Froch's resume - nothing legendary

[mayney]

Lost 3 times actually. None were debatable, sorry.

I don't give credit for who a fighter has faced. I just don't do that, that sounds pitiful to me. It's who they have beaten.

I don't give pity rounds, I don't give pity credit. Sounds to me like Carl Froch is a special ed student who is getting praised for the smallest things he does.

I went from hating Froch, to praising Froch for beating Bute, to now I don't even want to see a thread about him because he's being too overrated. I mean posts like yours, and all of the other posts in this thread is what makes me go against a fighter. "He fights every body", so what? Sounds like he's getting a pat on the head. Just name his wins and move on. I know who he's fought.

So you go against a fighter, because some people who you don't know make some comments on a forum that you don't agree with? Froch TKO's Bute and you praise him, but because some people got over excited you go against him? I don't understand the logic in that. If you are sick of the Froch appreciation threads then don't read them.

[Jack Napier]

who says it's legendary?
he's the #2 guy in a stacked division
he's rightfully getting props for having a lot of heart
he's taking many tough fights in succession
everyone is glad he trashed that punk Bute
he only lost twice, and the Kessler loss was shady anyway
Froch's res isn't legendary but it's damn good

[BennyST]

Like who?

All I've seen is people comparing his resume to guys like Miguel Cotto and Joe Calzaghe.

Hardly greats of the sport.

Carl Froch for the last 5 years in a row has fought Top Ranked opponents, back to back, winning all but 2 of them. Many of them away from home.

3 of those wins, he was a clear underdog.

How many people in the history of the sport can you say that about? Not many.

Again, that doesn't make him an ATG.

But it means his resume is pretty good.

I haven't seen anyone say his resume is legendary. We praise that he fought these guys all in a row, and that he'll fight anyone. That's about it.

Agreed. However, from the win yesterday alone you have a lot of people now saying he is a HOFer and one of the greatest 168 pounders ever. I can dig it with the much deserved respect, but HOFer? Come on guys! (not aimed at you two chaps above)

Right here.

Nice try though. I've seen the same done to Ali's resume.

It's a HOF resume IMO.

Well, there is a pretty big difference between undefeated prime Foreman, Frazier, Sonny Liston, Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Jerry Quarry, Ken Norton, Bob Foster, Ellis, Lyle, Shavers and it just goes on. You can debate it, but you'd be a moron.

Compare that to: Jermain Taylor, Jean Pascal, Arthur Abraham, Lucian Bute, Glen Johnson and Robin Reid.

I get the respect. I really, really do. I love Froch. Funniest guy in boxing and the only good trash talker today. He's exciting, a warrior, utterly unafraid, doesn't take tune ups, fights like a madman and usually wins. But I think we've got to relax just a little on the HOF talk, or even better resume than Calzacky, Cotto.

People diss Calzacky and laugh about him being considered a HOFer for being undefeated, 2 time, 2 division lineal champion with 21 defenses or something and with names like Bopkins, Roy Jones (yes, I know, but explain the difference between 39 year old Roy Jones coming off wins against Trinidad, Hanshaw and Ajamu and 43 Johnson moving down a division and coming off a win over Allen Green and a loss against Cloud)...

Anyway: Bopkins
Roy Jones
Mikkel Kessler
Chris Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Robin Reid
Charles Brewer
Byron Mitchell
Richie Woodhall

All champions at 168. People will rave at Froch's Arthur Abraham win, yet scoff at Byron Mitchell as if it wasn't even remotely close. 2 x WBC champion, arguably undefeated, with that awful decision against Ottke which he pretty clearly won, losing his title in the fight before Calzacky.

Or Bopkins. In between Calzacky loss, he beat Tarver, Wright, Pavlik, Jones, Ornelas and Pascal. That's impressive for anyone.

When looked at objectively, and regarding the great win of yesterday with a cool head, they're not really that close. Calzacky is a ****, but he's a better **** with a better resume. If Froch beat Ward and Kessler, then moved to 175 and won a title there, there would be a major argument for being a HOFer and better than Calzacky. Does he deserve more respect for his approach to boxing? Sure, absolutely. Has he achieved more? Absolutely not. Calzacky is a borderline HOFer with his resume and achievements.

Pascal
Taylor
Bute
Abraham
Johnson
Reid

Not a HOF resume. Very good yes, HOF no. I'd add Dirrell but he's nearly 30, still hasn't even won a paper title and looks to be about as good and mentally strong as Judah's toe.

[BennyST]

He just fought every top guy in his division Back 2 Back 2 Back. Who else has done this?

The Klitschkos have never done this (they wont fight Each other, Valuev)
Floyds never done this(ducked Pacquiao,)
Pacquiao has never done this (ducked Floyd)

The only guy who has anything close to Froch's resume is probably Shane Mosley or Cotto. They fought all the Welterweights.

Well, actually, he has. He might not have done it right now at 147, not having faced the other top guy, but:

At 130: Top two guys (Hernandez, Corrales).
135: Top guy before and after (Castiilo).
140: Second, fourth and seventh ranked fighters, all champions (Gatti was ranked 1 behind Tszyu ie second, Mitchell, Corley).
147: Top two, both the previous two lineal champs (Judah, Baldomir).
154: Top guy (Cotto).

[Shimon]

Those are impressive names, but the fact they are ducking each other negates all else. Theyve been in the same division for 4 fcking years fighting each others leftovers!!! What they are doing is not manly at all, they practically double teamed Cotto, Mosley, Marquez, De la hoya, and refuse to fight each other.

They are implementing the Klitschko strategy at welterweight. Disgusting.

Incredible. When did boxing become about 'manliness'? That's ridiculous.

Boxing is about money and the reason these two won't fight is they both know whoever loses will be losing a percentage of his bankability. It's a tragedy but this is a business. Do you really think these warrior's smack seven bells out of each other for our benefit?! They do it for themselves. For their bank account. All a legacy does is allow you the opportunity to stick more zeros at the end of your paycheck.

Comparing Carl Froch to these two is laughable, comedy at best.

[Shimon]

Agreed. However, from the win yesterday alone you have a lot of people now saying he is a HOFer and one of the greatest 168 pounders ever. I can dig it with the much deserved respect, but HOFer? Come on guys! (not aimed at you two chaps above)



Well, there is a pretty big difference between undefeated prime Foreman, Frazier, Sonny Liston, Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Jerry Quarry, Ken Norton, Bob Foster, Ellis, Lyle, Shavers and it just goes on. You can debate it, but you'd be a moron.

Compare that to: Jermain Taylor, Jean Pascal, Arthur Abraham, Lucian Bute, Glen Johnson and Robin Reid.

I get the respect. I really, really do. I love Froch. Funniest guy in boxing and the only good trash talker today. He's exciting, a warrior, utterly unafraid, doesn't take tune ups, fights like a madman and usually wins. But I think we've got to relax just a little on the HOF talk, or even better resume than Calzacky, Cotto.

People diss Calzacky and laugh about him being considered a HOFer for being undefeated, 2 time, 2 division lineal champion with 21 defenses or something and with names like Bopkins, Roy Jones (yes, I know, but explain the difference between 39 year old Roy Jones coming off wins against Trinidad, Hanshaw and Ajamu and 43 Johnson moving down a division and coming off a win over Allen Green and a loss against Cloud)...

Anyway: Bopkins
Roy Jones
Mikkel Kessler
Chris Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Robin Reid
Charles Brewer
Byron Mitchell
Richie Woodhall

All champions at 168. People will rave at Froch's Arthur Abraham win, yet scoff at Byron Mitchell as if it wasn't even remotely close. 2 x WBC champion, arguably undefeated, with that awful decision against Ottke which he pretty clearly won, losing his title in the fight before Calzacky.

Or Bopkins. In between Calzacky loss, he beat Tarver, Wright, Pavlik, Jones, Ornelas and Pascal. That's impressive for anyone.

When looked at objectively, and regarding the great win of yesterday with a cool head, they're not really that close. Calzacky is a ****, but he's a better **** with a better resume. If Froch beat Ward and Kessler, then moved to 175 and won a title there, there would be a major argument for being a HOFer and better than Calzacky. Does he deserve more respect for his approach to boxing? Sure, absolutely. Has he achieved more? Absolutely not. Calzacky is a borderline HOFer with his resume and achievements.

Pascal
Taylor
Bute
Abraham
Johnson
Reid

Not a HOF resume. Very good yes, HOF no. I'd add Dirrell but he's nearly 30, still hasn't even won a paper title and looks to be about as good and mentally strong as Judah's toe.

Agree with pretty much all of that but Calzaghe being a '****'? Why? Lol. He's just a humble guy from some little town in Wales, by all accounts a decent chap - and great boxer.

I disagree about Froch's 'approach'. Before Super Six he'd barely fought anyone. He didnt choose to fight all these tough fights in succession, he was mandated to do so, as all of the Super Six guys were. If Calzaghe were around he'd have been involved.

A lot of Froch fans seem jealous of Calzaghe and try to play down his achievements out of loyalty to their man. Froch himself recently finally conceded Calzaghe was 'the best, a brilliant Super Middleweight.

Any true fan has to admire what both these guys have done.

[Light_Speed]

Eubank still elite at 168 when Calzaghe fought him? Really?

He hadn't won a legit fight at 168 in years at that point and wasn't in the Top 10 in any list at 168. Possibly not even Top 20.

Still elite in the Division?

Beating a post-prime Eubank at 168 > beating Abraham. AA never beat any elite fighter in the division, only dude he beat is Taylor who was coming off a KO loss. And when AA fought Froch he was coming off a fight where he was thoroughly outclassed before the controversial ending.

The Eubank that Calzaghe fought would starch AA.

If AA is a good win for Froch then Eubank is a good win for Calzaghe.

Where did I say more depth means better?

Froch has more depth than Ward but he also has a lot of quality.

Which is why right now, I'd rank him higher at 168.

But, eventually, it will most likely be Ward.

Why would you rank the guy higher than Ward when Ward dominated him, won the tournament and dominated another fighter who beat Froch?

With all due respect...

Show me an 8 fight run stronger than Carl Froch's in the last 30 years?

Pascal
Taylor
Direll-
Kessler -
Abraham
Johnson
Ward
Bute

There is not one cakewalk in that mix.

Hopkins :

Oscar
Eastman
Taylor
Taylor
Tarver
Winky
Calzaghe
Pavlik

Froch can't fuck with that, and that's just in the last decade.

[hugh grant]

Froch i like him now, but a little perspective is needed. The praise for Froch is on the basis he fought everyone he needed to fight in his division but isnt that what you are supposed to do?

Isnt that what Pacman does, if people didnt keep asking him to step up weight?
But at WW, he fought Cotto, SSM, Clottey, thats 3 already.

[-Lowkey-]

Lost 3 times actually. None were debatable, sorry.

I don't give credit for who a fighter has faced. I just don't do that, that sounds pitiful to me. It's who they have beaten.

I don't give pity rounds, I don't give pity credit. Sounds to me like Carl Froch is a special ed student who is getting praised for the smallest things he does.

I went from hating Froch, to praising Froch for beating Bute, to now I don't even want to see a thread about him because he's being too overrated. I mean posts like yours, and all of the other posts in this thread is what makes me go against a fighter. "He fights every body", so what? Sounds like he's getting a pat on the head. Just name his wins and move on. I know who he's fought.

Its not debatable because you say so? sorry things don't work like that it is very debatable no way Dirrell did enough to deserve the nod in that fight if Dirrell had won a world title because of the antics he displayed that night it would be a slap in the face for boxing.

Your posts come off as bitter Froch has gone through an undeniably good run of opponents.

"He fights every body", so what? lol are you for real he does exactly what us as fans demand from a fighter consistently (something the majority of other boxers in the sport are not willing to do) and you plat it off as, "So What" unbelievable.

[-Lowkey-]

Beating a post-prime Eubank at 168 > beating Abraham. AA never beat any elite fighter in the division, only dude he beat is Taylor who was coming off a KO loss. And when AA fought Froch he was coming off a fight where he was thoroughly outclassed before the controversial ending.

The Eubank that Calzaghe fought would starch AA.

If AA is a good win for Froch then Eubank is a good win for Calzaghe.


Why would you rank the guy higher than Ward when Ward dominated him, won the tournament and dominated another fighter who beat Froch?


Hopkins :

Oscar
Eastman
Taylor
Taylor
Tarver
Winky
Calzaghe
Pavlik

Froch can't fuck with that, and that's just in the last decade.

Hopkins :

Oscar - Blown up welter weight

Eastman - lol you credit that as a good win for Hopkins Abraham the guy you just shit on beat him in his very next figh AA was only 16-0 at that time.

Taylor - Lost

Taylor - Lost

Tarver - Good win

Winky - Close and scrappy

Calzaghe - Lost

Pavlik - Good win