Where is Carl Froch ranked in British ATG's?

Rematch was pretty clear win IMO. 8-4 Froch. The first fight was much closer. Yes rematch was clear froch win, 116-112 but I thought he struggled at times with an ancient Kessler... Maybe Kessler just has the right style to give froch problems no matter how old Kessler is.. First fight was very close but I thought Kessler got it fairly....

First off, Froch is one of my favorite boxers of the last ten years. Love his warrior attitude, his chin, and I believe he has a very good resume. Froch-Taylor is one of the most exciting fights in many years. Second, I'm old enough to actually remember the Cooper-Clay fight. Lastly the thread says ATG which I interpret to include popularity then boxing skills. Therefore even Frank Bruno should be considered as both he and Cooper were/are beloved by the British sports fans. Cooper's left hook near ko of Clay is by itself enough to put 'Enry on the list. Hell he went 15 rounds with Joe Bugner in his last fight (Cooper did) I don't think even his most ardent supporter would say Froch is beloved by anyone save his loud mouthed gf. You guys are forgetting the seriously old guys like Jimmy Wilder (no I'm not THAT old). Hatton, Lewis, Calzaghe, Froch all should be considered. Anyway that's my opinion on this topic. ATG means all time great boxer. It doesn't mean all time beloved. Floyd Mayweather isn't beloved. Ali wasn't beloved in his day. Being beloved doesn't mean you're a great boxer. A lot of British people tend to support lovabale losers more than winners. It's a bit sad.

Has Daddy sheltered you from the real world so much that you think anyone who has tried drugs has a "problem"? Have you never tried drugs, NE? It might actually help with the weight loss. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

middle class kids who live on daddy's money :lol1: destroyed. Has Daddy sheltered you from the real world so much that you think anyone who has tried drugs has a "problem"? Have you never tried drugs, NE? It might actually help with the weight loss.

Are you suggesting I have a drug problem because I have taken drugs in my life? :lol1: Cocaine is usually popular amongst middle class kids who live on Daddy's money so I'm surprised you've never tried it. I have a drug problem and you clearly have an eating disorder. So I guess we're even. middle class kids who live on daddy's money :lol1: destroyed.

"you can't run 30 seconds." "i climbed a mountain last week." "i have a drug problem." destroyed. Are you suggesting I have a drug problem because I have taken drugs in my life? :lol1: Cocaine is usually popular amongst middle class kids who live on Daddy's money so I'm surprised you've never tried it. I have a drug problem and you clearly have an eating disorder. So I guess we're even.

"you can't run 30 seconds." "i climbed a mountain last week." "i have a drug problem." destroyed. How far can you run thou brah?

I haven't heard him use this argument until recently. It's always been the Hopkins fight. And now he even says Matthysse won the Garcia fight :lol1: The guy has really become a caricature of himself now. Still comes out with the odd zinger but he's lost the plot overall. yes i think hopkins won the calzaghe fight but i've at least provided a ton of reasons and details such as breaking down number of punches landed in each round. i try not to use subjective scoring criteria because anyone can say the guy coming forward is in control just like anyone can say the counter puncher is in control. the one thing that doesn't change are the punches landed and that was in hopkins favor. and i said matthysse would have won the garcia fight if the knockdown didn't count(imo it shouldn't have) which is just a fact since the cards would have went from 114-112 garcia to 114-113 matthysse. not sure why that's so crazy? once again you are acting like a close fight was a blow out. what purpose does that serve?

british greats :lol1: http://www.theboxingobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Andre-Ward-Carl-froch-George-Groves.jpg our carl looked embarrassed after fighting andre ward, but he's a great fighter! look at his face. you can rank your best fighters. don't call them all greats because they're your best. there are very few great british fighters from the modern era. you've got to have a standard for greatness lower than i'm willing to allow to consider somebody like carl froch a great fighter. very good is fine. great is a huge stretch. his best wins are taylor, bute, kessler a poor showing against andre dirrell, arthur abraham.

Calzaghe-Lacy now is tainted :lol1: Just retire gracefully, daggum. You had your time. there were a lot of clinches in that fight. you act like i'm just making up things but reality is reality. just because you remember a fight a certain way doesn't mean your memory trumps reality. you also never answered why calzaghe deserved to get the decision over hopkins. if it wasn't clean punches it was____________fill in blank with nonsense

The likes of Kid Lewis and Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis and Hamed and Eubank would rank among some of the very best boxers ever...without the British tag being necessary. Froch doesn't quite fall into that category. But he is just below some of the truly elite greats from the british isles.

I respect your hustle of getting destroyed but still coming back for more you definitely have heart. "you can't run 30 seconds." "i climbed a mountain last week." "i have a drug problem." destroyed.

so how did calzaghe win then? it certainly wasn't with clean punches as the calzaghe deception video clearly proved. hopkins outlanded calzaghe easily in 7 rounds and with the harder punches so what was it? calzaghe came to fight? calzaghe made the fight? calzaghe was fighting his fight? or how about the scoring criteria of hopkins faked low blows? we all know that's one of the 4 scoring criteria. how about calzaghe made hopkins tired in the later rounds therefore calzaghe deserves to win the early rounds that he clearly lost? maybe you will just get frustrated and quote compubox. I remember how great you thought brook looked when he beat porter even though he clinched way more than hopkins so you are just a hypocrite. it seems that whatever the british boxer does=winning to you where as I think hopkins won because he landed the better punches and I think brook won because he landed the better punches. The clinching was bad in both fights but then again it was bad in calzaghe-lacy but you wouldn't say a peep about that fight. you picked this one fight to pretend you cared about clinching because calzaghe looked like complete ass. I hate clinching in every fight but that doesn't mean i ignore who is punching the other guy. Calzaghe-Lacy now is tainted :lol1: Just retire gracefully, daggum. You had your time.

Calzaghe-Lacy now is tainted :lol1: Just retire gracefully, daggum. You had your time.

Modern Greats Lewis Froch Everyone else

But but but Hopkins clinched Calzaghe and didn't let him punch him. Isn't that your current excuse for why all the fighters you like keep losing? :lol1: I never said Calzaghe won because Hopkins clinched too much lol lies. So no that's not "my sole reason" why Calzaghe won. I knew Hopkins was going to do that. Projecting and making things up now? You've lost it. so how did calzaghe win then? it certainly wasn't with clean punches as the calzaghe deception video clearly proved. hopkins outlanded calzaghe easily in 7 rounds and with the harder punches so what was it? calzaghe came to fight? calzaghe made the fight? calzaghe was fighting his fight? or how about the scoring criteria of hopkins faked low blows? we all know that's one of the 4 scoring criteria. how about calzaghe made hopkins tired in the later rounds therefore calzaghe deserves to win the early rounds that he clearly lost? maybe you will just get frustrated and quote compubox. I remember how great you thought brook looked when he beat porter even though he clinched way more than hopkins so you are just a hypocrite. it seems that whatever the british boxer does=winning to you where as I think hopkins won because he landed the better punches and I think brook won because he landed the better punches. The clinching was bad in both fights but then again it was bad in calzaghe-lacy but you wouldn't say a peep about that fight. you picked this one fight to pretend you cared about clinching because calzaghe looked like complete ass. I hate clinching in every fight but that doesn't mean i ignore who is punching the other guy.

Ok, I guess he COULD beat him, but given the chance he didn't (first time) though both fights were close.. The rematch should have been a wide win for froch as Kessler was way past it by that point Rematch was pretty clear win IMO. 8-4 Froch. The first fight was much closer.

He arguably beat him both times. Pretty obvious that he COULD beat Kessler. Ok, I guess he COULD beat him, but given the chance he didn't (first time) though both fights were close.. The rematch should have been a wide win for froch as Kessler was way past it by that point

Yeah even I'll say that Calzaghe beat Kessler well. 8-4 I had it and I was being generous really.

Youre reaching here Daggum. Calzaghe won that fight pretty clearly I haven't heard him use this argument until recently. It's always been the Hopkins fight. And now he even says Matthysse won the Garcia fight :lol1: The guy has really become a caricature of himself now. Still comes out with the odd zinger but he's lost the plot overall.