Froch is a great example why resume is so important

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

cause froch is doesn't have anything spectacular about him... he is just a hard nosed overacheiving guy that refuses to lose

That's not why at all.


The TV ratings for Froch-Pascal were good enough to suggest there would've been a very solid domestic following for Carl if any of the people with influence re. televising boxing in the UK had made real attempts to build on that success and further the brand.

Froch has all the in-ring and out-of-ring ingredients to be a domestic star in the UK (a market you don't really understand); it's just that those who could/should have been tapping his potential are clueless.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

cause froch is doesn't have anything spectacular about him... he is just a hard nosed overacheiving guy that refuses to lose

Sounds like Ricky Hatton. Its nothing to do with that, i dunno why you comment on ***** you have no awareness of.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

Sounds like Ricky Hatton. Its nothing to do with that, i dunno why you comment on ***** you have no awareness of.

LOL, exactly. Difference is Hatton is 'humble' while Froch is '****y', but ****y is as marketable as humble, it's just a different spin; underneath it, their respective charisma and potential appeal to a British audience is pretty similar.

[gingeralbino]

LOL, exactly. Difference is Hatton is 'humble' while Froch is '****y', but ****y is as marketable as humble, it's just a different spin; underneath it, their respective charisma and potential appeal to a British audience is pretty similar.

Froch is "****y" in a really funny way, its very marketable.

[studentofthegam]

LOL, exactly. Difference is Hatton is 'humble' while Froch is '****y', but ****y is as marketable as humble, it's just a different spin; underneath it, their respective charisma and potential appeal to a British audience is pretty similar.

Ricky on paper skills is a better fighter. He has quick feet and above average power. Froch is a ****y SOB which is more my style of fighter. It just that his skills definitly dont match his mouth.

[wazaa.]

froch > cokezaghe.

That's so true.

[shonuff488]

I agree with the TS. Froch has gained my respect, and has made me a fan. When I watch his fights I usually always root for him. The man has took on the best, and beat the best in doing so. His legacy is already greater than Calzaghe's in my opinion, and he isn't even close to being done fighting. I'm tired of people making excuses for Calzaghe's legacy. If he wanted the big fights he could have got them just like Froch, Khan, Hatton, Hamed etc.

[studentofthegam]

That's so true.

I hope yall are talkin resume names because its no way he could have whipped Zags. Sure Joe could have added a few more names but he is a win at all cost fighter with hand speed and head movement which is a nightmare for slow hands like Froch.

[wazaa.]

I hope yall are talkin resume names because its no way he could have whipped Zags. Sure Joe could have added a few more names but he is a win at all cost fighter with hand speed and head movement which is a nightmare for slow hands like Froch.

We´re talking resume wise, yes. BTW, do you like "gam"?

[hugh grant]

People always criticized his level of comptition, up until recently. Until not very long ago, his best opponent was Robin Reid.

But he is a champion now, so of course he is very competent. Just how good a champ he is will be up for debate. He is tough to beat. He was behind on points against JT, so he can be outboxed by the highest level calibre opponents but he'll be there to the end making it hard for you.

JC is better though, even if you think Frochs resume is slightly better. Which it isnt anyway. I think JC would beat Froch.