Will Carl Frochs stock skyrocket if Pascal stops B-Hop?

IF Hopkins loses to Pascal, he is too old. And at 45, that's not exactly crazy. Would it make more sense if I said I technically thought BHop was too old to fight Jones lmao

Pascal will probably win a close decision that will leave Hopkins complaining about robbery. I'd be happy if this happens, but will be more ecstatic if Pascal can put Nard on his back.

No. Froch's stock would sky rocket if HE stopped Hopkins. If Pascal stops Hopkins, it only helps Pascal's stock.

I hate it when people apply triangle theories by completely ignoring crucial facts. Sometimes a triangle theory does make sense; for example, if a great fighter beats a good fighter and that good fighter beats a bum, then you can correctly assume that the great fighter will also beat that bum. But the triangle breaks down if the great fighter is not the same fighter when he fights the bum. People said how amazing Dawson was when Adamek started beating cruiserweights and heavyweights but completely ignored the fact that Adamek was weight drained when he fought Dawson. Froch beat Pascal at 168, but both are better fighters today and the younger, faster Pascal would be the favorite in a rematch. Also, Pascal beating a 45 year old Hopkins doesn't mean anything; he might as well beat an old Calzaghe or Jones. Hopkins losing to Pascal doesn't mean he "suddenly" got old. He's been old since he fought Taylor. A prime Hopkins, the one that sent Tito into retirement, would have smoked Taylor and probably beaten Calzaghe. Sorry about the long rant, but I just wish people would stop ignoring key facts just to make one guy look better and another look worse.

no boxing is not about triangle theories

hopkins is way too old. he won't win in canada. Never rule out bhop to win, he makes fights ugly.

hopkins is way too old. he won't win in canada.

They are now Different fighters, At a Different time, and a Different place. With your logic, Pascal's one loss to Froch will automatically dictate how well Froch does from this point forward? Pascal and Froch met when both, but especially Pascal, were still very green. Pascal fought overseas in Froch's hometown, and fought a spirited performance and suffered a close but real loss. Both have improved since that point considerably. Both are far more mature. If they met again the result could be the same or very different.

It was more Froch's laziness that he lost that fight, if he kept active he would've won that with ease. Kessler was swinging wild and he missed sooo many punches. He only has himself to blame, but it was still close considering Carl took rounds off. You can have your opinion and thats cool, just hate all this "robbery" talk. If you do EVERYTHING TO WIN in a fight and lose, then you can complain if you think you won. But if you run and play act, throw a few punches then run again and cry, you only have yourself to blame and have no valid point. Me either, but it would be great for Pascal. I'm not betting on a Pascal KO, but its not out of the question. I understand your point for sure, man. We can agree to disagree on the Dirrell subject. I like Froch anyway, the things he says annoys me at times, but that's OK, he puts in great fights and you have to love and respect that.

Or does B-Hop become 'too old' right after he loses to Pascal? I rank Carl Froch as the best super middlweight right now, his resume as of late has been really impressive. He beat Pascal, who I think will go on to be a solid LHW, not a great but a very good champion at that weight. He is still settling into fighting at that weight aswell, he will only get better. Chad Dawsons stock wen higher for me when Adamek moved up to HW and impressed because Dawson controlled Adamek brilliantly. Does Froch have a whole new set of Fromos if Pascal convincingly beats Hopkins? Not something we'll have to worry about. Pascal is not stopping Hopkins. Pascal will probably win a close decision that will leave Hopkins complaining about robbery.

I dont think dirrel did enough to win, controversial wins and losses are part of every boxer in a lot of peoples eyes that are neutral, they would say ward should have been dqd against kessler which imo they are right, therefore, kessler beat ward in your eyes as well since the ref didnt do his job right? froch, while I dont really care for him has by far the best resume, it isnt even close Resume, I agree, Froch has the best. But he has been beaten by Mikkel Kessler. That means that Kessler is better than him, no? Well I didn't think Ward deserved to be DQ'd, but I havn't watched the fight since I saw it live. Regardless, I would never say Kessler deserved to win, because he did nothing in the ring, boxing wise, to permit me to say that. There was no boxing skill, no punches landed that went unnoticed by judges.

Kessler 7-5. That means Kessler is better than Froch at this particular time. I am over it, pal. I can still say freely whenever I choose though that Dirrell won that fight, regardless of whatever journalists, grandfathers or boxingscene posters agree or disagree. :) It was more Froch's laziness that he lost that fight, if he kept active he would've won that with ease. Kessler was swinging wild and he missed sooo many punches. He only has himself to blame, but it was still close considering Carl took rounds off. You can have your opinion and thats cool, just hate all this "robbery" talk. If you do EVERYTHING TO WIN in a fight and lose, then you can complain if you think you won. But if you run and play act, throw a few punches then run again and cry, you only have yourself to blame and have no valid point. I hear you bro. Just can't see him getting stopped. I've been wrong plenty of times before though. Me either, but it would be great for Pascal. I'm not betting on a Pascal KO, but its not out of the question.

Let's face it, if Hopkins loses it is because he's too old. He's been teetering on the edge for a while now, I don't think he'll be able to handle Pascal's youth and athleticism.

Even though Kessler beat him? And Dirrell too in my eyes. I dont think dirrel did enough to win, controversial wins and losses are part of every boxer in a lot of peoples eyes that are neutral, they would say ward should have been dqd against kessler which imo they are right, therefore, kessler beat ward in your eyes as well since the ref didnt do his job right? froch, while I dont really care for him has by far the best resume, it isnt even close

I don't mean a Paul Williams style KO, I'm talking Pascal could score a flurry TKO, they are fighting in Canada and B-Hop doesn't throw much. I hear you bro. Just can't see him getting stopped. I've been wrong plenty of times before though.

Kessler beat him in a close decision, if you say otherwise you're a Kessler scrotum gobbler. Dirrell lost, get over it. Even his granpappy said Dirrell didn't do enough at the post fight conference. BY no way was it a masterful win, but Ward wins ugly, Froch won ugly that night. Kessler 7-5. That means Kessler is better than Froch at this particular time. I am over it, pal. I can still say freely whenever I choose though that Dirrell won that fight, regardless of whatever journalists, grandfathers or boxingscene posters agree or disagree. :)

It probably would, but B-Hop aint getting stop. No way no how. I don't mean a Paul Williams style KO, I'm talking Pascal could score a flurry TKO, they are fighting in Canada and B-Hop doesn't throw much.

Even though Kessler beat him? And Dirrell too in my eyes. Kessler beat him in a close decision, if you say otherwise you're a Kessler scrotum gobbler. Dirrell lost, get over it. Even his granpappy said Dirrell didn't do enough at the post fight conference. BY no way was it a masterful win, but Ward wins ugly, Froch won ugly that night.

It probably would, but B-Hop aint getting stop. No way no how.

id suspect only if it were also to plummet if jean were to get beat by bhop ...