The greatest in the Super and Junior weight classes?

[IronDanHamza]

[QUOTE=LacedUp;13619637]

He's not the beat in his era because the best of his era Is likely to overtake him when all said and done. Their careers aren't over.

None of those guys can be ranked above Froch at 168.

Roy Jones has the best win and that's all he did. The rest don't have the résumé Froch has.

Calzaghe has an argument, as does Ward. And Ward likely ends up #1 at 168 if he's not already.

And I have no idea why you are brining up wins outside of 168 into this discussion.[/QUOTE]

OK, so let's look at Froch's resume once again and take all fights out of 168 out of the equation.

1) Jermaine Taylor - 1 victory at 168.
2) Arthur Abraham - 1 victory at 168.
3) Lucian Bute - Best win was either Sakio Bika, Miranda or old Glen Johnson that Carl had just beaten. Hardly jaw dropping resume.
4) Andre Dirrell (many think Froch lost this one) - Best win was.... Anthony Hanshaw who's best result was a win over Ikeke or a draw with Mendy.
5) Glen Johnson with 14 losses and 2-2 in his last 4
6) Jean Pascal - best win was an old Ikeke, but was a strong fighter. Good win for Froch.
7) Mikkel Kessler - Who he had previously lost to and was coming off 3 years of inactivity against lower level opposition.

Now, this is just what a critic would say.

Calzaghe, Ward > Froch.

OK, so let's look at Ward and Calzaghe's resume once again and take all fights out of 168 out of the equation.

Calzaghe;

1) Kessler - Best win was Librado Andrade. But he was a strong champion. Good win.
2) Lacy - No wins against ranked fighters and the best fighter he fought was Omar Sheika who was 3-3 in his last 6 fights in which he struggled
3) Sakio Bika - No good wins at the time he fought Calzaghe. Loses everytime he fights a top level fighter
4) Charles Brewer - 2-2 in his last 4 fights
5) Richie Woodhall - 1-1 in his last 2 fights, retired after
6) Bryon Mitchell - Coming off a loss
7) Robin Reid - 1-1 in his last 2 fights, many people thought he lost
8) Chris Eubank - Unranked at 168, hadn't had a legit win in years and never won again

Only two of these wins were in the Top 5 at 168 - Kessler and Lacy

Ward;

1) Froch - Already lost to Kessler, MD with Johsnon who had 14 loss's and was 2-2 in his last 4 fights, best win is Pascal who best's win was Ikeke, only other good wins are people who had 1 fight at 168 - Terrible win.

2) Kessler - Already lost to Calzaghe, coming off weak oppositon since being dominated by Calzaghe

3) Bika - Coming off a loss

4) Abraham - 1 win at 168 - 1-2 in his last 3 fights

5) Alan Green - No good wins in his career, got knocked out by Glen Johnson with 14 loss's in his next fight

6) Edison Miranda - Got knocked out in 4 rounds by a fighter with 1 fight at 168 and was coming off 2 wins against bums after that 4 round KO

Now, this is what a "Critic" would say.

Froch > Calzaghe, Ward.

Easy as that. Can literally do it with any fighter.

[Humean]

I think LacedUp's point was that if you performed the same 'analysis' of Froch's record as people do with Calzaghe's it becomes far from clear that Froch has the better resume. I myself think Calzaghe was better than Froch, and that talk of 'resume' becomes highly dubious in these debates. You are not better because of your resume, looking at the opponents beaten simply gives you an idea to how good they are. There is other evidence also, such as watching a fighter actually fight. Of course resume is more important in regards to how 'great' a fighter is, but that comes a step after working out how good particular wins were, based not just on the quality of opposition but the manner of victory and how good the fighter looked. I think if Calzaghe and Froch fought then it would be a wide points victory for Calzaghe, as wide as the Ward Froch decision should have been.

I love Roy Jones jr but he did not fight nearly long enough nor significantly enough at 168 to consider him the greatest at 168. Calzaghe is number one, Collins number 2 and probably Eubank, Benn and Ward fighting it out for third.

[IronDanHamza]

I think LacedUp's point was that if you performed the same 'analysis' of Froch's record as people do with Calzaghe's it becomes far from clear that Froch has the better resume. I myself think Calzaghe was better than Froch, and that talk of 'resume' becomes highly dubious in these debates. You are not better because of your resume, looking at the opponents beaten simply gives you an idea to how good they are. There is other evidence also, such as watching a fighter actually fight. Of course resume is more important in regards to how 'great' a fighter is, but that comes a step after working out how good particular wins were, based not just on the quality of opposition but the manner of victory and how good the fighter looked. I think if Calzaghe and Froch fought then it would be a wide points victory for Calzaghe, as wide as the Ward Froch decision should have been.

I love Roy Jones jr but he did not fight nearly long enough nor significantly enough at 168 to consider him the greatest at 168. Calzaghe is number one, Collins number 2 and probably Eubank, Benn and Ward fighting it out for third.

It is far from clear. It's certainly close between them but I lean on Froch.

Of course. "Better" and "greater" are different.

And there's absolutely no way Collins, Benn and Eubank are above Froch at 168.

[Humean]

It is far from clear. It's certainly close between them but I lean on Froch.

Of course. "Better" and "greater" are different.

And there's absolutely no way Collins, Benn and Eubank are above Froch at 168.

In terms of 'better' and 'greatness' they really are. I am amazed by the way people seem to rate Froch. I'm not saying Froch is not damn good nor that he wouldn't hold his own against Collins, Benn and Eubank but he clearly has a little to go before being as great as them. He is not far off but Collins beat Eubank and Benn twice. Eubank beat Holmes, Malinga, Watson, drew with Benn and fought two close fights with Collins. Benn beat Galvano twice, Nardiello, Malinga and McClellan. Froch has wins against Kessler, Bute, Taylor, Abraham, Pascal. Taking away the Kessler win the other wins are roughly comparable with wins against guys like Holmes, Malinga, Watson, Galvano etc. I think he'd need to beat Ward to be next to Benn, Eubank and Ward.

[IronDanHamza]

In terms of 'better' and 'greatness' they really are. I am amazed by the way people seem to rate Froch. I'm not saying Froch is not damn good nor that he wouldn't hold his own against Collins, Benn and Eubank but he clearly has a little to go before being as great as them. He is not far off but Collins beat Eubank and Benn twice. Eubank beat Holmes, Malinga, Watson, drew with Benn and fought two close fights with Collins. Benn beat Galvano twice, Nardiello, Malinga and McClellan. Froch has wins against Kessler, Bute, Taylor, Abraham, Pascal. Taking away the Kessler win the other wins are roughly comparable with wins against guys like Holmes, Malinga, Watson, Galvano etc. I think he'd need to beat Ward to be next to Benn, Eubank and Ward.

They aren't.

First and foremost those wins aren't comparable. Froch clearly has a better resume than all of those fighters taking everything into account.

I don't rate Froch highly. I only consider him to be #1 at this moment in time solely because the lack of history in the 168 division.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

It is far from clear. It's certainly close between them but I lean on Froch.

Of course. "Better" and "greater" are different.

And there's absolutely no way Collins, Benn and Eubank are above Froch at 168.

You think froch would beat all those guys,,, me personally think collins and eubanks beat him, and froch beats benn

They aren't.

First and foremost those wins aren't comparable. Froch clearly has a better resume than all of those fighters taking everything into account.

I don't rate Froch highly. I only consider him to be #1 at this moment in time solely because the lack of history in the 168 division.

How can you rate froch #1 in history of 168, yet at no point in his career has he ever been #1,,, there was always joe, when froch was coming up, kessler was looked at as the favorite at the start of the super 6, and ward has clearly proved himself that he is the legit #1 guy of division and has a win over froch.....
Froch has never been the #1 guy at 168,,, maybe i missed something in your posts that led you to this conclusion...

[Boxing Bob]

I can only speculate, but my answer is yes. His desperation to get a Chavez fight shows that. Lowest risk/highest return is almost always the final choice. And that applies to the vast majority of other fighters too.

Good stuff Scott, I've been looking for the words to say this exact thing in all these ducking threads over on NSB

[IronDanHamza]

[/B]

You think froch would beat all those guys,,, me personally think collins and eubanks beat him, and froch beats benn



How can you rate froch #1 in history of 168, yet at no point in his career has he ever been #1,,, there was always joe, when froch was coming up, kessler was looked at as the favorite at the start of the super 6, and ward has clearly proved himself that he is the legit #1 guy of division and has a win over froch.....
Froch has never been the #1 guy at 168,,, maybe i missed something in your posts that led you to this conclusion...

I think Froch against Benn, Eubank and Collins would all be great fights.

I think Roy Jones beats anyone in history at 168 with ease but I wouldn't rank him #1 solely because he didn't do enough there despite having perhaps the best win there.

I rate him #1 for now. He will be overtaken by Ward in the very near future and I wouldn't argue if someone had Ward over him now.

I only have Froch above Ward right now because IMO Froch has the better resume despite Ward having the win over hiim. Having the win over him doesn't necessarily automatically mean that he's greater than him.

Ward will overtake him though and inevitably become the greatest Super Middleweight ever. If he isn't already that is. He certainly has an argument.