has a far greater resume the Calslapps.

Think please before you post.

Joe Louis didn't beat any greats yet he's an ATG

Joe Louis never beat Schmelling or Conn or Baer all of which are in the HOF.

Think before you post please.

Hopkins will be HoF and probably rank higher than anyone Louis beat, to be fair.

I don't think the Canastota Hall of Fame is much of a measuring stick for greatness, OneTwo! Ingemar Johansson, Barry McGuigan and Pipino Cuevas are prime examples of that.

The v2 boxing Hall of Fame, however, well that's a different story....

Barry mcguigan is in the HOF..

88Chris05 wrote:
The v2 boxing Hall of Fame, however, well that's a different story....

Would Joe make it Chris? Now that would have been an interesting one.

Joe Louis was the man at heavyweight forever. He also beat quality men such as Max Baer, Conn, Walcott and Schmeling along with handy fighters such as Buddy Baer, Sharkey and Braddock.

Calazghe and Froch are difficult to rate -- two completely different approaches to a career. Calzaghe took on a fair amount of soft opposition in meaningless alphabet assignments mixed in with a couple of tests (an old Eubank, Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer). He then had the late career spurt with the wins over Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones (who was way past his best).

Froch looks the more limited fighter but then looks can be deceiving. Wins over Dirrell, Abraham, Bute, Pascal, Taylor and Johnson just about outstrip Calazghe's (on paper). And the losses to Ward and Kessler were nothing to be ashamed about in all honesty (he took on Kessler in Denmark remember, and the Super Six showed how important home advantage can be).

Revenge over Kessler helps. He could yet face Hopkins but is more likely to rematch Pascal (especially if he tops Bute) before rounding off against Cleverly/Groves.

It's a tough one if you're judging on level of opposition.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Joe Louis never beat Schmelling or Conn or Baer all of which are in the HOF.

Think before you post please.

Pretty sure he did.

Marciano and Charles were better quality...

Rowley wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:
The v2 boxing Hall of Fame, however, well that's a different story....

Would Joe make it Chris? Now that would have been an interesting one.

Hhhhmmm.....Never thought about that one before, Jeff. Would have been mighty close I reckon, and I can see the argument either way. Changing my mind back and forth on that one as I type.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Marciano and Charles were better quality...

To quote Oscar winning smash Coming To America:

Clarence: You must be out your goddamn mind! Joe Louis, the greatest boxer that ever lived. [to Akeem and Semmi] I'll be with you boys in a minute. He was badder than Cassius Clay, he was badder than Sugar Ray, and that new boy-what's his name? Mike Tyson?-looks like a bulldog; he was badder than him, too.
Saul: Vait a minute. Vat about Rocky Marciano?
Clarence: Oh, there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin' 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out they a**. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky Marciano! Rocky Marciano! Let me tell you something, once and for all-Rocky Marciano was good; but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't s***.
Saul: He beat Joe Louis' a**.
Morris: That's right, he did whoop Joe Louis' a**.
Clarence: Joe Louis was 75 years old when they fought.
Morris: I don't know how old he was, but he got his a** whooped.
Clarence: Joe Louis had come out of retirement to fight Rocky Marciano the minute he was 76 years old. Joe Louis was always lying about his age. He lied about his age all the time. One time Frank Sinatra came in here and sat in this chair. I said Frank 'you hang out with Joe Louis, just between me and you, how old is Joe Louis?' You know what Frank told me, he said "Hey, Joe Louis is 137 years old." A hundred and thirty-seven years old!
Sweets: Oh. Man, you lying, you ain't never meet no Frank Sinatra.
Clarence: [points to Morris, Saul and Sweets] F*** you, f*** you, and f*** you! Who's next?!