Carl Froch...Most avoided Fighter?? or Overhyped british prospect??

[Clegg]

No your misinterpreting my point. Bika gave Calzaghe one of his toughest tests. Manfredo nearly beat Lacy.

Both those achievements are greater than beating Robin Reid who is 8 years past it.

Froch has a padded record. He will fight Pascal, another guy not in my top 10 with a padded record. Froch will win. Froch will fight a real top 10 next, and he will loose.

P.S Inkin is not a top 10 fighter. Hes padded aswell. And hes bad!

I think most people compile lists by looking at ********* bull**** rankings.

Ok, I get what you mean.

I don't think Bika gave Calzaghe a tough test. He made it a scrappy fight but he didn't come close to winning. It seemed as if his only aim in the fight was to frustrate Calzaghe. After losing the first few rounds, there was no change of tactics or an attempt to force the fight.

Manfredo lost to Lacy by a respectable margin, but that was a poor fight and neither of them looked good. Lacy was coming off of a long lay off and Manfredo just didn't look hungry. If he had upped or put in more effort, he might have won, but he mentally just seemed to accept that he wasn't going to win, even when that wasn't necessarily the case.

I also don't rate Lacy top 5 in the division, so losing to him is not really an achievement, especially as I was not impressed by either guy's performance that night.

If Bika fought Froch, I think it would be a similar fight to the fight with Bute. Froch isn't a southpaw, but like Bute he often has his hands low and throws a lot of hard shots. It's possible that Bika has improved since then, and I can understand people rating him better Froch, but I don't think that he is.

Froch has previously been losing a fight and come back to win. I haven't seen the Westerman fight, but I saw him do it when he won the commonwealth title. This sets him apart from Bika and Manfredo, and is part of the reason I would pick him to beat them.

A guy who is used to filling the role of 'opponent' against the top guys and fights accordingly will lose to someone who believes that he is better than the top guys, as long as they are comparable in terms of ability.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

No because unlike the SMW division. The Welterweight division is loaded.

And your being an idiot. JT moved up 1 division. Not like 3 or 4 like Manny.

I know your understanding this. And i know you realize im right.

So dudes that have been fighting at 168 for years get put down for a middleweight who's never fought at 168.

You dont get ranked in a division based on what you've down lower done. Once Taylor actually.........you know......FIGHTS at 168, then he can be ranked amoungst the best guys there.

You make absolutely no sense.

[Dick-Sucker]

So dudes that have been fighting at 168 for years get put down for a middleweight who's never fought at 168.

You dont get ranked in a division based on what you've down lower done. Once Taylor actually.........you know......FIGHTS at 168, then he can be ranked amoungst the best guys there.

You make absolutely no sense.

Jermain Taylor beats everyone but Bute and Kessler at 168.

Its logic and common sense.

He can make the weight easy, he was struggling to make MW.

Now for those moving down in weight. The way it leads to less padding around the brain, well, its not the same logic i agree. People fightign at lower weights become china chinned.

[Dick-Sucker]

Ok, I get what you mean.

I don't think Bika gave Calzaghe a tough test. He made it a scrappy fight but he didn't come close to winning. It seemed as if his only aim in the fight was to frustrate Calzaghe. After losing the first few rounds, there was no change of tactics or an attempt to force the fight.

Manfredo lost to Lacy by a respectable margin, but that was a poor fight and neither of them looked good. Lacy was coming off of a long lay off and Manfredo just didn't look hungry. If he had upped or put in more effort, he might have won, but he mentally just seemed to accept that he wasn't going to win, even when that wasn't necessarily the case.

I also don't rate Lacy top 5 in the division, so losing to him is not really an achievement, especially as I was not impressed by either guy's performance that night.

If Bika fought Froch, I think it would be a similar fight to the fight with Bute. Froch isn't a southpaw, but like Bute he often has his hands low and throws a lot of hard shots. It's possible that Bika has improved since then, and I can understand people rating him better Froch, but I don't think that he is.

Froch has previously been losing a fight and come back to win. I haven't seen the Westerman fight, but I saw him do it when he won the commonwealth title. This sets him apart from Bika and Manfredo, and is part of the reason I would pick him to beat them.

A guy who is used to filling the role of 'opponent' against the top guys and fights accordingly will lose to someone who believes that he is better than the top guys, as long as they are comparable in terms of ability.

Fair enough Clegg. I see your argument. I may have been harsh rating Froch at 8. But theres no way he would compete, or can be picked to beat, Bute, Kess, Jt, Mundin to me.

Ill stick by him at 8.

I don't think the fight vs Pascals will show us much.

But the fight after will determine whether hes just a padded record. Or the real deal.

And if i had to make a choice, i would go with padded record, but a top 10 fighter. Not top 5.

Anyways im off for tonight.

[MELLY-MEL...]

maybe no one knows or cares about him, thus making it hard to promote a fight with him?

[T-97]

maybe no one knows or cares about him, thus making it hard to promote a fight with him?

Pretty much. It's vicious circle, you havn't fought or beat any big names, so why would a big name fight you?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Jermain Taylor beats everyone but Bute and Kessler at 168.

Its logic and common sense.

He can make the weight easy, he was struggling to make MW.

Now for those moving down in weight. The way it leads to less padding around the brain, well, its not the same logic i agree. People fightign at lower weights become china chinned.

Well WHEN HE ACTUALLY DOES BEAT SOMEONE, then he can be ranked amoung the best at super middleweight. You dont just become the 3rd best based on predictions.

Why dont you get that?

[BattlingNelson]

I don't think Taylor was ever P4P Material, he almost lost Cory Sinks and Winky Wright, and he looked **** against Ouma..

And he should have lost 1 of the Hopkins fights.

So does Manny Pacquiao become a top 3 Welterweight simple cos he's in the top 3 P4P?

Whats Taylor's pedigree at SuperMiddleweight? **** all..........so why does he rank as the 3rd best? Makes no sense at all.

And I dont agree that he was P4P material anyway. Very overrated at Middelweight alone

He still hasn't lost to Hopkins when Hopkins was very high on the p4p. I also know that you guys have Pavlik pretty high on your p4p. That ranking can only be justified by his (dare I say lucky?) wins over Taylor.

So if Taylor isn't p4p material Pavlik should plummet the p4p rankings.

The **** are you talking about?

Im saying Taylor isnt the 3rd best Super Middleweight cos he hasnt done **** at the weight. Once he beats someone, then you can rank him. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

May I ask how high you have David Haye on your HW ranking?

It's common pracsis among the alphabet boys that a champion moving up in weight receives a high ranking in the new division. That seems reasonable IMO.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

He still hasn't lost to Hopkins when Hopkins was very high on the p4p. I also know that you guys have Pavlik pretty high on your p4p. That ranking can only be justified by his (dare I say lucky?) wins over Taylor.

So if Taylor isn't p4p material Pavlik should plummet the p4p rankings.




May I ask how high you have David Haye on your HW ranking?

It's common pracsis among the alphabet boys that a champion moving up in weight receives a high ranking in the new division. That seems reasonable IMO.

I dont rank Pavlik that highly P4P either if you're gonna ask my opinion. I thought Taylor lost twice to Hopkins and then lost to Winky so in my opinion he wasnt a P4P Fighter. Certainly not top 5.

I dont rank Haye at Heavyweight cos he hasnt beat anybody worth really mentioning there. I dont see how Taylor can be the 3rd best Super Middleweight having never fought at the weight. Just doesnt make logical sense

[T-97]

He still hasn't lost to Hopkins when Hopkins was very high on the p4p. I also know that you guys have Pavlik pretty high on your p4p.

I don't. I think he is one of the most overrated fighters around. He is a very strong guy, good power, good chin and a lot of heart. But is very basic, Taylor was there for the taking.

May I ask how high you have David Haye on your HW ranking?

I know you didn't ask me but..


I think Haye should slot in Low in the Top 10 (Same as what I think Taylor should be rated at SMW). Neither Haye or Taylor have proven anything at those weights to be ranked within the Top 5 IMO.