Carl Froch's record

The guy backed the fighter he trains? What a sham. You took the Ward from the Kovalev fight in your analogy. Yeah sure, no bias whatsoever. Its not like he hadn't had 3 or 4 major surgeries at that point. His body was failing him. Plenty of people scored that fight for Froch, including Showtime from recollection. I had it 115-113 Kessler, but could see the draw or the same score for Froch easily. I have a post history, if you think I am a massive Froch fan, it could easily be proved/disproved. Froch fought at a much higher standard the Vitali through most of his career. Vitali also had a big size advantage over most of his opponents so that along with his skill set and size allowed him to dominate his opposition. Froch 12-0 Abraham, where you could argue he had size advantages, and Abraham is probably better than any opponent on Vitali's resume not named Lewis. Yes Vitali had a great 6 rounds against Lewis, and for me its his longevity and that 6 rounds is why he was deserving of his HOF place. But thats all it was a good 6 rounds, and he lost the fight on cuts. It doesn't relate to guys like Bika and Abraham, because they weren't one of the best 2 or 3 fighters of their time in their weight class. Froch was probably the second best, and the guy above him was at least a modern great, and probably an ATG. I used the comparison because they were some of the best fighters in their time, and they were not the most skilful guys in their time, or known to have a great technique. You don't get too many fighters at elite level like that anymore, but Froch was one for sure. I do not wish to convince you further or converse further on the subject to be honest. Its pretty boring now and I just disagree on too many fronts. All I can say is that I don't think you will get many people who agree with you in America, UK, anywhere. So maybe it is you who wants to find a different perspective on Froch's career. "If one person tells you you're a horse, they are crazy. If three people tell you you're a horse, might be a conspiracy. If 10 people tell you you're a horse, well maybe its time to go out and buy a saddle". There’s backing your fighter and there’s making unsubstantiated, outlandish, FALSE claims about him. That definitely questions his validity as a “journalist”. I took the Ward from his best win, yeah that’s a really bias way to look at it, and you saying Froch beating Taylor during his beak isn’t bias as all😂😂 WTF are you talking about??? Kovalev was the only elite fighter Ward fought so was the only guy who could expose these flaws in his game cause when he came up against these B level guys like Froch, Abraham etc they could barely touch him. Vitali didn’t fight at a much lower level than Froch either, Froch has the better resume but they are not miles apart. There’s not much difference in ability between, Abraham, Groves, Bute, Dirrell aren’t any better than Adamek, Peter, Arreola, Gomez etc. Again your spinning this false narrative of that Froch defeated all these world beaters when they CLEARLY NOT anything special. As for you saying the comparison doesn’t relate to Abraham and Bika because they were not the in the top 2 or 3 in their divisions. Was Abraham not one of the top 2 or 3 middleweights in 2006-2008????? He was ranked 2 or 1 in each one of those years by ring magazine. Once again you’ve contradicted yourself. And Ward an ATG fighter based on what exactly? Resume? No. Elite wins? No. Longevity? No. Ward is a modern great but an ATG, smh get real man. “You don’t get too many fighters like that at elite level anymore but Froch was one of them” 😭😭😭 Who did Froch fight to PROVE he was at elite level???? The ONLY elite level fighter he fought was Andre Ward and he got comprehensively outclassed because he WASN’T on that elite level. That literally proves he wasn’t at elite level. As for the Kessler fight I’m glad you actually admitted Froch LOST that fight, as I said the fight was competitive but anyone who watched it properly and objectively know Froch lost, even Sky Sports scored it to Kessler, the channel that Froch was aligned to that says it all. He LOST. Your saying Froch is some sort of deserving HOF’er but on what basis??? What great win did he have?? What great accomplishment did he achieve?? What great impact did he have on the sport?? 80k at Wembley though😭😭😭 Finally, as for your silly quote I’ll give you a better one: “You ain’t gotta like me, you just mad cause I tell it like it is, and you tell it how it might be”. 🥊

Carl Froch is an inspiration to all fighters. He wasn't athletically gifted but be he made up for it on determination. A true HOF fighter who is severely underrated. This. :boxing:

Am just glad Dirrell didn't get that decision, any boxer that fought the way he did doesn't deserve the win.

Froch is a Mustapha Hamsho level fighter at best. Is Hamsho in the HOF?

I get the your comparison’s as Froch was a throwback in some ways stylistically, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Boxing has evolved well beyond those early eras, were it was more of an endurance sport as opposed to a skill and art. I have respect for all the great fighters of the past but how on earth could Nelson of competed with a guy who moved like Whittaker or how would Ketchel have dealt with say B-Hop who would’ve just negated a lot of his offence with his movement, defence etc. It wasn’t until guys like Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney etc, started to utilise lateral movement, footwork, more defence based boxing, this began to change. The exact same comparison’s you made about Froch could be made about guys like Arthur Abraham, Sakio Bika etc etc. And as for comparing Froch to Vitali, that’s a big disservice to Vitali ability and talent. What element of Froch’s game ranks above Vitali’s? Jab? No. Technique? No. Chin? No. Footwork? No. etc. Also when Vitali fought Lewis he proved he was at that level. When Froch fought Ward he showed he wasn’t at that level. Vitali consistently dominated his opponents. Froch didn’t. Froch has the better resume but who could Vitali have actually fought during his era? There is no bias to my narrative whatsoever. You’re clearly a big Froch fan so you are more prone to be bias than I am. I’m not underestimating any of his opponents I’m just calling it as it was. I didn’t say Taylor was past his “prime” cause he was scientifically still in his physical prime. I said he was past his BEST. Which he most definitely was following the Pavlik losses, name me one performance that proves Taylor was still near his best following the Pavlik loss there isn’t one. And him being mandatory means nothing, Alex Leapai was a mandatory FFS. He was 1-2 in his last 3 fights going into the Froch fight and his win was against Jeff Lacy who was also never the same after being anihilated by Joe Calzaghe. As for Kessler-Froch being a close fight, it was a competitive fight but Kessler CLEARLY WON. I had it 116-112 I can see 115-113 but there is no case for Froch winning that fight unless you are incompetent or bias. As for underrating the Super 6 opponents, I called them what they are B-Level guys, good fighters but not great fighters. The only great fighter in that tournament was the guy that won it. He looked levels above all the other fighters in that tournament because he was. And as for RJJ vs Ward, he doesn’t win a round, the Kovalev fight showed that if you can be quick in and out with your feet and hands you can catch and counter Ward. Case and point RD 2. Roy would absolutely play with Ward dominating with his ridiculous hand and foot speed. The very best Ward could hope for would be to lose a shut out decision. I have no time for Stephen Edwards if I’m honest so I won’t read his spiel. He’s a self righteous mouthpiece IMO. He has a very good breath of knowledge, I’ll give him that. But he’s always got an agenda with what he says. He’s just like Spencer Fearon over here, uses historical context when it suits him. I remember all the sh*t he talked before the Charlo fight. I laughed my *ss off when Charlo iced the guy that was gonna takeover the 154 and 160 divisions in his view. I would say Stephen Edwards is anything but a great boxing mind, he’s hardly Futch or Steward���� The guy backed the fighter he trains? What a sham. You took the Ward from the Kovalev fight in your analogy. Yeah sure, no bias whatsoever. Its not like he hadn't had 3 or 4 major surgeries at that point. His body was failing him. Plenty of people scored that fight for Froch, including Showtime from recollection. I had it 115-113 Kessler, but could see the draw or the same score for Froch easily. I have a post history, if you think I am a massive Froch fan, it could easily be proved/disproved. Froch fought at a much higher standard the Vitali through most of his career. Vitali also had a big size advantage over most of his opponents so that along with his skill set and size allowed him to dominate his opposition. Froch 12-0 Abraham, where you could argue he had size advantages, and Abraham is probably better than any opponent on Vitali's resume not named Lewis. Yes Vitali had a great 6 rounds against Lewis, and for me its his longevity and that 6 rounds is why he was deserving of his HOF place. But thats all it was a good 6 rounds, and he lost the fight on cuts. It doesn't relate to guys like Bika and Abraham, because they weren't one of the best 2 or 3 fighters of their time in their weight class. Froch was probably the second best, and the guy above him was at least a modern great, and probably an ATG. I used the comparison because they were some of the best fighters in their time, and they were not the most skilful guys in their time, or known to have a great technique. You don't get too many fighters at elite level like that anymore, but Froch was one for sure. I do not wish to convince you further or converse further on the subject to be honest. Its pretty boring now and I just disagree on too many fronts. All I can say is that I don't think you will get many people who agree with you in America, UK, anywhere. So maybe it is you who wants to find a different perspective on Froch's career. "If one person tells you you're a horse, they are crazy. If three people tell you you're a horse, might be a conspiracy. If 10 people tell you you're a horse, well maybe its time to go out and buy a saddle".

Anyone denying Froch as a great fighter like that RJJ clown is doing, doesn't deserve to watch boxing.

Was going to reply to all points, but seems people have done it for me. I will add a few bits. What ATG's is he comparable to? For me he is a proper throwback, I feel he would have excelled in the era of the Ketchell's and Battling Nelson, when it was about attrition and not such a sprint. Those guys were iron chinned, iron willed, greats who maybe didn't have elite skills. The fights in those days went 30 sometimes 40+ rounds, and I honestly feel Froch would have been better served in those era's, or the 15 round era, but I still think he was a great fighter in this era. A modern comparison someone has already mentioned, Vitali Klitschko, who wasn't the most technically sound fighter, even a tad clumsy like Froch, but boy could he fight. There chin and toughness allowed them to get away with things other fighters could not. Froch has a much better resume than Vitali too. Maybe your problem isn't with Froch, but the standards of IBHOF. Because Froch did more than quite a few guys in there. Your whole narrative comes across with an undertone of subjective bias. Your opinion on his opponents, certainly wasn't the opinion at the time, and even in hindsight you are massively underrating some of those fighters and where they were when Froch fought them. I am not over the top high on Froch, I just know what I see, and can call a spade a spade. You say Taylor got 2 gifts against Hopkins? Lots of people would disagree with you, there were several rounds in both fights when Hopkins did nothing and let Taylor steal rounds with the double jab. The fights were close, and B-Hop was still prime, which makes them pretty special in terms of performance. Winky as well - when Taylor fought him he was like top 3 p4p and hadn't lost a fight in over 5 years, including massive domination of Trinidad a year before. Taylor had a weakness around stamina though and that was exposed by Pavlik, Froch, and later Abraham. I do think those Pavlik losses took the edge off him, but to say he was WAY past prime, is quite frankly idiotic. He was 30 when he fought Froch, 30! Taylor earned a mandatory position, and after having to go to war with Pascal for the belt Froch went to the US to defend against Taylor, gets put down, behind on the cards and comes back and breaks him. I don't think Taylor's performance was of a fighter who was WAY past his prime, Froch exposed a flaw that was always there. In general you are underrating Froch's resume, the super 6 fighters and the rest of the field. You are also spinning it where it suits your argument, for example ignoring the fact that the first Kessler fight was a seriously close fight which split public opinion about who won. Ward would not have been over his head against Jones. I would pick Jones by UD in that fight, but Ward for sure would have his moments and would win rounds. I could see it being similar to Hopkins-Jones I. Lots of people also have Ward down as an ATG. I don't think there is a SMW or LHW era that he would not have been near or at the top. I don't care about Sky Sports or British media when it comes to fighters to be honest, so am not sure why you are bringing that up. If anything - he earned the respect and popularity of the US media, boxing fraternity, and US audiences first, he was shunned for a long time in the UK, and it took a while for his UK popularity to catch up. I don't know if you follow Stephen "Breadman" Edwards scribe on here, he is a trainer and brilliant boxing mind, I dug up a question he was asked this year about comparing Froch and Calzaghe's career, and I feel the similarly about Froch's career. (PS he is an American) Bread’s Response: Froch had a tremendous career and his late career runs puts him in the HOF in my opinion. But Calzaghe’s career was better. I think Froch is a great fighter and a HOF. Calzaghe is a great fighter who is teetering on all time status. I think Calazaghe is just below the all time status and no worse than the 3rd or 4th best super middleweight ever. Calazghe threw punches away just like Loma and Pacquiao does. All of Calzaghe’s punches were not hard but they were designed that way. He used them to blind you and while you were blinded he moved his feet. By the time you refocus on him he’s in another spot. Calzaghe is not as smooth or visually pleasing as Loma but he was just as effective. Carl Froch had a way of punching into you. His punches looked slow and he ran into you at times. You would think he could be easily defended or countered but he was only beaten cleanly one time in his career vs a great in Andre Ward. He ****ed his punches back but he didn’t release them until the right time. Froch was able to hit everybody at some point in the fight. He had uncanny timing on his delivery despite poor technique at times. Froch was no joke. He also had indomitable will. I get the your comparison’s as Froch was a throwback in some ways stylistically, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Boxing has evolved well beyond those early eras, were it was more of an endurance sport as opposed to a skill and art. I have respect for all the great fighters of the past but how on earth could Nelson of competed with a guy who moved like Whittaker or how would Ketchel have dealt with say B-Hop who would’ve just negated a lot of his offence with his movement, defence etc. It wasn’t until guys like Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney etc, started to utilise lateral movement, footwork, more defence based boxing, this began to change. The exact same comparison’s you made about Froch could be made about guys like Arthur Abraham, Sakio Bika etc etc. And as for comparing Froch to Vitali, that’s a big disservice to Vitali ability and talent. What element of Froch’s game ranks above Vitali’s? Jab? No. Technique? No. Chin? No. Footwork? No. etc. Also when Vitali fought Lewis he proved he was at that level. When Froch fought Ward he showed he wasn’t at that level. Vitali consistently dominated his opponents. Froch didn’t. Froch has the better resume but who could Vitali have actually fought during his era? There is no bias to my narrative whatsoever. You’re clearly a big Froch fan so you are more prone to be bias than I am. I’m not underestimating any of his opponents I’m just calling it as it was. I didn’t say Taylor was past his “prime” cause he was scientifically still in his physical prime. I said he was past his BEST. Which he most definitely was following the Pavlik losses, name me one performance that proves Taylor was still near his best following the Pavlik loss there isn’t one. And him being mandatory means nothing, Alex Leapai was a mandatory FFS. He was 1-2 in his last 3 fights going into the Froch fight and his win was against Jeff Lacy who was also never the same after being anihilated by Joe Calzaghe. As for Kessler-Froch being a close fight, it was a competitive fight but Kessler CLEARLY WON. I had it 116-112 I can see 115-113 but there is no case for Froch winning that fight unless you are incompetent or bias. As for underrating the Super 6 opponents, I called them what they are B-Level guys, good fighters but not great fighters. The only great fighter in that tournament was the guy that won it. He looked levels above all the other fighters in that tournament because he was. And as for RJJ vs Ward, he doesn’t win a round, the Kovalev fight showed that if you can be quick in and out with your feet and hands you can catch and counter Ward. Case and point RD 2. Roy would absolutely play with Ward dominating with his ridiculous hand and foot speed. The very best Ward could hope for would be to lose a shut out decision. I have no time for Stephen Edwards if I’m honest so I won’t read his spiel. He’s a self righteous mouthpiece IMO. He has a very good breath of knowledge, I’ll give him that. But he’s always got an agenda with what he says. He’s just like Spencer Fearon over here, uses historical context when it suits him. I remember all the sh*t he talked before the Charlo fight. I laughed my *ss off when Charlo iced the guy that was gonna takeover the 154 and 160 divisions in his view. I would say Stephen Edwards is anything but a great boxing mind, he’s hardly Futch or Steward����

Fair enough man but I feel you’re massively overrating him and his opponents, and I know my boxing history very well, so I’d really like to know what great fighters he’s comparable to. Ward an ATG please... get real man, He has one elite level win over Kovalev, 2 if you count the first fight. Real ATG fighters like Roy and Foster would’ve beaten Ward easily. Ward was very, very good but isn’t no ATG. Your right most of his opponents we’re “AROUND” the top of their divisions but not a THE TOP of their divisions they weren’t the A guys they were the B and C guys in their divisions. And a lot of his best wins were very much flash in the pan champions: Bute- Had 0 notable wins as champion, and as soon as he faced any type of strong opposition lost convincingly e.g Froch, Pascal, DeGale etc Pascal- Champion for only 2 years, only one meaningful defence vs Dawson, then 46 yr old BHop took his soul. Taylor- Got 2 gifts against BHop(admittedly subjective) got a gift vs Winky, and also struggled with C.Spinks. Then Kelly Pavlik ended his career as a top fighter and he never ever bounced back from it. Somehow regained the IBF belt against a one legged Soliman but anyone knows that holds little value. The only guys who had longevity were Kessler who beat Froch in his prime, and was way past his best in the rematch. And Abraham who has been exposed time and time again as a very flawed fighter. Sky Sports have tried to spin this false narrative for years that Froch has some sort of ATG resume, but it’s just that false. He never beat one elite fighter that can’t be debated. The only guys he beat who could even be considered top fighters (Kessler and Taylor) were both well past their best. He never looked a level above B level guys like Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal, Groves etc. And when he fought a truly elite level fighter in Ward he looked lost, and your right in saying there’s no shame losing to Ward but it proves he was NOT at that top level. Froch was a very limited fighter but overcome those limitations and got everything out of the talent he had, he had a great chin, great engine, and was very tough and strong willed. He did overachieve when you look at some of his domestic level fights with Robin Reid for example. But his level of ability, quality of wins and impact on the sport do not merit him being a HOF’er. I get the feeling your opinion is very high on Froch so this probably won’t change your mind completely but I’d like to think it offers a new perspective on his career which is largely romanticised by the yes men at Sky and patriotic Brit’s. Was going to reply to all points, but seems people have done it for me. I will add a few bits. What ATG's is he comparable to? For me he is a proper throwback, I feel he would have excelled in the era of the Ketchell's and Battling Nelson, when it was about attrition and not such a sprint. Those guys were iron chinned, iron willed, greats who maybe didn't have elite skills. The fights in those days went 30 sometimes 40+ rounds, and I honestly feel Froch would have been better served in those era's, or the 15 round era, but I still think he was a great fighter in this era. A modern comparison someone has already mentioned, Vitali Klitschko, who wasn't the most technically sound fighter, even a tad clumsy like Froch, but boy could he fight. There chin and toughness allowed them to get away with things other fighters could not. Froch has a much better resume than Vitali too. Maybe your problem isn't with Froch, but the standards of IBHOF. Because Froch did more than quite a few guys in there. Your whole narrative comes across with an undertone of subjective bias. Your opinion on his opponents, certainly wasn't the opinion at the time, and even in hindsight you are massively underrating some of those fighters and where they were when Froch fought them. I am not over the top high on Froch, I just know what I see, and can call a spade a spade. You say Taylor got 2 gifts against Hopkins? Lots of people would disagree with you, there were several rounds in both fights when Hopkins did nothing and let Taylor steal rounds with the double jab. The fights were close, and B-Hop was still prime, which makes them pretty special in terms of performance. Winky as well - when Taylor fought him he was like top 3 p4p and hadn't lost a fight in over 5 years, including massive domination of Trinidad a year before. Taylor had a weakness around stamina though and that was exposed by Pavlik, Froch, and later Abraham. I do think those Pavlik losses took the edge off him, but to say he was WAY past prime, is quite frankly idiotic. He was 30 when he fought Froch, 30! Taylor earned a mandatory position, and after having to go to war with Pascal for the belt Froch went to the US to defend against Taylor, gets put down, behind on the cards and comes back and breaks him. I don't think Taylor's performance was of a fighter who was WAY past his prime, Froch exposed a flaw that was always there. In general you are underrating Froch's resume, the super 6 fighters and the rest of the field. You are also spinning it where it suits your argument, for example ignoring the fact that the first Kessler fight was a seriously close fight which split public opinion about who won. Ward would not have been over his head against Jones. I would pick Jones by UD in that fight, but Ward for sure would have his moments and would win rounds. I could see it being similar to Hopkins-Jones I. Lots of people also have Ward down as an ATG. I don't think there is a SMW or LHW era that he would not have been near or at the top. I don't care about Sky Sports or British media when it comes to fighters to be honest, so am not sure why you are bringing that up. If anything - he earned the respect and popularity of the US media, boxing fraternity, and US audiences first, he was shunned for a long time in the UK, and it took a while for his UK popularity to catch up. I don't know if you follow Stephen "Breadman" Edwards scribe on here, he is a trainer and brilliant boxing mind, I dug up a question he was asked this year about comparing Froch and Calzaghe's career, and I feel the similarly about Froch's career. (PS he is an American) Bread’s Response: Froch had a tremendous career and his late career runs puts him in the HOF in my opinion. But Calzaghe’s career was better. I think Froch is a great fighter and a HOF. Calzaghe is a great fighter who is teetering on all time status. I think Calazaghe is just below the all time status and no worse than the 3rd or 4th best super middleweight ever. Calazghe threw punches away just like Loma and Pacquiao does. All of Calzaghe’s punches were not hard but they were designed that way. He used them to blind you and while you were blinded he moved his feet. By the time you refocus on him he’s in another spot. Calzaghe is not as smooth or visually pleasing as Loma but he was just as effective. Carl Froch had a way of punching into you. His punches looked slow and he ran into you at times. You would think he could be easily defended or countered but he was only beaten cleanly one time in his career vs a great in Andre Ward. He ****ed his punches back but he didn’t release them until the right time. Froch was able to hit everybody at some point in the fight. He had uncanny timing on his delivery despite poor technique at times. Froch was no joke. He also had indomitable will.

People can get mad all they want, but Froch was the goods. A bonafide hall of famer. Get used to it. Lol @ any notion of Vitali's resume sniffing Carl's.

Your probably a “skilled” sleeper with a “sharp sleeping brain” 😴😴😴 Right, right

And I’ll do it well Your probably a “skilled” sleeper with a “sharp sleeping brain” 😴😴😴

Just put your head on a pillow and close your eyes And I’ll do it well

You would question my knowledge and understanding of boxing? Golly, how will I sleep tonight? Just put your head on a pillow and close your eyes

He had a decent jab, but it was far from skilled, he would throw it, bring his hand back low and be exposed to a counter, his straight 1-2 was massively flawed whenever he threw the right hands he tended to cross his feet over a basic fundamental mistake. I understand this may not change your opinion but if you genuinely think Carl Froch was a skilled boxer with a sharp boxing brain, I’d seriously question your knowledge and understanding of boxing. You would question my knowledge and understanding of boxing? Golly, how will I sleep tonight?

I can’t show to the blind. Froch had a solid jab, an excellent one-two, set his bodyshots up well and knew how to break down his opponent, evidenced by his stopping all of these guys who were supposedly superior to him. You don’t agree and you’re entitled to your opinion. But you certainly won’t change mine and I have no desire to try and change yours. He had a decent jab, but it was far from skilled, he would throw it, bring his hand back low and be exposed to a counter, his straight 1-2 was massively flawed whenever he threw the right hands he tended to cross his feet over a basic fundamental mistake. I understand this may not change your opinion but if you genuinely think Carl Froch was a skilled boxer with a sharp boxing brain, I’d seriously question your knowledge and understanding of boxing.

Froch was the truth and everything that's right with boxing. He fought the best at their best continually and beat them all but Ward. He never priced himself out or gave it less than 100% and was in several modern day classics. He's everything a young fighter should aspire to be and everything a boxing fan should want in their favourite fighter. I don't know how anybody could try discredit him of all fighters. The Pascal fight should have been a draw? lol just absolute nonsense not even Pascal's own mother would agree with. He wasn't the most textbook boxer and got away with a lot of big no's but to make out he had no skills is outrageous. He outboxed Mikkel Kessler ffs a very good technical boxer, he put on a total masterclass vs Abraham - a lot fresher, better Abraham than the one we see todays best often struggling with. He outboxed and outfought much more athletic boxers in Pascal and Groves 2 He was awkward and at times clumsy but there was a method to his madness with an underrated boxing brain and a great eye for openings. His K.O of Groves was all about the set up same vs Magee among others he was a lot more skilled than people realise or are willing to admit. He didn't just bludgeon guys he outboxed a wide variety of good boxers. You don't beat fighters like Kessler, Groves, Pascal just by being tough.

Boxing goes far deeper than just “skill” kid. How do you think Lamotta beat SRR? How did Henry Armstrong become one of the greatest fighters of all time? Obviously you can’t give examples of where he used his “sharp boxing brain” in those fights then.... Why??? Cause he didn’t have one😂😂 I can’t show to the blind. Froch had a solid jab, an excellent one-two, set his bodyshots up well and knew how to break down his opponent, evidenced by his stopping all of these guys who were supposedly superior to him. You don’t agree and you’re entitled to your opinion. But you certainly won’t change mine and I have no desire to try and change yours.

I’m shocked more bodybuilders don’t just go into boxing. No skill required to beat top boxers. Boxing goes far deeper than just “skill” kid. How do you think Lamotta beat SRR? How did Henry Armstrong become one of the greatest fighters of all time? Obviously you can’t give examples of where he used his “sharp boxing brain” in those fights then.... Why??? Cause he didn’t have one😂😂

But he beat them through his toughness, great stamina, work rate, strength, power etc etc. More or less all physical attributes. Give me examples of where he used his “sharp boxing brain” in these fights???? You can’t cause he didn’t have one. All of those fighters outboxed him. Ward schooled him, Taylor had dropped him and was well ahead on the cards, exact same with Groves etc etc. And I’ll give Froch credit where it’s due he found a way to win in some of those fights. But it wasn’t a result of his supposed boxing skills or boxing brain. I’m shocked more bodybuilders don’t just go into boxing. No skill required to beat top boxers.

Yet he beat all but one of them. Go figure. But he beat them through his toughness, great stamina, work rate, strength, power etc etc. More or less all physical attributes. Give me examples of where he used his “sharp boxing brain” in these fights???? You can’t cause he didn’t have one. All of those fighters outboxed him. Ward schooled him, Taylor had dropped him and was well ahead on the cards, exact same with Groves etc etc. And I’ll give Froch credit where it’s due he found a way to win in some of those fights. But it wasn’t a result of his supposed boxing skills or boxing brain.