Is Froch an ATG

[LacedUp]

Hold on, hold on, hold on....did I read this right? Did I really just read that Hearns and Froch are comparable ATGs and that their resumes are comparable? Is that actually what I just read?

I think this could take the NSB 'muppet post of the year' award.

Seriously man, on you on ****ing crack? You're comparing a resume across five divisions, with literal top ten ATGs in it, multiple HOFers and legends to Froch, a champion in one division, with maybe 6 paper titlists beaten?

You're listing 41 year old Glen Johnson, 40 year old shot to absolute **** Reid, and an absolute nobody in George Groves...as in literally a nobody...never beaten a champion, never been a champion, even in today's world of fifteen titles per division....why?

Brian Magee? BRIAN MAGEE? You're trying to use Brian Magee as someone worthy to be compared to Tommy Hearns' resume?

What in the world has this place come to?

By the way, Brian Magee was not the WBA champion. Where in the hell did you hear that? Or did you just make it up? He's never been a champion and isn't remotely championship caliber, even in today's five titles per world.

This is just lunacy.

Contenders, and not even good ones at that, being used as comparisons to Hearns' record.

If you added all the random contenders that Tommy Hearns beat on to his resume, like you're weirdly doing with Froch, you'd have a list the size of Frochs entire resume. As in, every single fight he's ever had.

You're adding in guys who have never won titles, who were hardly even solid top ten fighters, and who were nothing more than just simple domestic level contenders and you're rating them with ATGs, HOFers and world champions of all class across five divisions for Hearns.

Seriously....what in the hell do you think is the response you're going to get? Just use your goddamn brain. Just because you know the names of Groves and Magee does not make them comparable in any way, shape or form to Hearns' resume.

Compare their contenders, then you've got a realistic comparison that makes sense.

Listen mate, I don't care for all that crap you just wrote and the reason I put in Brian Magee & Brian Reid, is because the guy put in chaps like Eddie Gazo ffs. Eddie Gazo who had taken a loss to Carles Obregon in Obregon's freaking debut. He also mentioned guys like Doug Dewitt, Mark Medal etc.

Brian Magee was as much world champion as they were and was as much WBA champ as Froch is now.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Is there an ATG that Froch has a better resume? If so, that's your answer.

[BennyST]

One more thing to note...when comparing resumes, you do not add fighters they lost to. They lost the fight, which means that opponent doesn't add and enhance their legacy. Unless it was a robbery or draw, losses have no bearing and aren't used to make someone's resume seem better....because they lost the fight. Losing a fight takes away from resume, not adds to it.

Why don't we just start saying Duran has Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Wilfred Benitez etc on his resume on top of all his other stuff, all done well after 30 years old and at 154 and above? That makes him literally the greatest fighter ever, no comparison. Ray Robinson doesn't even compare with that.

Anyway, Dirrell, Magee, Groves are guys you mentioned for Froch. Not even paper title, ABC champions. Just three standard, random contenders, only one of whom was considered anything close to top ten, championship quality.

Comparable and greater contenders for Hearns: add Clyde Gray, Bruce Curry, Marcos Geraldo, Randy Shields, Nate Miller, Lenny Lapaglia, James Kinchen, James Schuler, Fred Hutchings, Luigi Mincillo, Murray Sutherland, Bruce Finch, Freddie Delgado.

These guys are all on, and above, the level of those three. So add all of these guys to Hearns resume too while you're at it.

You laughed at one of the lesser champions of Hearns and said "his best win is only Earl Hargrove", then you proceed to list George Groves and Andre Dirrell citing that they are "undefeated contenders". Well, Earl Hargroves was an undefeated champion.

That is literally some of the worst reasoning I've ever seen here. Slagging off a champion because his best win is only another undefeated champion...then proceeding to list contenders because they are undefeated...not undefeated champions, but just undefeated contenders.

[BennyST]

Listen mate, I don't care for all that crap you just wrote and the reason I put in Brian Magee & Brian Reid, is because the guy put in chaps like Eddie Gazo ffs. Eddie Gazo who had taken a loss to Carles Obregon in Obregon's freaking debut. He also mentioned guys like Doug Dewitt, Mark Medal etc.

Brian Magee was as much world champion as they were and was as much WBA champ as Froch is now.

Well, I take that back.

Magee was as much a champion as Marquez was at 140 ie. not.

So again, Froch was a champion. Magee wasn't. He never beat a champion and when he actually got the fight to be recognised as such against the former holder in recess after being the Interim holder against Kessler, he got KTFO in a few rounds.

Everything still stands. They are utterly incomparable in every way, shape or form.

As for Eddie Gazo being brought up, ok. He's just one of ten or more guys on, around or above the same level as Magee, Dirrell and Groves that weren't listed for Hearns. So compare those guys to the ten or more listed above, not to Cuevas, Duran, Benitez, Hill etc.

They aren't comparable. The only fighter Froch has ever faced that is comparable to that level of championship caliber is Ward, and he lost that fight. Hearns won his fights.

[Wolfie*]

What classifies an all time great? He's a HOF fame fighter, probably his second time around but is he top 50 or 60? Not even close.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Does Froch crack an ATG top 100 poll? I'd think so!

I highly doubt he makes a top 100 list..

[BennyST]

What classifies an all time great? He's a HOF fame fighter, probably his second time around but is he top 50 or 60? Not even close.

Basically. If Mikkell Kessler is an ATG and certified HOFer, then Froch is too and about two hundred other champions that have previously just been considered good champions.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Today it seems like any good champion is automatically a HOFer. Just because some undeserving guys got in doesn't mean every champion should.

Froch is on the very far fringe of HOF worthy, with guys like Kessler. But, throughout history, there have been many, many, many champions of that level that aren't recognised and you'd be laughed at for suggesting some of them as HOFers let alone ATGs. Having a good run doesn't quite equal automatic HOF entry. The credit he consistently gets for beating essentially decent contenders outweighs anyone else I think I've ever come across.

The fact is that if some other champions did it, they wouldn't get anything resembling that type of credit, and in fact, they'd get a whole lot of ****e and ridicule for it.

His reign really comes down to losing to and then beating Kessler, beating Abraham, and Bute. Taylor and young Pascal also good wins, but a little overblown. Other decent wins are there, but let's not start saying that this is ATG worthy and certified first ballot HOF lock, because if that's the case then a large majority of solid, top champions of every single era would/should be considered so too. If that's the case then the HOF needs to overhauled greatly. Not every good champion has to be a HOFer to be recognised as good. Sergio Martinez is another classic case of this phenomenon.

There is a level that is just below HOF worthy in which a lot of really good champions reside. Somehow Froch, and Martinez, has gone from here, what should be his proper sort of level, to people contending he is at the same level of greatness, with the same level of resume, occupied by the likes of Thomas Hearns. It's really bizarre.

[Mike D]

The All-Time Great label is reserved for those who will retire with legendary status. Names that will still be talked about in the game decades from now. Froch, who has most definitely had a prolific career -- is not one of those guys.

[Dr.Eisenfaust]

76,67 % of those who voted on this poll don't believe Froch is an ATG. That is quite encouraging!

Froch is the biggest fraud since Shannon Briggs "beat" Foreman

[Tedkidlewis]

Froch is better than Calzaghe.