Comments Thread For: Booth: Froch Has Deteriorated, A Return is Ill-Advised

[hitking]

Froch has but one style, and that is 'Robo-Carl'. Robo-Carl is usually accompianed to his scraps by 'Rachel the Shrill', Rachel being the vocal barometer as to how Carl is faring at any given moment. Looking past his arm punching ability and square stance, I find that Carl's greatest asset, besides his mouth, is the fact that he has something in him that will not be denied. Call it will, tenacity, "no quit in him" whatever you'd like, but it's something special and maybe it's something that all good fighters have, but Senor Robo has it in spades.

Yet he struggles with decent fighters and is totally outclassed by great ones.

[BafanaBafana]

Man I am finally glad to see people realize how overrated Froch has always been. He is mediocre at best, I mean to be perfectly honest, the ONLY dominating performance he has had against top competition was the stoppage of Bute. Read it and weep:

Pascal - Fought on even terms and got a UK decision
Taylor - Got dropped, and lost 11.5 of 12 rounds, won with 17 seconds left
Dirrell - Got a UK decision and should have lost
Kessler 1 - Lost a decision
Johnson - Won decision in a highly competitive fight that could have gone either way
Ward - Not only lost, but got utterly schooled and embarrassed
Kessler 2 - Won a competitive decision
Groves - Got dropped, hurt several times and won by a BS ref stoppage.

How can anyone that is not ******ed call him world class seriously? Does that read like the resume of a true elite talent? 3 of those should be losses for him basically. Cmon man he is so slow and untalented its absurd. His chin and toughness is the only reason he can even exist at this level. His skillset is a joke. Mark my word, if he fights Ward again, Groves again, or moves to 175 he is getting stopped in his next fight, you heard it here.

Good post, I agree. Froch has got to be one of the most overrated fighters right now. Kinda reminds me of the Mares hype before he got KO'd in 1.

[Weebler I]

You can't do that to any fighter, at least not the great ones.

Floyd: Genero Hernanez, Chico Corrales, Castillo, DLH, Hatton, JMM, Mosley, Cotto, Canelo. All are HOF, borderline HOF, or were THEE best in the division when Floyd fought them. And he did it without losing.

Pacquiao: Barrera, Morales, JMM, DLH, Hatton, Cotto, Bradley. IMO all HOF with the exception of Bradley, who's too early in his career to determine.

Bro, I can easily pick holes in their records, Floyd and Pacquiao fans do it all day, but I'm not going to because like Froch's they speak for themselves.

I will say this though, it took those guys over a decade to rack up those fights, Froch has done it in just 4 years back to back.

I'm not getting into the Calzaghe thing, except to say that Froch gave Groves a shot, JC turned the Froch fight down repeatedly.

Don't bother with the HOF talk, no offence but it's not part of our sporting culture and doesn't mean anything tangible to me.

[hitking]

Bro, I can easily pick holes in their records, Floyd and Pacquiao fans do it all day, but I'm not going to because like Froch's they speak for themselves.

I will say this though, it took those guys over a decade to rack up those fights, Froch has done it in just 4 years back to back.

Don't bother with the HOF talk, no offence but it's not part of our sporting culture and doesn't mean anything tangible to me.

Its a difference between poking holes based on fanatical nonsense and looking at a guy's resume and saying there's no great wins on it. You keep saying Froch fought the best. But what difference does it make if the best in that division suck? He's not a heavyweight. Which means if there aren't any great fighters in his division, he can leave the division and seek out better opponents. I'm sorry, but Pascal, a shopworn JT, untested Dirrell (who I feel beat him), Abraham ( who was an average at best super middleweight), Ward (beat him easily with one arm), a shopworn Kessler (who beat him once and nearly beat him in a rematch, Bute, and Grooves isn't a great resume to me. And just because he was in exciting fights doesn't make him good.

[hitking]

Good post, I agree. Froch has got to be one of the most overrated fighters right now. Kinda reminds me of the Mares hype before he got KO'd in 1.

Froch isn't even as good as Mares.

[Weebler I]

Its a difference between poking holes based on fanatical nonsense and looking at a guy's resume and saying there's no great wins on it. You keep saying Froch fought the best. But what difference does it make if the best in that division suck? He's not a heavyweight. Which means if there aren't any great fighters in his division, he can leave the division and seek out better opponents

Silly talk bro, and we have weight classes for a reason. You don't just move up and needlessly disadvantage yourself, is Floyd going to fight at 160 just because there's no one at 147/154? Of course not.

I'm sorry, but Pascal, a shopworn JT, untested Dirrell (who I feel beat him), Abraham ( who was an average at best super middleweight), Ward (beat him easily with one arm), a shopworn Kessler (who beat him once and nearly beat him in a rematch, Bute, and Grooves isn't a great resume to me. And just because he was in exciting fights doesn't make him good.

I wasn't going to do this, but I will just to illustrate how it can be done to any fighter's record.

Mayweather: Old Hernandez, weight-drained Corrales, Castillo beat him, past prime De La Hoya, blown up JWW Hatton, past prime Cotto, blown up lightweight Marquez, old shot Mosley who nearly KO'd him, weight-drained catchweighted Canelo...

See what I'm saying? (question is rhetorical, and I don't necessarily agree with the stuff above, just proving the point).

[MBE]

Froch isn't even as good as Mares.

How so? Please define 'good'.

If you mean technical skill, then theres plenty of superior fighters than Froch who are crap. His resume is full of better boxers he's beat.

To me being good is dependent on who you beat, not how you fight.

[hitking]

Silly talk bro, and we have weight classes for a reason. You don't just move up and needlessly disadvantage yourself, is Floyd going to fight at 160 just because there's no one at 147/154? Of course not.



I wasn't going to do this, but I will just to illustrate how it can be done to any fighter's record.

Mayweather: Old Hernandez, weight-drained Corrales, Castillo beat him, past prime De La Hoya, blown up JWW Hatton, past prime Cotto, blown up lightweight Marquez, old shot Mosley who nearly KO'd him, weight-drained catchweighted Canelo...

See what I'm saying? (question is rhetorical, and I don't necessarily agree with the stuff above, just proving the point).

But those "holes" in Floyd's resume can be easily disproved. Hernandez was undefeated at 130 and still a P4P fighter. Chico was weight drained because he didn't train properly, muc like Toney against RJ or Duran in the Leonard rematch. A lotta people think Castillo won the first fight, but Floyd cleared that up in the rematch. In DLH's last real fight, he fought the middleweight champ pretty much even before getting stopped with a single shot. Pretty decent win for a guy not long removed from the jr lightweight division. Hatton was probably naturally heavier than Floyd and considered the stronger fighter going in. Cotto was the top ranked jr middleweight when Floyd fought him. JMM has seemed quite adequate as a welter against everyone not named Floyd Mayweather. Mosley was coming off one of the best wins of his career and pretty much the concensus P4P #3. And outside of about 30secs as dominated. I hope like hell the "almost KO'd him" statement is one of those you don't necessarily agree with. Canelo was beaten in a fashion that makes it seem fairly difficult to believe that two pounds would have helped much.

I know you said that you could tear apart Floyd's record. But any semi-knowledgeable fight fan can call bull**** on it. Same can't be done with Froch. And even if you could, the names on his resume aren't that great. And if you're gonna fight less than elite competition, you have to be dominant against it. Froch is not. So either way you look at it. There's no way you can legitimately argue that Froch is a great fighter.

[hitking]

How so? Please define 'good'.

If you mean technical skill, then theres plenty of superior fighters than Froch who are crap. His resume is full of better boxers he's beat.

To me being good is dependent on who you beat, not how you fight.

IMO Moreno is better than anyone Froch has beaten.

[Los Zetas]

Bro, I can easily pick holes in their records, Floyd and Pacquiao fans do it all day, but I'm not going to because like Froch's they speak for themselves.

I will say this though, it took those guys over a decade to rack up those fights, Froch has done it in just 4 years back to back.

I'm not getting into the Calzaghe thing, except to say that Froch gave Groves a shot, JC turned the Froch fight down repeatedly.

Don't bother with the HOF talk, no offence but it's not part of our sporting culture and doesn't mean anything tangible to me.

Groves was the mandatory. Froch decided to take it, but his promoter went for it. Joe had a fight with Hopkins for more money. He also won titles from my memory too.