Tweet
I keep hearing Froch talking himself up about fighting ‘elite level’ fighters and am amazed at how he has managed to influence some supposedly knowledgeable boxing fans (as well as the tiresome Glenn McCrory) into churning out this fictitious nonsense. It’s disappointing, because Froch is a good fighter and his behaviour alienates him from fans with integrity, who will always question such bold statements.
First of all, we need to stop regurgitating the tired ‘Froch fights anyone, anywhere’ mantra, as if he’s ‘chosen to do it’ off his own back - it’s a complete fabrication. The only reason he had these fights in succession is to do with a little tournament he signed up to called the 'Super Six'. The very purpose of the tournament was for six fighters to fight each other in order to establish the top dog.
So we’ve already established that the only reason he had all these ‘elite level fights’ in succesion is because he was in the Super Six. It was a path determined by the outcomes of the tournament. Why sign up to it and then moan about it or claim you‘re the only fighter today who has 'decided to fight the best'? It was a contractual agreement, based upon an idea devised by a promotional company. It wasn't Froch's idea, and he willingly signed a contract committing himself to these fights. We shall address the reasons for doing so later.
Let’s look at Froch pre-Super Six. Pascal. A good name, and arguably the biggest scalp on his CV. Brian Magee. And Damon Hague. Froch was largely unknown before he entered the Super Six, even though he was WBC champ and, Pascal aside, he had fought barely any decent opposition. Jermain Taylor was a shot Middleweight. We all know this from looking at his form and his record. He knocked Froch down in the fight and was ahead on the scorecards. Taylor gassed himself out and, fair play to Froch, he did his job and finished it with fifteen seconds left. Reminiscent of Audley Harrison’s all-or-nothing stoppage of Sprott.
The Super Six was, in fact, the making of Carl Froch. Without having signed the contract to have ‘all the tough fights’, who knows where his career would be. One could argue that Froch needed Super Six, because it guaranteed him work and the opportunity to fight some 'big names' - people who may not have gone anywhere near him. Largely, because he wasn’t a big name himself and also because beltholders rarely seek to unify these days. Super Six forced them to. Kevin Mitchell, a huge Froch fan, explained the importance of Super Six for Froch in an article in the Guardian on 13 July 2009.
Froch himself said of Super Six, "It's hard to say if there will be more money fighting this way or not…but it puts me in a position where it is guaranteed over a series of fights." Super Six guaranteed the fights against the best in the division and more importantly, an income. After all, boxing is all about money. He willingly signed the contract and it was the same for the other five when they signed - they were committing to fight the best in the division as the tournament progressed - so why all the praise for this alleged mercurial ‘bravery’? Surely this praise has to be granted to each of the other five competitors? It has to be.
Separately, Super Six also guaranteed Froch the chance to challenge for his world title soon after losing it - the WBC agreed to grant it to the winner of Abraham v Froch in Group Stage Three, even though Kessler was intended to be ‘Champion Emeritus’ and Dirrell was no.1 mandatory. Without Super Six he may well have not had the opportunity but this is speculative - let’s just focus on facts.
The Cobra and his fans keep reminding everybody about these ‘elite level’ fighters he’s been getting in with. In fact, the only ‘elite level’ fighters he has faced were Kessler and Ward. The Kessler fight was close but it was a loss. The Ward fight was much more clear - an exhibition, where Froch was made to look third-rate. Apparently, Ward did this with one arm, but we’ll just focus on the results. Two elite-level fighters, two losses.
Arthur Abraham was a Middleweight who had done nothing at Super Middleweight, and hasn’t since. This was, nevertheless, a brilliant performance by Froch.
Froch supposedly has 'the best legacy at 168' or, as some are ludicrously suggesting, 'the best legacy of any boxer, ever' owing to the run of fighters he‘s faced. This is remarkably fantastical and insulting to many more rightful claimants. Ward beat Froch, emphatically, and also beat Froch’s previous conqueror, our half-English cousin, Mikkel Kessler -so Ward is ahead of Froch in the debate for current #1. Kessler beat Froch and held several Super Middleweight straps, also sharing the distinction with Ward of holding two at once. He’s also been in with better opposition than both Ward and Froch - Calzaghe is a better fighter than any or at least most who made up Super Six (he convincingly beat Kessler, who beat Froch, so it makes sense to say Calzaghe is ‘better’ than most, if not all of them).
To claim Froch has a legacy at Super Middleweight anywhere near ‘great’ is fantastical because it ignores the facts. He is a British legend but, on current form, not an 'all-timer'. Look at Frank Bruno. He fought in a tough era of Heavyweight boxing and thrice fought two current Hall of Famers (Tyson and Lewis). This boosts his credibility but losing to these two doesn’t make him an all-time Great, much as I love Big Frank.
It’s incredibly arrogant and embarrassing behaviour on Froch’s part when he attempts to lay claim to Calzaghes throne, and serves only to alienate him from a lot of boxing fans. How can he make such bold claims when he has lost to an older version of a guy who Calzaghe comfortably beat to unify the division. Kessler aside, how many world title defenses had Froch in comparison to Calzaghe? Three? A handful, while Calzaghe’s record is comparable to names like Joe Louis, and Larry Holmes.
Whatever emotional gripe you have with Calzaghe, he climbed to the top of the mountain at 168. He held every belt and was recognised as the best Super Middleweight on the planet. Froch has not yet, although he had the chance. Super Six guaranteed him the significant half of the unified crown, if victorious (WBC, WBA, The Ring). In fairness to Froch, nobody has done it since.
Calzaghe then went on to defeat Bernard Hopkins and become a two-weight Champion (and become the first and only to hold two The Ring titles at once). Hopkins went on to master Pavlik, and indeed Pascal to win an another WBC title. He didn’t lose until earlier this year at 47, nearly five years and no defeats after Calzaghe’s hard fought victory.
Now to look at Froch and the Lucian Bute victory. First of all, Lucian Bute disgraced himself by coming over here and showing Froch no respect at all in the fight - resting on the ropes and inviting Froch in, hoping to land one Hollywood counter. Froch is a championship-level boxer with power in both hands. Bute is not, and has never been, Floyd Mayweather; and I cannot believe his ******ity in thinking he could win the fight off the ropes with one shot. What we didn’t see of his skills, we did learn he has a questionable level of boxing intelligence and clearly had no respect for Froch's power or ability. He deserved to lose but I wouldn’t be surprised if he goes for the rematch. He’s not as good as we thought he was, but not as bad as he looked on Sunday morning, either.
This brings us on to Froch’s boasting and lack of sportsmanship following a brilliant upset victory. Froch did what he often does and showed a complete lack of class, on this occasion suggesting his foe ought to ‘retire’. He was not capable of showing any humility, choosing instead to kick a man when he was down. This was in incredibly bad taste and very unsporting. He even had the audacity and ******ity to claim that he would’ve beaten Andre Ward on that performance. That is, of course, assuming that Ward would just sit on the ropes and allow Froch to swing for the bleaches.
On current form, Froch is a British legend - three world championships cannot be ignored - who has fought some top-ten contenders and won world titles against good opposition. He is, however, behind the likes of British fighters like Chris Eubank, Nigel Benn (World Champions at Middleweight and Super Middleweight, with Championship 'reigns') Lennox Lewis, Ricky Hatton, Amir Khan, and last by no means least, Joe Calzaghe. Froch’s legacy is good, but it’s not yet great. For a legacy to be considered ‘great’ a boxer has to have beaten the best he faced. It is as simple as that. Joe Bugner fought all the Great Heavyweights of the Golden Era but he's no Great.
Using the logic of Froch and his fans, simply facing the best earns greatness. Are we therefore to consider Birmingham’s 300-fight veteran Peter Buckley a ‘great fighter’? He fought (and lost to) British and World Champions such as Duke McKenzie, Naseem Hamed, Jason Cook, Paul Ingle, Patrick Mullings, Dean Pithie, Jason Booth, Michael Brodie, Scott Harrison, Michael Gomez, Johnny Bredahl, Gavin Rees, John Murray, Bradley Pryce, Michael Gomez, Derry Mathews, Lee Meager, Dave Stewart, Gary Woolcombe and Kell Brook. By applying the ‘Froch’ logic, surely this guy should be considered the ‘Greatest of All Times'.
In closing, following the Bute victory, when asked who he wanted to face next, out of Kessler and Ward, Froch said he would rather face Kessler ‘because he’s a warrior’, like Froch, who comes to fight - whereas Ward is not. Obviously it had nothing to do with the fact that Ward handed him a comprehensive beating, a boxing lesson and also defeated Kessler. It’s not because fighting Kessler is the easier option, absolutely not. Because as we all know, ‘Carl Froch wants only the toughest fights out there’….
First of all, we need to stop regurgitating the tired ‘Froch fights anyone, anywhere’ mantra, as if he’s ‘chosen to do it’ off his own back - it’s a complete fabrication. The only reason he had these fights in succession is to do with a little tournament he signed up to called the 'Super Six'. The very purpose of the tournament was for six fighters to fight each other in order to establish the top dog.
So we’ve already established that the only reason he had all these ‘elite level fights’ in succesion is because he was in the Super Six. It was a path determined by the outcomes of the tournament. Why sign up to it and then moan about it or claim you‘re the only fighter today who has 'decided to fight the best'? It was a contractual agreement, based upon an idea devised by a promotional company. It wasn't Froch's idea, and he willingly signed a contract committing himself to these fights. We shall address the reasons for doing so later.
Let’s look at Froch pre-Super Six. Pascal. A good name, and arguably the biggest scalp on his CV. Brian Magee. And Damon Hague. Froch was largely unknown before he entered the Super Six, even though he was WBC champ and, Pascal aside, he had fought barely any decent opposition. Jermain Taylor was a shot Middleweight. We all know this from looking at his form and his record. He knocked Froch down in the fight and was ahead on the scorecards. Taylor gassed himself out and, fair play to Froch, he did his job and finished it with fifteen seconds left. Reminiscent of Audley Harrison’s all-or-nothing stoppage of Sprott.
The Super Six was, in fact, the making of Carl Froch. Without having signed the contract to have ‘all the tough fights’, who knows where his career would be. One could argue that Froch needed Super Six, because it guaranteed him work and the opportunity to fight some 'big names' - people who may not have gone anywhere near him. Largely, because he wasn’t a big name himself and also because beltholders rarely seek to unify these days. Super Six forced them to. Kevin Mitchell, a huge Froch fan, explained the importance of Super Six for Froch in an article in the Guardian on 13 July 2009.
Froch himself said of Super Six, "It's hard to say if there will be more money fighting this way or not…but it puts me in a position where it is guaranteed over a series of fights." Super Six guaranteed the fights against the best in the division and more importantly, an income. After all, boxing is all about money. He willingly signed the contract and it was the same for the other five when they signed - they were committing to fight the best in the division as the tournament progressed - so why all the praise for this alleged mercurial ‘bravery’? Surely this praise has to be granted to each of the other five competitors? It has to be.
Separately, Super Six also guaranteed Froch the chance to challenge for his world title soon after losing it - the WBC agreed to grant it to the winner of Abraham v Froch in Group Stage Three, even though Kessler was intended to be ‘Champion Emeritus’ and Dirrell was no.1 mandatory. Without Super Six he may well have not had the opportunity but this is speculative - let’s just focus on facts.
The Cobra and his fans keep reminding everybody about these ‘elite level’ fighters he’s been getting in with. In fact, the only ‘elite level’ fighters he has faced were Kessler and Ward. The Kessler fight was close but it was a loss. The Ward fight was much more clear - an exhibition, where Froch was made to look third-rate. Apparently, Ward did this with one arm, but we’ll just focus on the results. Two elite-level fighters, two losses.
Arthur Abraham was a Middleweight who had done nothing at Super Middleweight, and hasn’t since. This was, nevertheless, a brilliant performance by Froch.
Froch supposedly has 'the best legacy at 168' or, as some are ludicrously suggesting, 'the best legacy of any boxer, ever' owing to the run of fighters he‘s faced. This is remarkably fantastical and insulting to many more rightful claimants. Ward beat Froch, emphatically, and also beat Froch’s previous conqueror, our half-English cousin, Mikkel Kessler -so Ward is ahead of Froch in the debate for current #1. Kessler beat Froch and held several Super Middleweight straps, also sharing the distinction with Ward of holding two at once. He’s also been in with better opposition than both Ward and Froch - Calzaghe is a better fighter than any or at least most who made up Super Six (he convincingly beat Kessler, who beat Froch, so it makes sense to say Calzaghe is ‘better’ than most, if not all of them).
To claim Froch has a legacy at Super Middleweight anywhere near ‘great’ is fantastical because it ignores the facts. He is a British legend but, on current form, not an 'all-timer'. Look at Frank Bruno. He fought in a tough era of Heavyweight boxing and thrice fought two current Hall of Famers (Tyson and Lewis). This boosts his credibility but losing to these two doesn’t make him an all-time Great, much as I love Big Frank.
It’s incredibly arrogant and embarrassing behaviour on Froch’s part when he attempts to lay claim to Calzaghes throne, and serves only to alienate him from a lot of boxing fans. How can he make such bold claims when he has lost to an older version of a guy who Calzaghe comfortably beat to unify the division. Kessler aside, how many world title defenses had Froch in comparison to Calzaghe? Three? A handful, while Calzaghe’s record is comparable to names like Joe Louis, and Larry Holmes.
Whatever emotional gripe you have with Calzaghe, he climbed to the top of the mountain at 168. He held every belt and was recognised as the best Super Middleweight on the planet. Froch has not yet, although he had the chance. Super Six guaranteed him the significant half of the unified crown, if victorious (WBC, WBA, The Ring). In fairness to Froch, nobody has done it since.
Calzaghe then went on to defeat Bernard Hopkins and become a two-weight Champion (and become the first and only to hold two The Ring titles at once). Hopkins went on to master Pavlik, and indeed Pascal to win an another WBC title. He didn’t lose until earlier this year at 47, nearly five years and no defeats after Calzaghe’s hard fought victory.
Now to look at Froch and the Lucian Bute victory. First of all, Lucian Bute disgraced himself by coming over here and showing Froch no respect at all in the fight - resting on the ropes and inviting Froch in, hoping to land one Hollywood counter. Froch is a championship-level boxer with power in both hands. Bute is not, and has never been, Floyd Mayweather; and I cannot believe his ******ity in thinking he could win the fight off the ropes with one shot. What we didn’t see of his skills, we did learn he has a questionable level of boxing intelligence and clearly had no respect for Froch's power or ability. He deserved to lose but I wouldn’t be surprised if he goes for the rematch. He’s not as good as we thought he was, but not as bad as he looked on Sunday morning, either.
This brings us on to Froch’s boasting and lack of sportsmanship following a brilliant upset victory. Froch did what he often does and showed a complete lack of class, on this occasion suggesting his foe ought to ‘retire’. He was not capable of showing any humility, choosing instead to kick a man when he was down. This was in incredibly bad taste and very unsporting. He even had the audacity and ******ity to claim that he would’ve beaten Andre Ward on that performance. That is, of course, assuming that Ward would just sit on the ropes and allow Froch to swing for the bleaches.
On current form, Froch is a British legend - three world championships cannot be ignored - who has fought some top-ten contenders and won world titles against good opposition. He is, however, behind the likes of British fighters like Chris Eubank, Nigel Benn (World Champions at Middleweight and Super Middleweight, with Championship 'reigns') Lennox Lewis, Ricky Hatton, Amir Khan, and last by no means least, Joe Calzaghe. Froch’s legacy is good, but it’s not yet great. For a legacy to be considered ‘great’ a boxer has to have beaten the best he faced. It is as simple as that. Joe Bugner fought all the Great Heavyweights of the Golden Era but he's no Great.
Using the logic of Froch and his fans, simply facing the best earns greatness. Are we therefore to consider Birmingham’s 300-fight veteran Peter Buckley a ‘great fighter’? He fought (and lost to) British and World Champions such as Duke McKenzie, Naseem Hamed, Jason Cook, Paul Ingle, Patrick Mullings, Dean Pithie, Jason Booth, Michael Brodie, Scott Harrison, Michael Gomez, Johnny Bredahl, Gavin Rees, John Murray, Bradley Pryce, Michael Gomez, Derry Mathews, Lee Meager, Dave Stewart, Gary Woolcombe and Kell Brook. By applying the ‘Froch’ logic, surely this guy should be considered the ‘Greatest of All Times'.
In closing, following the Bute victory, when asked who he wanted to face next, out of Kessler and Ward, Froch said he would rather face Kessler ‘because he’s a warrior’, like Froch, who comes to fight - whereas Ward is not. Obviously it had nothing to do with the fact that Ward handed him a comprehensive beating, a boxing lesson and also defeated Kessler. It’s not because fighting Kessler is the easier option, absolutely not. Because as we all know, ‘Carl Froch wants only the toughest fights out there’….
Comment