It still amazes me how some refuse to give Joe Calzaghe his due credit. It comes mostly from American fans and it seems that some just can't get past the fact that Calzaghe was that good and happened to be British.
.
Ward is a good champion. Sadly, I think his career suffers from politics. He can hardly afford the lengthy lay-offs. He's a very talented boxer but he's not busy enough to keep Calzaghe from doing what he does best.
.
Calzaghe has a slightly higher KO percentage but that doesn't tell much about the two. The difference I see is that Calzaghe is busier on the inside. If you take the Lacy fight into consideration, a fight Calzaghe entered as the underdog, he used a blend of speed, power timing and toughness.
.
What made Calzaghe look even better is the fact that Lacy underestimated him but that's his stupidity. He was never a smart fighter to begin with, taking nothing from Calzaghe.
.
Comparing common opponents, Kessler and Bika, Kessler gave Ward more trouble than he gave Calzaghe. Both shut out Bika. Looking at the fights you mentioned, Lacy and Froch, I'd give Calzaghe a clear points win. Ward hasn't been very consistent and I don't see anything that indicates that he beats Calzaghe.
.
Calzaghe W 12 UD.
Calzaghe did better against an undefeated prime Kessler than Ward who got a gift decision on Calzaghes leftovers.
Calzaghe is a swarmer, Ward is a boxer so stylistically Calzaghe should win.
Wards never fought anyone anywhere near as good as calzaghe but seeing how calzaghe struggled with Hopkins I'd lean towards ward.
Ward by UD 116-112, or a late TKO.
I really can't see how some peeps are comparing the undisputed king and greatest super-middleweight of all time with someone as green and inactive as Ward is but I would say Joe would school him and beat him 120-111. Calzaghe by a clear and wide UD.
