Is Froch HOF worthy?

im not even a big fan actually usta dislike him but U HAVE TO give credit where credit is due this mfer earned my respect with back to back to back to back A+ level fights imagine if every fighter went through a gaunlet like he did ? who would be undefeated ? maybe calzaghe maybeeeee thats all i can think and a prime roy def hof resume best in a long long long time

Yeah definitely. Three time world champion, insane resume, took on the best of his era in some of the best fights the SMW division has yet seen. Can't really deny him a place to be honest.

I'm not saying these guys are HOF, but for the most part I've heard the following guys get labeled future HOF's by a lot of knowledgeable boxing experts: Shane Mosley Winky Wright Miguel Cotto Juan Manuel Marquez Mark Johnson Michael Carbajal Kotsya Tszyu Rafael Marquez If you really think about it, an argument can be made that Froch's resume is better than all of those guys I just mentioned above. I honestly think that if someone like Dawson or Dirrell had Froch's resume, would people warm up to the idea of it being HOF worthy. I say this, because Froch isn't your traditional fighter, and he doesn't do any one thing exceptionally well. Dawson and Dirrell are definately talented and skilled, but I think people don't wanna give Carl full credit because he looks like a B or C level fighter. However, at the end of the day Carl always finds a way to win (for the most part) while facing the best on a constant basis. I actually agree with you on that. Outside of Mosley and Marquez, IMO. Froch you could argue has a better resume than any of those fighters. Yet, they are all argued for the HOF and guys like Mark Johnson and Kosta Tszyu are in the HOF arleady. I mean, Carl Froch obviously has a better resume than Mark Johnson. Surely? I think Carl Froch has as much an argument as anyone on that list outside Marquez and Mosley.

If he beats Dawson and beats Ward in a rematch, than yes. But as of now? No.

I'm not saying these guys are HOF, but for the most part I've heard the following guys get labeled future HOF's by a lot of knowledgeable boxing experts: Shane Mosley Winky Wright Miguel Cotto Juan Manuel Marquez Mark Johnson Michael Carbajal Kotsya Tszyu Rafael Marquez If you really think about it, an argument can be made that Froch's resume is better than all of those guys I just mentioned above. I honestly think that if someone like Dawson or Dirrell had Froch's resume, would people warm up to the idea of it being HOF worthy. I say this, because Froch isn't your traditional fighter, and he doesn't do any one thing exceptionally well. Dawson and Dirrell are definately talented and skilled, but I think people don't wanna give Carl full credit because he looks like a B or C level fighter. However, at the end of the day Carl always finds a way to win (for the most part) while facing the best on a constant basis. I agree with your post and just to add I believe Tsyzu is already in the hall of fame so that further proves your point.

I'm not saying these guys are HOF, but for the most part I've heard the following guys get labeled future HOF's by a lot of knowledgeable boxing experts: Shane Mosley Winky Wright Miguel Cotto Juan Manuel Marquez Mark Johnson Michael Carbajal Kotsya Tszyu Rafael Marquez If you really think about it, an argument can be made that Froch's resume is better than all of those guys I just mentioned above. I honestly think that if someone like Dawson or Dirrell had Froch's resume, would people warm up to the idea of it being HOF worthy. I say this, because Froch isn't your traditional fighter, and he doesn't do any one thing exceptionally well. Dawson and Dirrell are definately talented and skilled, but I think people don't wanna give Carl full credit because he looks like a B or C level fighter. However, at the end of the day Carl always finds a way to win (for the most part) while facing the best on a constant basis.

Yeah, that doesn't apply for me because everyone knows that I am one of, if not the biggest Carl Froch hater on his website. he's one of my favs but i'm sitting here and ripping his resume it's certainly possible to be partial in boxing it's a lot more difficult when the guy knocks out a betting favorite the night before :rofl:

People need to leave their emotions at the door when discussing HOF or ATG status. If Cotto and Froch were not so loved because of their style and the fact that they faced elite competition they wouldn't be rated so highly. You need to forget about that and objectively look at who they beat, who they lost to and how. Yeah, that doesn't apply for me because everyone knows that I am one of, if not the biggest Carl Froch hater on his website.

People need to leave their emotions at the door when discussing HOF or ATG status. If Cotto and Froch were not so loved because of their style and the fact that they faced elite competition they wouldn't be rated so highly. You need to forget about that and objectively look at who they beat, who they lost to and how.

he was a much better fighter than carl froch, dan. you know it and i know it. that cannot be lost here. he was a better fighter. how long have you been calling froch ****? seriously brother, lol i dont care thaty much about the "ranking" of a fighter you know that i use my eyes. i used to fight. i was a good athlete in my youth so i like to think i see things well. i've been wathcing boxing for 15-20 years now. by the eyes cotto was a much better fighter in his prime than carl froch froch has a nice little resume. he has fought everybody. still not a great fighter. i've got to get going, but i'll revisit the thread I feel that most don't want to give Froch any respect because he does not fit their model of what a boxer is suppose to look like..He's not fast,he does not have great movement..But guess what he wins,he beat Pascal(the guy who clearly beat Dawson who Ward is trying to make a fight with)and Pascal is a very athletic fighter...He beat Taylor and Dirrell both are very athletic fighters..Most thought he would loses both,I like Cotto and feel he has had a very good career..But he does not have a stronger resume then Froch,and tho his style may seem better to you,does not make it the more effective style..I've been very impressed with what Froch has accomplished with very minimal talents...

Right hes a better fighter because you say so i have seen little/nothing put forward to back up your argument. I think its just a case of you appreciate Cotto's style more so somehow in your mind that equates to him being "the better fighter".

You need to stop being condescending look at boxrec? wtf like most people haven't seen most of Cottos big fights. Cotto has always been vulnerable even in his "prime" Judah and Torres proved that Cotto also lost to the two best fighters he fought and arguably lost to Mosley and Clottey I think its you who needs to watch more of Cottos career to be frank. i watched every fight of consequence that cotto has been in when it happened froch too. i was ringside when froch knocked out taylor i am sorry if i came off as condescending.

he was a much better fighter than carl froch, dan. you know it and i know it. that cannot be lost here. he was a better fighter. how long have you been calling froch ****? seriously brother, lol i dont care thaty much about the "ranking" of a fighter you know that i use my eyes. i used to fight. i was a good athlete in my youth so i like to think i see things well. i've been wathcing boxing for 15-20 years now. by the eyes cotto was a much better fighter in his prime than carl froch froch has a nice little resume. he has fought everybody. still not a great fighter. i've got to get going, but i'll revisit the thread Cotto is the better fighter. He is more skilled and is better. But his resume is hardly better, to be honest, Froch's resume could be better. And that's what matters, when ranking a fighter. :lol1: I've been calling Froch sh*t since about 2006. Everyone knows I hate the guy. But as sh*t as he is, he manages to win, and win, and win. And beat the best fighters in his division, one after the other. He lost to Ward, who hasn't? Ward's arguably the best fighter in the world. No shame in that. He lost a tight to Kessler. Other than that, he's beaten everyone. Been the clear underdog in 3 of those fights. I can't remember the odd's for the Dirrell fight but he might have been the underdog in that fight aswell. He's had a great career.

Do you think Joe Calzaghe is a HOF'er? If he's a HOF'er, I don't see how Froch isn't. I still think it's arguable he's a HOF'er but he's one win away from being a lock. do i htink he will get in? yes would i vote him in? i dont know. ii dont have that kind of power. it's like signing a big check. it's only paper if you dont have the money to cover it. initially i would not. its all about who else is on the ballot that year, anyway, but you know that. i probably would down the road after feeling bad for him for years. he was a good to very good to maybe even great fighter who did next to nothing in terms of a great fighter's resume.

What did Miguel Cotto do pre Margarito 1 to say he's greater than Carl Froch? Miguel Cotto lost to the 2 best fighters he fought. Hell, he lost to the 3 best fighters he fought. Like I said in an earlier post; How many fighters have fought top ranked opposition, 5 years in a row, back to back, and won all but 2 of them? 3 of those wins being the clear underdog? I can't think of another fighter in history who you can say that about. Cotto's resume is hardly superior to Froch's, and the more I think about it, the more I think that Froch's resume is probably better. he was a much better fighter than carl froch, dan. you know it and i know it. that cannot be lost here. he was a better fighter. how long have you been calling froch ****? seriously brother, lol i dont care thaty much about the "ranking" of a fighter you know that i use my eyes. i used to fight. i was a good athlete in my youth so i like to think i see things well. i've been wathcing boxing for 15-20 years now. by the eyes cotto was a much better fighter in his prime than carl froch froch has a nice little resume. he has fought everybody. still not a great fighter. i've got to get going, but i'll revisit the thread

this is why we dont vote guys into the hall of fame the day after they get a nice win i'm out of it for a while, man people calling froch a hall of famer building the guys he beat into these great quantities i think you guys need a refresher on just how good a great fighter is carl froch is not that i am sorry, but these guys he is beating are not that good. Do you think Joe Calzaghe is a HOF'er? If he's a HOF'er, I don't see how Froch isn't. I still think it's arguable he's a HOF'er but he's one win away from being a lock.

on the "young" part.. bute is 32. abraham was 30 again, i'll literally repost my reply from earlier froch lost to the two best fighters he fought faded kessler and andre ward glen johnson is ancient. he's been old for years abraham SUCKS. he sucks. the guy's claim to fame is getting his jaw broken by edison miranda and knockout out jermain taylor's corpse. other than beating the most one dimensional fighter to win a MW championship (abraham,) dirrel has done next to nothing. and he almost beat froch. taylor was never the same after losing to kelly pavlik and fighting a bigger man (JT is fighting at MW today. he's clearly a smaller man than froch.) were you watching miguel cotto pre margarito 1? i dont want to dig, but i dont think you guys remember just how good he was. he was one of the planet's best fighters. you have boxrec. look at the resume for yourself. cotto's a borderline hall of famer in my book, but was a better and more accomplished fighter than carl froch. You need to stop being condescending look at boxrec? wtf like most people haven't seen most of Cottos big fights. Cotto has always been vulnerable even in his "prime" Judah and Torres proved that Cotto also lost to the two best fighters he fought and arguably lost to Mosley and Clottey I think its you who needs to watch more of Cottos career to be frank.

on the "young" part.. bute is 32. abraham was 30 again, i'll literally repost my reply from earlier froch lost to the two best fighters he fought faded kessler and andre ward glen johnson is ancient. he's been old for years abraham SUCKS. he sucks. the guy's claim to fame is getting his jaw broken by edison miranda and knockout out jermain taylor's corpse. other than beating the most one dimensional fighter to win a MW championship (abraham,) dirrel has done next to nothing. and he almost beat froch. taylor was never the same after losing to kelly pavlik and fighting a bigger man (JT is fighting at MW today. he's clearly a smaller man than froch.) were you watching miguel cotto pre margarito 1? i dont want to dig, but i dont think you guys remember just how good he was. he was one of the planet's best fighters. you have boxrec. look at the resume for yourself. cotto's a borderline hall of famer in my book, but was a better and more accomplished fighter than carl froch. Bute maybe 30,but he has not fought anybody and was fresher then Carl..Bute 30 is like a boxing 27... Yes I've followed Cotto's whole career,how was he more accomplished then Froch??He was on the canvas in most of his fights at 140lb..Let's be real,he did not fight none of the top ranked fighters at 140lb..No Hatton,no Mayweather no Witter(believe it or not Witter was ranked high at this point)..Just saying bro,I remember Cotto,it was nothing to rave to much about..Froch win or lose has fought everyone..Who has he not fought at 168lb??

Carl Froch HOF? LMFAO the ****... this is why we dont vote guys into the hall of fame the day after they get a nice win i'm out of it for a while, man people calling froch a hall of famer building the guys he beat into these great quantities i think you guys need a refresher on just how good a great fighter is carl froch is not that i am sorry, but these guys he is beating are not that good.

on the "young" part.. bute is 32. abraham was 30 again, i'll literally repost my reply from earlier froch lost to the two best fighters he fought faded kessler and andre ward glen johnson is ancient. he's been old for years abraham SUCKS. he sucks. the guy's claim to fame is getting his jaw broken by edison miranda and knockout out jermain taylor's corpse. other than beating the most one dimensional fighter to win a MW championship (abraham,) dirrel has done next to nothing. and he almost beat froch. taylor was never the same after losing to kelly pavlik and fighting a bigger man (JT is fighting at MW today. he's clearly a smaller man than froch.) were you watching miguel cotto pre margarito 1? i dont want to dig, but i dont think you guys remember just how good he was. he was one of the planet's best fighters. you have boxrec. look at the resume for yourself. cotto's a borderline hall of famer in my book, but was a better and more accomplished fighter than carl froch. What did Miguel Cotto do pre Margarito 1 to say he's greater than Carl Froch? Miguel Cotto lost to the 2 best fighters he fought. Like I said in an earlier post; How many fighters have fought top ranked opposition, 5 years in a row, back to back, and won all but 2 of them? 3 of those wins being the clear underdog? I can't think of another fighter in history who you can say that about. Cotto's resume is hardly superior to Froch's, and the more I think about it, the more I think that Froch's resume is probably better.