How has Eubank got a better resume than Froch

All four were good boxers at the very least. Collins was perhaps the least technical, Benn had poor tech originally but bloomed late into a cagier smarter boxer, Eubank had great defensive skills as well as being ring savvy but was frequently lazy. Watson I haven't seen much of but he appeared to be a tremendous pressure fighter a bit like Calzaghe but with better power. It would be touch and go for any of them against Froch, edge to current Froch v early Benn and Collins, I think. Both would be immense battles, its been said. The only one of the 90s bunch who seemed happy to spread wings a bit was Collins and perhaps Benn, other than that they seemed content to beat each other up in Britain (+Ireland o course) for years (not to say they didn't face lots of foreign opps of course). So froch surpasses them all in resume if you project his current career trajectory forward to retirement certainly.

Nigel Benn lost to steve collins and tom watson, he wasnt even the best in Britain. what about nigel benn. He was getting pulvarised ad literally beaten out of the ring by Gerald. Who is Tom Watson? You mean Michael Watson. Benn lost to Collins when he was shot. Benn was a superb fighter, Eubank a superb boxer and Watson was better than both. As for McClellan, Benn stopped the guy and he was a small SMW. What you need to understand is that these guys have wins over a whole career which are close to or equal to Froch's. The difference with Froch is that he has squeezed his big wins into one part of his career, back to back.

Oh man, if Froch was a black man you'd be praising him as the GOAT wouldn't you, you little racist *****. what's race got to do with it?

^Agreed I think Eubank would UD Froch all day everyday, styles. If Froch can't hurt Eubank he'd have to throw 1000+ punches to have any sort of chance on the scorecards. Oh and Gerald MccLellan is better than anyone Froch has ever beat, by far, tbh. eubank never fought mcclellan

Froch has got a good resume, Eubank has got some excellent names on his though aswell, like Benn and Watson. Same goes for Benn. Eubank tends to get underrated on here i feel. Froch Vs Eubank wouldn't be a walk in the park for either guy IMO. I'd probably go with Eubank.

who has froch beat.... pascal.... who was later beaten by a 46yr old bernard hopkins.... a shot jermaine taylor.... lost to andre dirrell..... beat abraham, who's let's be honest as limited as they get - and lost against everyone in the super six barring a shot 'jermaine taylor'.... and a 40 something glen johnson.... lost to kessler.... lost to ward.... beat an overrated bute.... who had no major wins on his resume, just an unblemished record.... yusaf mack??? really? and oh, yeah... he beat a shot kessler.....

What, all of a sudden Eubank would beat Froch. on what logical basis, it seems like Froch losses to any B level fighter pre 2005. What so Boxing has regressed??? Also Eubank cherry picked, as did price naseem. Nigel Benn lost to steve collins and tom watson, he wasnt even the best in Britain. people say Froch was lucky against taylor, even though he was a split decision going into the 12th, and what about nigel benn. He was getting pulvarised ad literally beaten out of the ring by Gerald. Its funny how peaples nostalgia overates boxers especially all the robberies Eubank has had against b level oposition. Eubank was easily one of Joe Calzaghes top 5 wins, Joe even said himself it was the toughest fight of his career. Are you taking shots at Calzaghe? Are you calling him a cherry picker because Eubank is one of his best wins? Obviously you are because you just pointed out what a bum Eubank is.

Eubank has an underrated resume & would be a horrible fight for Froch. I could certainly see Eubank frustrating the hell out of Froch on his way to a decision win. I tend to find Eubank very underrated on these boards, by god was he a good fighter in his prime.

It seems like the longer ago a fighter was active the better they become to lots of people. Just say any fighter fighting today was as good as Robinson or Leonard and watch all the hell you will catch. Say something bad about Langford or some other famous fighter of the early 1900s who was KOed about 13 times and lost about 40 fights and kept fighting the same guys up to 8 or 9 times and you will really catch hell. I know because it has happned to me. In any sport that can be measured like track and field or weight lifting records are always being broken by modern atheletes. In boxing all you hear about is how much better the older fighters were and how the best always fought the best. I have been following boxing for over 50 years and I think some of todays fighters are great. The best did not always fight the best and good fighters were often avoided just like today. This is all true.

Eubank had a great resume its no shame to say that its better than Froch's.

No one says he has a better resume.....

It seems like the longer ago a fighter was active the better they become to lots of people. Just say any fighter fighting today was as good as Robinson or Leonard and watch all the hell you will catch. Say something bad about Langford or some other famous fighter of the early 1900s who was KOed about 13 times and lost about 40 fights and kept fighting the same guys up to 8 or 9 times and you will really catch hell. I know because it has happned to me. In any sport that can be measured like track and field or weight lifting records are always being broken by modern atheletes. In boxing all you hear about is how much better the older fighters were and how the best always fought the best. I have been following boxing for over 50 years and I think some of todays fighters are great. The best did not always fight the best and good fighters were often avoided just like today.