Comments Thread For: Carl Froch: Damn Right I'm Ready To Retire!

[IronDanHamza]

In This Thread: People still can't tell us what makes Carl Froch great.... besides his resume.



That's the point I'm making and have been making.



Take away Carl Froch's resume of overrated "top fighters" and you have a guy who has very little skill who fights like a caveman.


I guess this is a touchy subject.

Heart, chin, will to win, stamina, mental toughness

All to an exceptional level.

Then added with good power, good solid jab, and unorthodox awkward punches make him very hard to beat and has allowed him to build a resume that is probably the best ever at SMW.

[IronDanHamza]

Saying Froch is Geale is absolutely absurd.

Why are you saying that? Because Golovkin beat him?

[King_]

Geale? WTF?! lol Geale never beat any top fighters let alone made it to the top. His best win is what a shot-to-**** Mundine? Who beat him the first time around & A guy Kessler toyed with in his prime.

He was an olympic gold medalist and is on the verge of a world title shot. He is clearly a world level fighter.

Its always going to be hard for a fighter like GGG to pass an eye-test with me when hes fighting such low level competition and not having to get out of first gear. Its virtually impossible to see how good he really is though its clearly better than everyone currently at MW.
For the record I don't particularly rate Groves, hes a good 8-10 round fighter.

Yeah, but Dirrell fought low-level competition. His best and only decent win was Curtis Stevens (GGG low-level opponent) so you then you cannot use the eye test to say that's a good win for Froch. Well you can, but if you do- the eye test has to count for GGG too.


Take away the eye test from Froch's resume and you have Pascal and Bute. Bute is glass-chinned and Froch went after him like a caveman. Take that away and you have Pascal. Good fighter and good win....


So you have Pascal and then a resume full of overrated/plodding fighters.


Take away Froch's resume against top fighters in a bad division and what does he have? That is my question.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Lol. You've been on this site for this long and you can't realize I was just joking about the Murray thing?


Come on Dirk

Ah....the "I was just joking/trolling"clause to excuse yourself from being a ***wit.

I would hope you were joking but if there's a new was to tongue-tickle Golovkin or Kovalevs scrotums, you'll find it and that includes praising the likes of Murray and Geale whilst trashing world class fighters in other divisions.

Either way, no one takes you seriously

[King_]

Saying Froch is Geale is absolutely absurd.

Why are you saying that? Because Golovkin beat him?

No, not at all. I'm not comparing them as fighters.


I'm saying both were average fighters (IMO) who made it to the top of a bad division.


That's why you can't take away anything away from Froch's resume.... he DID beat the top fighters. But how good were they? It would be like 10 years from now and someone looking at GGG's resume and looking at Geale... he WAS a Top 5 MW when GGG fought him. But how good was he?

[BattlingNelson]

I said why he's overrated already.

Nobody claimed anything- but people claim Froch to be some untouchable god who cannot be criticized. Yet he lost to Kessler- an OKAY fighter. And that's one of his best wins.

You are sidestepping the issue. You claimed he was overrated and you fail to back it up.

The SMW division of the last 7 years (for the most part) ****** and most of the guys were products of bad division.

What? SMW was top 3 if not the very best of all divisions at the time of the s6.

Carl Froch and Mikkel Kessler are average fighters. That's my point.

And you are entitled to your opinion even if it's ****** and unfounded.

Yes- top fighters in a bad division.... but average fighters skill wise and no real skills besides tough guy attributes.

Nothing exceptional- just average at everything with stamina and Froch has a chin.


OH yeah.. I forgot Froch has "reach" and "ring IQ" as well

They have longevity and top wins over the divions best over a long period.

Geale = Froch.

[King_]

Heart, chin, will to win, stamina, mental toughness

All to an exceptional level.

Then added with good power, good solid jab, and unorthodox awkward punches make him very hard to beat and has allowed him to build a resume that is probably the best ever at SMW.

He has average power, at best, IMO. He has a solid jab and I've said that here. The rest of his skills/attributes are heart, chin, will to win, stamina and mental toughness.... which again, as I've said- the attributes and skills of a tough guy but one who is hardly a "skilled" fighter.

Ah....the "I was just joking/trolling"clause to excuse yourself from being a ***wit.

I would hope you were joking but if there's a new was to tongue-tickle Golovkin or Kovalevs scrotums, you'll find it and that includes praising the likes of Murray and Geale whilst trashing world class fighters in other divisions.

Either way, no one takes you seriously

You knew I was just joking.


Get over it. You've made terrible posts about GGG/Kovalev

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Saying Froch is Geale is absolutely absurd.

Why are you saying that? Because Golovkin beat him?

See its easy to pick up on. He'll probably throw Rubio's name in soon. Roundabout praise for GGG

"Everything for a reason" as George Groves said

In this case, the reason is French kissing Golovkins helmet at every opportunity

[King_]

See its easy to pick up on. He'll probably through Rubio's name in soon. Roundabout praise for GGG

"Everything for a reason" as George Groves said

In this case, the reason is French kissing Golovkins helmet at every opportunity

WRONG. Scroll up and read my reply to him

[dan_cov]

Yeah, but Dirrell fought low-level competition. His best and only decent win was Curtis Stevens (GGG low-level opponent) so you then you cannot use the eye test to say that's a good win for Froch. Well you can, but if you do- the eye test has to count for GGG too.


Take away the eye test from Froch's resume and you have Pascal and Bute. Bute is glass-chinned and Froch went after him like a caveman. Take that away and you have Pascal. Good fighter and good win....


So you have Pascal and then a resume full of overrated/plodding fighters.


Take away Froch's resume against top fighters in a bad division and what does he have? That is my question.

I didn't even know who Dirrell was prior to him fighting Froch in all honesty but he beat Abraham too and is clearly exceptionally skilled.
Not at all they're two totally different fighters, many highly regarded prospects do not pass my eye test but its clear from him arguably beating Froch and shutting out Abraham hes a world class fighter to go with his talent.

You can do this with any fighters resume do but then you'll revert back to the not so trustworthy eye-test.

How can you have Bute up there but not Kessler? Kessler only ever lost to ATGs at the weight and has at least 3 solid wins inc not one but two over guys who knocked Butes head off.

By your logic what even makes Pascal good? He lost to an overrated Froch, lost to a 50yr old blown up middleweight who never beat anyone good at LHW and beat nobody but glass-chinned Dawson so what makes him so good and better than a Kessler and the likes?