Froch's resume - nothing legendary

[BennyST]

Devon,Vic Darchinean Nonito donaire.

No, No and No

You've got to be kidding? Vic has fought a greater set of fighters than Froch. Mijares, Arce, Mares, Yamanaka, Moreno, Donaire, Perez, Pacheco.

Devon: Maidana, Bradley, Kotelnik, Witter, Urango....on and on.

Froch's Bute, Kessler, Johnson, Abraham, Ward, Dirrell, Taylor isn't exactly some amazing thing that no one today has done.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

Not really.

Because Abraham was considered to be one of the best fighters at 168 at that time.

Eubank was arguably not even in the Top 20 when Calzaghe fought him

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

Because his resume is better.

Am I supposed to rank Saddler above Pep at 126?

Charles above Burley at 160?

Fernandez above Arguello at 130?

Of course not.

As it stands, Froch has the stronger resume at 168. It most likely won't stay that way. But, he has at the moment.

[New England]

You've got to be kidding? Vic has fought a greater set of fighters than Froch. Mijares, Arce, Mares, Yamanaka, Moreno, Donaire, Perez, Pacheco.

Devon: Maidana, Bradley, Kotelnik, Witter, Urango....on and on.

Froch's Bute, Kessler, Johnson, Abraham, Ward, Dirrell, Taylor isn't exactly some amazing thing that no one today has done.

darchinyan fought agbeko, too.

[rich6666]

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.

Froch did choose to fight all these tough fights in succession, He could have easily defended his title at home a few times building up his name and title defences, but decided to participate in the tournament. tbh without Froch and Kessler there would not have been any super six tournament.
I agree all the super six participants deserve credit for taking part in what was a gruelling tournament, but Froch in my opinion deserves more credit. Not only did he stay the course and finish the tournament he fought in Helsinki, Herning and also USA, While Ward had the much easier time at home.

[IronDanHamza]

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)

He is one of the greatest 168 Pounders ever.

I can't think barely anyone you could argue has a better resume than him at the weight in the history of the Division.

I also think arguing he's a HOF'er isn't even unreasonable.

And this is coming from one of, if not the biggest Froch haters on this site.

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.

I don't see how Calzaghe as that much further ahead than Froch.

Calzaghe has the better resume overall as it stands. But I can't see how he has a better resume at 168, I just can't see that.

Froch is one win away from being greater than Calzaghe IMO.

If he beats Kessler in a rematch then I'd consider him the greater fighter.

[TOBYLEE1]

Devon,Vic Darchinean Nonito donaire.

Devon has had good level of opposition but has been dominated in his loss.

Donaire hasn't fought in the highest level since Montiel

You can make a case for Vic but as of late he has been losing, top opposition but losing by wide margins

[-Kev-]

Damn, I've seen it all now about the Froch overrating.

Irondan...Froch over Ward? Really? Froch ranked over Ward?

And to everyone else saying nobody has fought the amount of good fighters in succession. I'll name one.

Dawson:

Fought Harding and Adamek back to back.

Then, starting from 2008, his resume pretty much gets no rest at all. With "no tune ups or long layoffs in between".

Glen Johnson, Antonio Tarver, Antonio Tarver, Glen Johnson, Jean Pascal, Adrian Diaconu, Bernard Hopkins, Bernard Hopkins, Andre Ward(pending).

I know some will try to act like Froch's resume is so much better and Froch has fought the better fighters.

The Adamek, Tarver that Dawson fought >Kessler and Taylor that Froch fought.

Diaconu=Abraham

Dawson fought the much younger version of Johnson, 3 years younger I think.

Hopkins>Dirrell, Bute

Pascal, Ward=equally prime. Though obviously, Froch beat Pascal so that automatically makes Froch's fight over Pascal much better.

Some who have been watching boxing for 3 years will disagree that Adamek and Tarver of 2007, 2009 respectively, are better than the versions of Kessler and Taylor that Froch fought. But the truth is, Dawson has fought the better fighters, or just about equally as good as Froch, with a slight edge because he actually has wins against future hall of famers like Hopkins, and probable HOFers like Adamek(maybe), Tarver. In just about the same succession that Froch did. But only Froch gets some kind of special praise for what he's done, while Dawson just gets a big ol nothing for his tough lineup. I don't see any one at all talking about Dawson's pretty much great resume, and no consideration of being a top 10 P4P fighter, but then Froch does.

[TOBYLEE1]

I shat on Abraham at 168, never said he wasn't elite at 160.

You said the Winky fight was close but you don't think the Taylor fights were?

Bottom line is this 8 fight streak from Hopkins is more impressive than Froch's and you know it.


Hopkins.

About the only one that can be compared and at a unusually high age in boxing. Hopkins does have an Orneales and Roy Jones fight sandwiched in between. Froch has a consistant flow of top fighters. Not saying that it is the best all time great lineup but yet the top fighters in his division

[IronDanHamza]

Damn, I've seen it all now about the Froch overrating.

Irondan...Froch over Ward? Really? Froch ranked over Ward?

No, not ranked over Ward right now.

Ward is #1 at 168. And that's not debatable.

But, in terms of resumes. Who has the stronger resume at 168 historically, it's Froch.

But, after Ward beat's Dawson, or if he beats Dawson. As long as Dawson makes the weight fine. He'll already have overtaken him.

The history of 168 is so weak, that 1 win can make you overtake another fighter.

Ward is still relatively early in his career and most likely will end up being the greatet 168 Lb'er ever. He's already almost there.

[ИATAS]

Then, starting from 2008, his resume pretty much gets no rest at all. With "no tune ups or long layoffs in between".

Adrian Diaconu was a tune up to look good for his planned rematch of Pascal (which turned out to be hopkins).

but I hear ya, Dawson has an impressive resume as well. I think some of it is that Dawson, not by his own fault, has fought these old dinosaurs in Tarver, Johnson & Hopkins. Obviously they were the guys at the top of the division so not his fault, but compared to froch who's fought all these guys in their prime besides Johnson, maybe that's the difference.

Pound 4 pound Dawson is obviously better than Froch, no question about that.