Froch's resume - nothing legendary

[Control-]

let's all talk about the greatness of sir chris eubank.



i reckon eubank would've beaten froch, calzaghe and ward.

[RichCCFC]

Well, it does.

That's one of Calzaghe's best wins, no?

As funny and sad as that sounds, that Jeff Lacy is one of the best wins for a fighter. It is the case.

The fact most people felt he'd lose the fight is the main reason for that.

The fact you're actually trying to argue that beating Roy Jones at that point is better than Froch's win over Abraham is more sad than it is funny.



Still, he was considered one of the best fighters at 168 at the time when Froch fought him. Or up there with the best.

Picked to beat Froch, again.

Eubank wasn't considered in the Top 20, possibly over that, at 168 when Calzaghe fought him.

Again, it's barely even debatable at this point. Froch's resume at 168 is better than Calzaghe's.

As of right now, I'd still rank Calzaghe higher all time. But Froch is one win away from taking him over in that regard aswell.

And Andre Dirrell is considered Froch's best win or one of them..

Lacy did more than Dirrell has.

[IronDanHamza]

And Andre Dirrell is considered Froch's best win or one of them..

Lacy did more than Dirrell has.

Dirrel's clearly better than Lacy, though.

Albeit both wins are around as good as each other.

[Welsh Jon]

Calzaghe retiring just when 168 became super six is de****able.

To be fair Joe was 37.

Retiring at 37 is hardly de****able.

That said Froch should have way more respect from boxing fans than Joe. And I'm a Joe fan.

[Light_Speed]

Calzaghe has 21 Title defenses. As does Sven Ottke.. Is he ranked higher aswell?

I still get baffled when Chris Eubank get's brought up. That win is worthless. The only reason people mention that fight is the name value. Eubank hadn't won a legit fight at 168 in years at that point and wasn't anywhere close to the Top 10 on any list.

Calzaghe beat Lacy. Good win, real good win. Picked to lose by many, he pulled it out, good win.

Anything else to add? Is that it?

Add Kessler to that and I don't see how that's better than Froch's run.



So wait, is it quality or quantity? Which one is it?

With Calzaghe it's quantity but with Ward it's quality? Can't have it both ways.

Ward has wins over Kessler, Froch and Abraham which puts him in the argument but Froch clearly has the more depth at this point.

I told you I take BOTH quantity and quality into account unlike a lot of hardcore fans who pick quantity by default. Calzaghe's best win at 168 (Kessler) trumps Froch's best win. His win over Eubank is not worthless, Eubank is one of the greatest super middleweights of all time. He lost a competitive fight against Collins a couple years before facing Calzaghe, he was still elite in the division.

So we have one excellent win that tops everything on Froch's resume and two good wins. Add to that the impressive number of title defenses and I don't see how you can say that Froch's resume is undoubtedly better than Calzaghe's.

Froch has more depth than Ward but he also lost to somebody Ward beat and he lost comprehensively to Ward himself. More depth doesn't mean better, Pacquiao's resume has more depth than Leonard's, does that mean it's better?

[ATG Fighter]

Given the history of SMW, Froch has one of the best resume. But I don't think anyone is calling him an ATG

[IronDanHamza]

I told you I take BOTH quantity and quality into account unlike a lot of hardcore fans who pick quantity by default. Calzaghe's best win at 168 (Kessler) trumps Froch's best win. His win over Eubank is not worthless, Eubank is one of the greatest super middleweights of all time. He lost a competitive fight against Collins a couple years before facing Calzaghe, he was still elite in the division.

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?

So we have one excellent win that tops everything on Froch's resume and two good wins. Add to that the impressive number of title defenses and I don't see how you can say that Froch's resume is undoubtedly better than Calzaghe's.

Except Eubank isn't a good win.

The only really impressive wins he has at 168 are Kessler and Lacy.

Along with a long list of worthless title defences.

And Froch's resume isn't undoubtabley better overall. But, at 168, it is.

Froch has more depth than Ward but he also lost to somebody Ward beat and he lost comprehensively to Ward himself. More depth doesn't mean better, Pacquiao's resume has more depth than Leonard's, does that mean it's better?

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.

[-PBP-]

You digging too hard bruh.

He's fought the best competition at 168. You dont need to dig any further than that.

[Joeyzagz]

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.

[hugh grant]

Just cos Froch beat Bute, it is nothing new, as of course he was going to beat Bute. Froch dont all of a sudden beat Joe Calzaghe, hed still probably lose on points to JC no change.

Froch deserves credit as he has consistently fought top competion, even though he was protected early on in his career he has made up for it, hemay not be the actual best but hes right up there behind Ward.