Is Carl Froch a HOF'er?

[Chollo Vista]

Actually, I think it's you that needs the comprehension skills. The initial argument was you rated Joe so highly because he was a "lineal champ". Something I said wasn't impressive; hell, Carlos Baldomir was a lineal champ as was Pascal. I said if you really want to be impressive, than Joe should've became undisputed champ which he never was. You then proceeded to list all the belts Joe held at 168 as if that somehow made him "undisputed". That's how it started and was my overall point.

Can we move on from the weak lineal champ accomplishment?



Why do you keep using "undisputed #1"? Just say he was the #1 guy in the weight class. If you're going to say undisputed, it should only be used when referring to an undisputed champ. Language matters.

Secondly, after you said the above statement, I came back and agreed with you. I agreed with you with a caveat, that Joe reigned over a weak 168 lb division. In which it was. You can't be a fan of the sport and not admit that Joe was in a weak era? I mean Jeff Lacy was considered Mike Tyson of the weight class. Come on man.



Ok and if Hopkins was an elite win, than what does that make Jermaine Taylor? You still haven't answered that. Maybe it's because you know that will add an extra feather in Froch's cap

And yes I compared the Dirrel victory to show you how you can't discredit Froch's victory over Dirrel, while giving Joe full credit over Hopkins. Both were close and could've gone either way. If you're going to give Joe credit for his win because that's what the record says, you also have to do the same for Froch.



For one, you still haven't explaned what was so great about Kessler to make him, as you put it "elite" in the first place? No one ever heard of the guy before he fought Joe. And Kessler was no more done after he fought Froch the first time than Ward was after he fought Kovalev the 2nd time. Both fighters didn't take a great deal of punishment and could've easily continued their careers.

As for Hopkins, if you followed his career, you'd know that Hopkins was well over the hill, but resorted to clinching, headbutts, holding and slowing down opponents punch rate as a means of survival at that point. Both fights against Dawson showed that. Hell, the Wright fight showed where Hopkins was in his career.

But if how you judge a fighter is based off how well they did after losing to {insert predetermined fighter}, then:

Dirrel - went on to become the first to defeat Abraham who reigned supreme at MW for many years.

Taylor - Beat Jeff Lacy who's only loss was to Calzaghe. Also went on to win the IBF after losing to Froch

Groves - Won the WBA and beat Chris Eubank Jr after losing to Froch.

Pascal - Won the WBC x2 and the WBA while defeating Jack, Browne, Dawson and Diaconu to name a few. All the while becoming Lineal Champ, which is your favorite.

Remind me what Lacy, Woodhall, Eubank and Brewer did after losing to Joe?

Woodhall - Retired right after Calzaghe loss

Reid - Not a thing

Brewer - lol

Lacy - lol

Eubank - Ended up losing back to back fights and then retiring after losing to Joe

Again, what's your standard??? Make up you mind and stick to it.

And as far as your elite win, what did Kessler do after losing to Joe outside of splitting with Froch?



This is a silly point because as I've already told you, even Carlos Baldomir was the lineal champ. It's even sillier when we consider based off your own criteria, Joe Calzaghe didn't have an "elite" win until his 14 and 15 year of boxing.... Oh and get this, one of those elite wins came as a SD against a 43 year old Hopkins who was already beaten twice by Taylor.



No, I'm asking you to explain to me why Kessler was so elite; something I'm still waiting on you to do.

If I had to pick, Froch's win over Bute was more like Joe's win over Lacy.



Lol now you're saying Kessler was prime??

Secondly, you don't understand the difference between head to head and greater.

Oh and just because Kessler retired after he lost to Froch doesn't mean Kessler was over the hill. Froch retired after Groves and Ward retired after Kovalev. Were they over the hill? They were coming off their biggest wins yet chose to retire. Retirement doesn't alway mean shot to schit.



Relax dude, I'm just getting warmed up; meanwhile you're falling a part lol




I agree the evidence is there, which is why it makes sense for you to refuse to set the standard and change the goal posts.

This is firmly my last response as I’m just gonna put this clown on ignore.

How could this post hurt a man so much that he ran out this thread saying he'd never talk to me again because I'm on ignore?

Here we are weeks later and he's still quoting me while I'm on ignore

This post hurt him

[LetOutTheCage]

No overrated (mostly by himself)

[UNBANNED]

Froch definitely HOFer but not ATG

[UNBANNED]

I didn’t read your BS...

The fact you had to get your computer out just to respond says it all...��

Kessler beat a prime Froch, if Kessler wasn’t elite what does that make Froch?

Nick Walters beat Donaire but you'll find nobody that says Walters had a better career than Donaire

Salido beat Loma and Loma is clearly the greater fighter.

Margarito beat Cotto in 1st fight and you'll find nobody that says Margarito had a better career than Cotto

Dervenchenko beat GGG but you'll find nobody who days Dervenchenko has a better career than GGG

So Kessler beating Froch doesnt mean Kessler is better than Froch. It merely means Kessler beat Froch. Froch was found to be much more versatile and durable and the more complete fighter later on.

[PRINCEKOOL]

Carl Froch is a all-time great fighter.

Chris Eubank Senior had two brutal wars with Carl Thompson at cruiser-weight after Calzaghe 'Eubank Senior beats all of the fighters who Carl Froch has beaten'.

[Chollo Vista]

Personally, I think he is. Resume includes:

Groves x2
Kessler
Bute
Johnson
Abraham
Dirrel
Taylor
Pascal

He lauded for a fight with Calzaghe that could've happened, but Joe was on his way out and Carl was unproven at the time. What are your thoughts?

Cong**** to Carl for getting in. Salute!

[MONGOOSE66]

Personally, I think he is. Resume includes:

Groves x2
Kessler
Bute
Johnson
Abraham
Dirrel
Taylor
Pascal

He lauded for a fight with Calzaghe that could've happened, but Joe was on his way out and Carl was unproven at the time. What are your thoughts?

Not to me…………………….

[-Kev-]

It was a no-brainer that he would get in. He actually was a good fighter and he deserved to get in but I gotta say something about boxing’s hall of fame.

The IBHOF has very low standards. It’s very overrated.

Here is the deal…if you can fight in 2-3 weight classes, that means you have a shot at 8-12 titles. WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF. Add in the WBA “Regular”, and that’s now 10-14 different chances titles you can try to grab in 2-3 weight classes, possibly. This is of course excluding The Ring belt, that’s the real belt right there.

A very strong champion has the WBC title? Okay, i’ll pass. But what about that weak WBA champion? Oh look, I can fight someone no one’s ever heard of for the IBF title because they’re “next in line” to fight for it.

As a decent to good fighter, you can win a belt. If you can win a belt, you already have a shot at the IBHOF. If you can win multiple belts? Damn! No matter who you beat for those belts, still, the IBHOF will be like “damn! What a great fighter!”

Okay now that we understand the IBHOF standards, we can look at Froch and what he did. Froch became WBC champion twice by beating Pascal and Abraham. Two top fighters of his time. He also won the IBF title by upsetting the undefeated Lucian Bute and also won the WBA title by beating Kessler. He most importantly did something that is very rare nowadays for a “top” fighter to do…which is put his record on the line vs all the best fighters of his time. He did that.

In other words, Carl Froch far exceeded the IBHOF’s low standards. He crushed it. His career was quite amazing if we are comparing him to some of the IBHOF’s recent (last 20 years) inductees.

[PRINCEKOOL]

How could this post hurt a man so much that he ran out this thread saying he'd never talk to me again because I'm on ignore?

Here we are weeks later and he's still quoting me while I'm on ignore

This post hurt him

Carl Froch is a all-time great fighter. But he is not a greater fighter than Joe Calzaghe.

After Calzaghe beat Kessler, Kessler went on to beat Froch.

There is no point in ****ing on about, what fighters did after they fought Calzaghe or Froch.

Carl Froch does not have a win as great as Chris Eubank Senior on his record.

Eubank Senior after Calzaghe jumped up to cruiser weight, and fought a peak Carl Thomspon 'And those fights were brutal fights, Eubank Senior decked and hurt Thompson'.

Chris Eubank Senior, Robin Reid, those two fighters would pretty much beat everyone accept maybe Andre Ward on Froch's resume.

But a peak Eubank Senior in my opinion beats Andre Ward.

The Hopkins who Calzaghe fought also beats Carl Froch, stylistically it is a straight forward fight for Bernard Hopkins.

Hopkins after he fought Calzaghe, annihilated Kelly Pavlik. Who had just beaten Jermaine Taylor twice. Who was probably beating Froch until the knock out in the 12th round.

Kelly Pavlik beats everybody on Canelo Alvarez's middle weight resume, accept maybe Golovkin. Even still that is a close fight, and probably goes 12 rounds 'Split decision'. I would back a peak Pavlik to beat Alvarez.

Note: I rate both Joe Calzaghe & Carl Froch as better Middle Weight fighters than Canelo Alvarez & Golovkin. Carl Froch would of beaten up Golovkin when they were in talks to fight, and Alvarez would of potentially not won a round vs Calzaghe etc.

[just the facts]

They only let in so many per year so it totally depends on who else is eligible. Gut feeling? Probably not

Bump……..