Froch's resume overrated because of Super 6

A good few of Froch's big wins came on the road - so did two of his losses. It's a great resume but the key point here is Froch isn't finished, he's going to fight for another 2 years (his words).

At the end of the day, Froch went away from home to fight the biggest threat in the division in his prime. Some people prefer to wait until those biggest threats get old before going to fight them.

Great resume? Sugar Ray Leonard Good resume? Carl Froch And I'm not criticizing Froch all that much, just saying his wins have been elevated above the norm because they were under the Super 6 umbrella. My point is that the same criticism you are throwing at Froch can be thrown at even some of the greatest fighters of all time. Your analysis is not only unfair, but it is plain out wrong. Froch isn't being heralded as an ATG, and not even a future HOFer yet. However, he is recognized as a good, solid fighter and champion. To imply that he hasn't done all the he can do to earn that is simply wrong. The super 6 was a great tool to build anyones resume. It prevented the politics of boxing from interfering with the best in the division fighting each other. Froch's resume benefited as a result, as it should have. Let's look at Froch's most recent string of fights: Pascal Taylor Dirrel Kessler Abraham Johnson Ward Bute Mack Name me ONE fighter who has taken 9 fights in a row without even ONE being a "gimme" fight. None of these fighters may be ATGs, but that is one hell of a run right there. The super 6 may have facilitated this string of tough matches, but it did not in any way change the fact that he has been consistently taking on some of the toughest matches available. What is his next move? Looks like he's aiming for rematches with Kessler and Ward. We all know Froch isn't the champ right now, but he is one of the few fighters in the sport that we should not be criticizing. Your argument is that Froch's resume wouldn't look as good without the super 6. You may be right, but that doesn't change who he has fought, and that is in no way a negative thing at all. He committed to fighting the best available, and he has been doing pretty dang good.

Theres no shame in losing a close fight to Kessler in his back yard And although it wasn't close there's no shame in the way froch lost to ward Froch stock will rise with Andre Ward. If ward progresses the way he is by the time he retires froch could be his most difficult fight as I just can't see anyone coming close to him for years to come that's just how good I think he could be.

Let's be honest, the loss to Kessler was very very close. I had the fight a draw, I think a draw would have been fine with many people. The win over Glen Johnson was a good win, but perhaps not a great one in itself. Glen Johnson was coming off of a KO win against Green. However, wins over Taylor, Dirrel, Abraham, Johnson, Pascal, Bute are great when they are strung together. I'm fairly sure that every single one of these fighters were ranked in the top 10 when he fought them. Many of them had titles, or were former champions. Who has Froch NOT fought? Froch only legitimately fell short in one fight, against Ward. The guy doesn't duck anyone, consistently finds a way to win, and makes great fights. He's flawed, sure. The only way Froch's resume would be better is if he had won the fights with Ward and Kessler. Name a fighter with a great resume. ANY fighter. Mayweather? Oh what is Mayweather's best win? De La Hoya? Cotto? Cotto was washed up, he got KO'd by Pacquiao and plastered by Marg. De La Hoya was on the decline. Who else... Oh yea, Mayweather actually had the audacity to fight BALDOMIR! Can you believe that? Is Baldomir a great win? The argument I've given above is the exact same kind of logic that you have used here in this thread. We all know Mayweather is a great fighter. While Froch isn't as great as Mayweather, all fighters resumes are subject to the same kind of idiotic analysis that you are listing. If someone is consistently going out and winning/KOing top 10 contenders, champions, and former champions - then you are simply stupid for criticizing them. Pick someone who is worth critizing, like Alexander Povetkin. Now there is a true paper champ. Great resume? Sugar Ray Leonard Good resume? Carl Froch And I'm not criticizing Froch all that much, just saying his wins have been elevated above the norm because they were under the Super 6 umbrella.

He lost to Kessler too. Is Glen Johnson a 'great win' ? I want to hear your opinion.. thanks. Let's be honest, the loss to Kessler was very very close. I had the fight a draw, I think a draw would have been fine with many people. The win over Glen Johnson was a good win, but perhaps not a great one in itself. Glen Johnson was coming off of a KO win against Green. However, wins over Taylor, Dirrel, Abraham, Johnson, Pascal, Bute are great when they are strung together. I'm fairly sure that every single one of these fighters were ranked in the top 10 when he fought them. Many of them had titles, or were former champions. Who has Froch NOT fought? Froch only legitimately fell short in one fight, against Ward. The guy doesn't duck anyone, consistently finds a way to win, and makes great fights. He's flawed, sure. The only way Froch's resume would be better is if he had won the fights with Ward and Kessler. Name a fighter with a great resume. ANY fighter. Mayweather? Oh what is Mayweather's best win? De La Hoya? Cotto? Cotto was washed up, he got KO'd by Pacquiao and plastered by Marg. De La Hoya was on the decline. Who else... Oh yea, Mayweather actually had the audacity to fight BALDOMIR! Can you believe that? Is Baldomir a great win? The argument I've given above is the exact same kind of logic that you have used here in this thread. We all know Mayweather is a great fighter. While Froch isn't as great as Mayweather, all fighters resumes are subject to the same kind of idiotic analysis that you are listing. If someone is consistently going out and winning/KOing top 10 contenders, champions, and former champions - then you are simply stupid for criticizing them. Pick someone who is worth critizing, like Alexander Povetkin. Now there is a true paper champ.

And the reason behind your hatred for Calzaghe is because he beat Hopkins? Come on man, get back on topic whoa hold on there. Everyone hated Calzaghe for his slapping style, Constant fighting of the biggest tomato cans around and hometown "stoppages" well before he ever fought Hopkins. Lets be realistic here.

Calzaghe fought nothing but tomato cans, completely wasted his talents and didn't fight the best. Froch did and is much more liked and respected than Calzaghe. Infact Froch loaded up Calzaghe's record on Boxrec, pulled his pants down and literally shat all over his record. Get over it!. He's not there yet but once again, this is a Carl Froch thread. Can't respect that then don't post.

Calzaghe fought nothing but tomato cans, completely wasted his talents and didn't fight the best. Froch did and is much more liked and respected than Calzaghe. Infact Froch loaded up Calzaghe's record on Boxrec, pulled his pants down and literally shat all over his record. Get over it!.

Not saying he's overrated, just saying his resume is overrated by most people because of Super 6.

They packed up decent/good fighters and sold them to you as world beaters. I keep seeing a 43 year old, 2-5 in last 7 fights and coming down in weight 7 lbs Glen Johnson used as an example as to why Carl Froch's resume is great. Or Abraham who is clearly very limited and 5-3 at 168 with only a faded Taylor which could be called a 'good' win on his resume... after that you're looking at wins over Edison Miranda and.. uh.. nothing. Andre Dirrell is yet to win a title and he's 29, is he really all that? his biggest win is Arthur Abraham, after that.. who is on his resume? the super 6 was a good thing though they should do it ,more often I like Carl and commend him for his attitude but it's ridiculous how overrated some of these Super 6 wins are getting. Yeah he's over rated he lost to ward Kessler and almost to dirrel. He's not that good. the super 6 was a good thing though and should be done more often

You can do idiotic analysis like this of ANY fighter's resume. Froch has consistently fought the top contenders and champions in the division and won, this is all that we can ask of any champion. The only person he has lost to is Andre Ward, who is already making a case for being the p4p champ. Your post is a joke. He lost to Kessler too. Is Glen Johnson a 'great win' ? I want to hear your opinion.. thanks.

Good call. Froch vs. Edison Miranda was a great fight, I watch it all the time. Talking about Abe ya tit

Completely agree. SMW was called weak for a good while. This tourney got start and people just started saying it was a deep division all of a sudden. He lost to Kessler and Ward, nearly to Dirrell, was losing to Taylor until he got partially fortunate to get the KO. He is a warrior and will fight anyone, fair do's, entirely. I've grown to like him. But sometimes it's literally just stepping into the ring with a top guy is enough for people to rate you as greater than you are, even if you lose.

How to make NSB a better place.. Promote what you love rather than bash what you hate. This thread is the latter.. Just saying.

They packed up decent/good fighters and sold them to you as world beaters. I keep seeing a 43 year old, 2-5 in last 7 fights and coming down in weight 7 lbs Glen Johnson used as an example as to why Carl Froch's resume is great. Or Abraham who is clearly very limited and 5-3 at 168 with only a faded Taylor which could be called a 'good' win on his resume... after that you're looking at wins over Edison Miranda and.. uh.. nothing. Andre Dirrell is yet to win a title and he's 29, is he really all that? his biggest win is Arthur Abraham, after that.. who is on his resume? I like Carl and commend him for his attitude but it's ridiculous how overrated some of these Super 6 wins are getting. You can do idiotic analysis like this of ANY fighter's resume. Froch has consistently fought the top contenders and champions in the division and won, this is all that we can ask of any champion. The only person he has lost to is Andre Ward, who is already making a case for being the p4p champ. Your post is a joke.

That shouldn't make his resume any better. It has significance, surely.

And that's about it. Him and Johnson. Everyone else he was supposed to lose to. That shouldn't make his resume any better.

good read- like the super 6

He was favoured over Dirrell. And that's about it. Him and Johnson. Everyone else he was supposed to lose to.