UK MAILBAG: KELL BROOK STILL SPECIAL, KHAN TO KO GARCIA, FROCH’S RESUME BETTER THAN CALZAGHE?
It has been an exciting week in British Boxing and there is more to come this weekend with the much anticipated Heavyweight showdown between David Haye and Dereck Chisora, coupled with Amir Khan’s return to the ring hoping to become a three-time world champion. This is all following Kell Brook’s resilient points decision victory over Carson Jones, Tyson Fury being mentioned as a contender for Wladimir Klitschko, Chris Eubank Jr. progressing nicely, and some exciting fights which saw Gregor Proska knockout Kerry Hope and Gavin Rees stop Derry Matthews in two enthralling battles. Â FightHype UK Editor Scott Smith has compiled his mailbag report with questions from UK fans on a number of topics.
Hi Scott, I was at the Brook vs Jones event, and must say I expected a lot better from Brook, and now really uncertain if he can go on and be at the level he is being tipped to reach, do you think he can? also there were some good fighters on show, who do you predict will go on and have successful careers? Steven – Sheffield
Hi Steven, to answer your first question, Yes I fully believe Kell Brook has star quality and can reach the top. Â People are raising questions and concerns about the manor of his victory against Carson Jones, I beg to differ. Â I think we got more answers than questions. Â Yes Kell got tagged a lot more than we are used to seeing, BUT he got a tough 12 rounds under his belt against an aggressive, in your face type fighter, proven his chin is solid, and proven he can dig in and grind out a result when he is under pressure or his condition is not to it’s usual high standards. Â I definitely echo Eddie Hearn’s comments that another fight would be more appropriate than to step in with Randall Bailey or Devon Alexander, but Kell is 26 years old, a lot of fighters who went on to dominate the game, had lost once or twice by the time they were 26. Â Does Kell need to improve aspects of his game? Absolutely like most fighters at that age do, is there cause for concern? Absolutely not! The first six rounds Kell looked brilliant, and the one thing that let him down is his conditioning which is being addressed., but this experience will benefit him going into future fights. Â I am always impressed with the cards Matchroom Boxing put on, always thoroughly enjoyable with great match ups. Â Kal Yafai and Scotty Cardle are new to the professional ranks and both look very promising, as does Gregor Proksa and would be interesting to see him in with Darren Barker (who returns to the ring September 8). Â I was shocked to see Ryan Aston beaten as he is a decent fighter. Â If I was to name one, I would choose Kal Yafai purely because I like his boxing style and he is from my neck of the woods so would be good for Birmingham to have another elite fighter.
Hi, Love the blog, and enjoying the footage you guys produce, my question is regarding Amir Khan. Â I have defended Amir Khan since the Peterson defeat, do you think Peterson exposed weaknesses in Khan and who do you see as Khan’s first opponent at 147? Lee, Wigan
Thanks for the compliments Lee. Â I too have been shocked to see the level of criticism Khan has received. Â Ludicrous comments such as “He will never reach the top” “He only has one style” “he has no defense and no chin” “he has already lost twice so he will suffer in being a big draw”. Â I have to laugh at how narrow minded some people can be. Â Manny Pacquiao the second biggest draw in the sport today, by the age of 25 (Khan’s current age) had already lost twice and drew twice, and look at what he has gone on to achieve. Â Do I think Peterson exposed Khan’s weaknesses? quite possibly, but Amir Khan is still learning so is that such a big deal? Just because he was world champion does not mean he is the finished article, and he has never claimed to be. Â It was not a good night for Khan, which happens, even the very best have nights where they are not at their best, but even then without the points deductions he would have won the fight, so he really did not do that much wrong. Â Media and fans will always try and look to over analyze fighter’s weak points and use it as a way to bring them down. Â Amir Khan has come a long way in a short space of time, Â and is on the verge of becoming a three time world champion. Â I believe he will take care of Garcia with little problems. Â Garcia is game but he beat a washed up Erik Morales by wearing him down late in the fight, he has not fought anybody any where near the caliber that Khan has fought. I expect Khan to knockout Garcia in the middle rounds, and I would like to see him fight Lopez in his first fight at 147 and then take on Floyd Mayweather next year, that would be an awesome prospect, especially if Mayweather is serious about coming to UK to fight where he says his fans are the best, what a spectacle that would be.
Tyson Fury is being mentioned in the same breathe as Wladimir Klitschko after his victory on Saturday, do you think with Tyson progressing well every fight do you think he is the man to stop the end the Klitschko reign and is it likely to take place next year?
In Answer to your first question… Short Answer: NO, Long Answer: No Chance. Â I really don’t think he is progressing well, I think he has slightly improved, but the level of opposition has got slightly worse. Â Dereck Chisora has been his highest level opponent and he was severely out of shape. Â Instead of using that victory as a platform, his opponents have got worse, Nicolai Firtha, Martin Rogan, Vinny Maddalone, and Neven Pajkic who dropped Fury in round 2. Â If beating these sort of guys put you in contention for the undisputed world heavyweight champion, then the heavyweight division is in a lot worse shape than we all think. Â Yes he has got extra experience with a few more fights under his belt, and yes he is only 24, and I am sure at some point he will go on to challenge for the world title, but I don’t know what I find more laughable, the fact that people think that resume puts him in contention, or the fact that Wladimir Klitschko is considering Fury as an option with a resume such as that. Â For a big man, he still gets tagged a lot more than he should and against average fighters. Â Neither of his last four would beat Chisora, so why he is fighting four guys in succession that really offer little threat. Â The fact that Pajkic who just comes forward looking at his feet swinging wildly dropped Fury is worrying. Â David Price is far more equipped at this current moment in time to challenge for a world title, and even he is not ready just yet. Â So the patient approach is probably the right thing at the moment, but the level of opponents needs to improve, not get worse. Â Fury now needs to target the likes of Helenius, Povetkin, Arreola, Solis, that caliber of opponent before even thinking about either of the Klitschko’s. Â So in answer to your second question, No I don’t think he will step in the ring with Klitschko next year unless he has at least two top tier opponents first.
I seen a lot of forums debating who has the better resume between Carl Froch and Joe Calzaghe. I was a big Calzaghe fan and his record speaks for itself whilst Froch has lost to his two better opponents. What is your opinion? Liam – Birmingham
I have had this debate myself over twitter and in person with people. Â I seen Calzaghe’s comments that he would beat Andre Ward, I laughed to my self, I really could not see that. Â Calzaghe’s resume contains Hopkins, Jones, Kessler and Eubank, so in name you would say Calzaghe, but if you analyze it closely you may find a different story. Â Three of those four guys were past their prime when Calzaghe fought them (Eubank, Hopkins and Jones). Â You mention that Froch lost to the two best names he fought, well Kessler was a hometown decision, and Ward in my opinion beats Calzaghe aswell, so I don’t think that is a fair comparison. Â If you go by names only Calzaghe would get the nod, but I really believe Froch’s resume matches up. Â I would say they are on par. Â Roy Jones is one of my favorite all time fighters, but the Roy Jones that fought Calzaghe, would have lost to Froch aswell, so it is difficult to compare. Â What I will say is Froch faces all comers, and will not shy away from a fight, I to this day do not understand why Calzaghe refused a rematch with Hopkins in Wales as I believe Hopkins won that fight, and I also refuse to believe that Calzaghe was unable to fight Jones and Hopkins earlier in their career when in my opinion would have seen both of those guys take care of Calzaghe. Â I have a big debate numerous times with the Lacy fight, whilst Calzaghe beat him easy, I never believed the hype about Lacy, he was promising, but had never fought any top level fighters before Calzaghe, and didn’t beat any top level fighters after Calzaghe, so why was this guy considered a top class opponent on Calzaghe’s record. Â Jermaine Taylor, Abraham, Pascal, Bute, Andre Dirrell were all in a good stage in their career and Froch beat them. Â So Froch gets the nod for me.
Follow me on twitter @fighthype_uk_ss
Dear oh dear your boxing knowledge is truly exposed in this article. After losing to Calzaghe, Hopkins then went on to beat the likes of Pavlik and Pascal (who you big up on Froch’s resume) and remember Calzaghe was 37 when he fought Hopkins so he wasn’t in his prime then. You then overplay the people Froch has fought in comparison – a shot Taylor who couldn’t handle the move up to 168, a static career middleweight in Abraham and a overhyped Bute who was saved against Andrade by a hometown ref. An Andrade who had been annihilated by Kessler who in turn lost to Calzaghe but beat Froch. In comparison to Bute, Lacy had shown no such physical weaknesses prior to fighting Calzaghe. I could go on but the lesson is don’t comment on things you know jack shit about.
LOL it is quite hilarious how wound up you are by this.
firstly before you come on here running off your mouth in a disrespectful manor DO YOUR RESEARCH!
secondly….. a better resume is a MATTER OF OPINION. a lot of people out there share the same views.
Don’t give me all this bullshit about Hopkins. Hopkins was 43. being 43 is far different just turning 37. which Calzaghe had. Martinez 37 and still operates as good as he ever has. Hopkins was available time and time again. and if you actually read what I said I believe Hopkins won that fight, so what Hopkins did after that is totally irrelevant. Yes Hopkins has had a good solid career after that.
He had a good victory over Pavlik, and beat Pascal at the second time of asking! styles make fights and Hopkins style and ring knowledge was evidently too much for Pascal, the fact Froch beat him is a good victory.
If you are trying to imply Hopkins was in his prime at the time he fought Calzaghe then you are either biased or clearly clueless.
Hopkins has been suscetable to quick hands for his latter years and struggled against guys that will box on the outside with good latral movement, Which is Calzaghe’s game, he struggled badly against Chad Dawson who was no where near impressive, so don’t try and imply that that fight wasn’t avoided for many years.
You talk about Froch’s figthers….during the time Calzaghe fought, there were a lot of big names floating in and around that division and he did not fight them. Kessler as you see I gave him big credit for.
You mention Taylor was finished etc etc. This is what a hypocrite you are. You have just hyped up Lacy, but slated Taylor, a Taylor that was just turned 31, and had just beaten Lacy LOL so yet Lacy is quality opponent but Taylor wasn’t OK THEN!
Where was Antonio Tarver, Kelly Pavlik since you like to mention him and other quality guys on Calzaghe’s resume, guys that were all in their prime around Calzaghe’s fighting career. And don’t try and say weight because all of those guys adjusted their weight often. We have seen other guys.
Did I over hype them opponents for Froch, I said “they were in a good stage of their career” You can argue as much as you like but you have contradicted your self a number of times it is actually quite funny.Anybody who is anybody that is around at his division he has fought, it is not Froch’s fault that some of the fighters are not as good as the guys that was around when Calzaghe fought, and a number of them he didn’t fight.
Are you going to find an excuse for Roy Jones? LOL. Was Kessler not a home town decision since you say about Andrade vs Bute??
I have said many times that Bute was over hyped in comparison to Ward, but this utter garbage you are talking about “no physical weaknessses” give it a rest, so Floyd Mayweather was in trouble against Mosley in round two, does that mean he shown a physical weakeness in comparison to Manny Pacquiao then? come on give it a rest!
Bute had a bad round against Andrade, and then battered him in the next fight, you want to talk about that sort of crap, Calzaghe got dropped first round against both Jones and Hopkins, is that not physical weakness? if he had fought both of them guys earlier in the career, especially Jones he would have been taken apart. Many believe Calzaghe lost to Hopkins aswell!
You can moan and cry as much as you like but it is an opinion of who has a stronger resume. How many elite level fighters are on each resume? I would and a lot of people would say MORE elite Level fighters are on Froch’s. If you ask me who was a better boxer then I would say Calzaghe, without a doubt, but despite retiring “undefeated” there was more he could have done, there were better options than the ones he took.
Wow yes you talk about someone getting wound up! Right, where shall we start. I didn’t suggest Hopkins was in his prime against Calzaghe. But you implied that Hopkins was over the hill when Calzaghe fought him and this was clearly not the case either. That you felt Hopkins won the fight is also interesting. Fighting on the back foot is fine but a fighter who spends the entire fight going backwards whilst throwing far fewer punches than his forward moving opponent, and who becomes so gassed that he needs to con the ref into unnecessary stoppages doesn’t suggest a victor to me. The reason I mentioned Pascal in this context is that you overplayed the ‘elderly’ nature of Hopkins’s physical condition against Calzaghe; you feel that Hopkins was well past his prime while gasping for air against Calzaghe yet he then goes on to fight a young active Pascal twice. In the second of those bouts HE is so comfortable dealing with this aggressive young fighter that he decides to do press ups between rounds.
You also suggest Calzaghe-Hopkins was a fight ‘avoided for many years’ by the Calzaghe camp. This is plain wrong. The Hopkins-Calzaghe fight was on the verge of being signed years earlier yet Bernard on one occasion doubled his demands overnight as pens were being put to paper and fought a far smaller De la Hoya instead for more money. Can’t blame Bernard at all there, but suggesting Calzaghe did all the avoiding is dead wrong. Bernard, like Roy Jones, was not the easiest to deal with since you seem to think Calzaghe didn’t want to make a Jones fight either. Go ask Roy why he never fought Steve Collins and then you’ll see why Calzaghe-Jones would never have been made until they were both on their way out. Roy didn’t want any part of a Michalczewski fight either even though HBO and the Michalczewski camp bent over backwards to make that fight happen in New York and Vegas. Roy kept turning it down as the offers got upped. Go ask Lou Di Bella who was a HBO exec at the time.
As for Pavlik, Calzaghe should’ve taken that fight instead of Jones but since it was his final payday you can’t blame him for taking the higher purse even though he would have had more respect for dismantling a younger unbeaten fighter. However, since Pavlik came along right at the end of Calzaghe’s time and was a career middleweight it is a little unfair to say he ducked him. As for Tarver, he fought so infrequently and had no interest in Calzaghe until after Calzaghe beat his conqueror Hopkins. You may as well start throwing every light heavyweight name at Calzaghe.
In terms of physical weaknesses, can I ask have you ever fought? Just wondering because you seem to be making completely irrelevant comparisons about Mayweather, Calzaghe and Hopkins fights in relation to this remark. When a fighter talks about physical weakness he isn’t talking about the odd shaky moment a fighter has had here or there – all fighters have shaky moments. He’s talking about whether someone has a soft underbelly. The funny thing is I am Froch man who tires of these silly debates about Froch fighting so called tougher fights han Calzaghe ever did. So go ask Carl whether he thought Bute was a physically tough opponent before the fight. He’ll tell you he knew Bute didn’t have the hardness for it and ask him how he knew this? He’ll tell you the first Andrade fight told all him all he needed to know. I asked him myself. Doesn’t matter that Bute came back to blow Andrade away – his stamina and heart were already exposed. Lacy had balls, heart and physical toughness while bute has always been lacking in all 3 despite having decent skills. Froch knew this going into the ring.
As for Lacy, I was not hyping him up but you completely play down that victory for Calzaghe against an undefeated fighter who was the actual betting favourite for that fight. A man who had never before been taken to the edge of his physical capabilities, unlike Bute had prior to the Froch fight. Calzaghe battered Lacy for 12 rounds and by the time Taylor and Lacy fought each other they were both largely spent forces.
In your original article you stated that the following fighters ‘were all in a good stage of their career’ when Froch beat them – Jermain Taylor, Abraham, Pascal, Bute, Andre Dirrell, and that these fighters add up to more than Calzaghe’s resume. In this list, you have 2 career middleweights, a man who was saved by the ref after being out on his feet in his hometown against a fighter Kessler had previously destroyed, and the Dirrell fight in which Froch was made to look clumsy and which a lot of people thought Froch was lucky to get the nod. The Pascal fight was a good scrap which can be used to frank the form of the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight in terms of where Hopkins was at in his career.
Oh and finally, one thing I didn’t address in your original article was that you laughed to yourself at the thought of Calzaghe being able to compete with Ward. Technically Ward is superb, darting in and out and possesing the physical strength to push somebody as strong as Froch around for large parts of their fight. The problem for Ward going on from here is that Froch had his best time of that fight in the last 3 rounds and, amazingly, was beginning to look the physically stronger. It was strange that Ward was blowing worryingly heavily for someobody who had dictated the pace and dominated all of the preceding action. So Ward-Calzaghe? Well Ward isn’t knocking Calzaghe out, and if he was starting to seriously huff and puff in the latter rounds against Froch after doing pretty much as he pleased, then he’d be seriously gassing in the championship rounds against Calzaghe’s workrate and stamina. There is a big problem for Andre in that department and it’s why he’s risking his name being associated with Conte.
where is Froch’s 0