Where is Carl Froch ranked in British ATG's?

[Spacey1991]

He's got to be up there, he's fought virtually everyone possible and during the super six probably had the hardest string of fights than any other fighter during that time, plus he avenged his loss to Kessler, so you can say that Ward was the only guy head and shoulders above him in his weight class, no shame in that (I thought he lost against Dirrell though).

That's why I have respect for Froch, at first before the super six I thought he was a tool that thought he was better than he was, and didn't expect him to do much, he's proved me and many others wrong and won a lot of us over, his accomplishments speak for themselves.

[Sparked_26]

you put on your nostalgia glasses already? he's only been retired for 5 years and here comes the overrating! prime calzaghe went life and death with robin reid and even in his best wins over hopkins and kessler he should have lost to hopkins and beat kessler 7-5(crowd noise does not equal domination) yet it wouldn't be competitive?

Here he is.

Haha.

[talz]

Not that high to be honest. He lost to Ward and Kessler and got a gift vs Dirrell. He beat a semi-retired Kessler who hadn't fought any1 with a pulse for 3 years and that wasn't even that easy still. Bute is garbage and got knocked out vs Andrade but was saved. Glen Johnson was 43, Pascal was a decent win but was drained in his own words. Groves 1 he got absolutely battered in and would have lost if Howard forster didn't jump in like a moron. I really am struggling to see what he's done to warrant such stature.

[daggum]

Daggum is currently on a huge crusade about clinching and dirty tactics yet for years, his sole purpose for posting on here was to laud Hopkins' "victory" over Calzaghe.

It's funny when people get found out

they are two different things. one is how I don't like clinching and the other is how hopkins got the better of calzaghe in punches. I know nuance is so complicated to understand! just like brook beat porter but did I like the way he did it? no. just like wlad beat povetkin but did I like the way he did it? no. your sole reasoning as to why calzaghe beat hopkins was because hopkins clinched too much so apparently you think povetkin deserved to beat wlad on the cards and porter beat brook? if you were staying consistent you would say that but you aren't. you made a special little reason as to why calzaghe beat hopkins and then threw that reason out for every other fight.

[fistic flow]

well i scored calzaghe-kessler 7-5 for calzaghe and froch kessler 1 7-5 for froch and froch kessler 2 8-4 for froch so i don't really see how calzaghe did a lot better. i don't see how you can say calzaghe dominated kessler. through the first 5 rounds it was easy to score 3-2 kessler and kessler clearly won the 12th so that's 4 rounds right there. now did calzaghe dominate rounds 6-11 and clearly win all of them? no he did not. rounds 7 and 10 were super close and even the rounds calzaghe won weren't kovalev-hopkins type rounds where one guy completely dominated. it was two way action with calzaghe just getting in slightly more.

you seem to score more on how a fight "feels" where as i score a fight based on punches and it was kessler often landing the cleaner harder punches. i'm sure it "felt" like calzaghe was completely dominating with the crowd going wild and shouting(even if it was calzaghe being hit) but the reality shows something different. I thought he won a close fight. so did lots of other people. bbc scored it 7-5 but they must hate calzaghe as well? If the same exact fight played out in denmark with a danish crowd kessler almost certainly gets the win. not that I would agree because I don't agree with froch kessler 1 but that's the truth.

I don't normally pay much attention to your anti Calzaghe crusade, but it's hard to disagree with what you say here. Calzaghe v Kessler in Cardiff is a lot different to Froch taking on Kessler in his home town in Denmark. I also don't think Calzaghe would have gone through Froch's resume undefeated. The Abraham and Bute wins are also underrated.

[Slick_Rick]

Hes kinda of a hard fighter to rate, style wise if you put him up against Calzaghe Benn or Eubank, you probably would favor the latter, however Froch was only one fight away from going down as the greatest SMW, British at least.

[daggum]

Hes kinda of a hard fighter to rate, style wise if you put him up against Calzaghe Benn or Eubank, you probably would favor the latter, however Froch was only one fight away from going down as the greatest SMW, British at least.

who's better at 168? not calzaghe. froch's resume is much better than calzaghe's. froch has kessler, pascal, bute, abraham, groves, dirrell, taylor. calzaghe has kessler, lacy, bika, mitchell, brewer, woodhall, and a finished eubank. froch just fought in a much tougher era. remember calzaghe fought in an era with sven ottke and both guys had 21 title defenses at the same time. those were not challenging times where they were taking risks. you could make a solid case that calzaghe didn't fight anyone relevant until lacy.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Below modern greats like Lewis and Calzaghe but above Amir Khan and Ricky Hatton.

This^^^^^^^^^^^



The thing that hurts froch the most is the fact that he has never been #1 guy in division

[daggum]

This^^^^^^^^^^^



The thing that hurts froch the most is the fact that he has never been #1 guy in division

yeah he wouldn't be #1 if ottke, lacy, and kessler were his biggest rivals...

[Tom Cruise]

I think as time goes on Froch will not be held in as high a regard as he is now.

Solid fighter though and a credit to the sport