Is Carl Froch a HOF'er?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

tough to say. he's got a better resume than arturo gatti. so does that get him in? that's a precedent that has been set.


i personally would not vote carl froch into the hall of fame. look at those names and there's not a great fighter on there. he fought one great fighter, andre ward, and he got the bag beaten out of him. didn't even want a rematch. basically retired within weeks of ward's comeback into contention. he lost to the second best fighter he faced, mikkel kessler, in their first fight.


he's what you call a "very good" fighter. guys like that are the kinds of names that make a great fighter if you can beat them. relatively few fighters have wins over all time great fighters in their primes, nevermind several of them. so you look at the wins over guys like carl froch in a very positive light and give them a lot of weight.



i was at froch vs taylor and it was probably the most exciting sporting event i've seen. never been in an arena with energy like that in the 12th round. small venue, too. just something i'll never forget. froch looked me dead in the eye walking into the ring. everybody was booing him and i, clapping as loud as i could, said, "here we go cobra," and he looked at me and nodded with respect. dude was so f#cking ready. i will genuinely never forget the look in his eyes. i remember it like it happened this morning.

Great post dude. I have exactly the same opinion. Good fighter but not a great fighter so just misses the cut.

That Taylor fight was a great comeback, many of Froch’s limitations were exposed that night but his toughness, stamina and will to win enabled him to steal the victory.

[just the facts]

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

[New England]

Great post dude. I have exactly the same opinion. Good fighter but not a great fighter so just misses the cut.

That Taylor fight was a great comeback, many of Froch’s limitations were exposed that night but his toughness, stamina and will to win enabled him to steal the victory.

some of the biggest nuts and one of the best chins of his generation for sure. i will never know how he got up from that first round shot from groves in the first fight. a lesser man would have no chance of continuing.

[-DSG-]

Hes a HOF for sure.

[Cobra Curry]

IGood debate guys. My question would be is Gatti the only borderline case? There's McGuigan, Norton, some would say Hamed, my guy Donald Curry...

[Chollo Vista]

Alright, let me thoroughly respond to these posts.

I completely disagree bro.

Calzaghe has better accomplishments, longevity and wins.

Calzaghe also won lineal titles at 168 and 175 and was also the undisputed #1 at 168, something Froch never was largely due to Ward.

Let's define and separate the difference between lineal and undisputed champ.

Lineal is when you beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man. Cool, but in that respect, guy's like Carlos Baldomir are ex lineal champs. Even Jean Pascal is an ex lineal champ despite you saying he wasn't an elite fighter even though Froch beat him in his prime.

Undisputed is when you hold "all major belts" in a weight class at the same time (e.g. WBA, WBC, IBF). Personally, I've never counted the WBO, nor did most reputable boxing organizations. The WBO didn't become widely accepted until after Calzaghe's reign of the belt. Special thanks to Bob Arum for making the WBO belt accepted.

So as you can see, there's a difference between being undisputed champ and lineal champ. Ok cool, if you want to say Joe was the lineal champ, but so was Jean Pascal.

Calzaghe beat a prime Kessler and a very good version of B-Hop who despite being past his peak was unquestionably still an elite fighter. Froch never beat an elite fighter. Add that to Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Bika and the resumes are very close. Joe beat all those guys clearly as well except for B-Hop.

I'm going to be honest with you. Kessler isn't even a HOF'er. You put a lot of weight in beating Kessler, but before he fought Calzaghe, I didn't even know who he was in the states.

Secondly, if you really want to get technical, Joe beat Hopkins who not too long ago had lost twice to Taylor and was forced out of the weight class. Ok, Hopkins beat Tarver, but in the very next fight many could say he was beaten by a blown up Winky Wright. By this time, Hopkins was already breaking records for how "old" he was; so this is really nothing to lay your hat on let alone say this is 1 of 2 "elite" wins by Calzaghe, with the other being Kessler who isn't even a HOF'er who no one even knew of at the time outside of Europeans. That's the hard truth if you want to get techincal.

Also, you named 2 wins (e.g. Kessler/Hopkins) that you deem elite that all came within 2 years of Joe retiring. Essentially what you're saying is 1993-2008 and only had 2 elite wins at the 14th/15th year points in his career? Those are your words, not mine.

Roy was totally washed by that point. That was just a cash grab.

Re-read what I said dude, I said prime Kessler and B-Hop were elite, not the other guys they were just other notable names on his resume I.E former/present/future champions.

Ok, if you want to hang Joe's career on beating a 43 year old Hopkins, cool. But if that's the case, than what does that make Jermaine Taylor who had already beat him twice at that point?

I also didn’t give him full credit for beating B-Hop I said it was close but I did think Joe won that fight. I don’t think Froch beat Dirrell he got outboxed that night. I had it 115-112 to Dirrell.

You clearly gave him credit which is why you marked it as an elite win. That's cool, I didn't think Joe beat Hopkins, but I also didn't think Froch beat Dirrel, but that's a moot point because they both won.

He beat Kessler to become lineal champ at 168 and B-Hop to become lineal champ at 175. Both those wins are better than any win on Froch’s resume.

You're wrong.... Egregiously wrong here.

At the time, Kessler beat Andrade, Mundine and Beyer to become the WBC/WBA champ. Cool, but if you're going to rate the Kessler and Hopkins bout that greatly, I really need to know what standard you're using to justify that rating? Is it because Hopkins was for the lineal or Kessler was to unify?

I think their performances against Kessler alone show who the better fighter was tbh.

Well, now you're talking about a hypothetical head to head, which has nothing to do with defining who the greater fighter was.

He was the undisputed #1 beat Eubank for the WBO, Lacy for the IBF, then Kessler for the WBA/WBC. He held every belt at the weight. Nobody could dispute Joe was the clear #1 at 168 after he beat Lacy and Kessler.

Joe was #1 at a weak 168 lb division, but he was never undisputed champ. To be undisputed, you'd have had to hold the WBC, WBA and IBF at the same time; therefore, Joe wasn't undisputed.

If you want an example of undisputed, see Roy Jones Jr and Mike Tyson off the top of my head.

But ok, Joe beat Eubank for the WBO, Lacy for the IBF and Kessler for the WBA/WBC.

Froch beat Pascal and Abraham for the WBC, undefeated Bute for the IBF and Kessler for the WBA.

Oh and if you say Kessler was over the hill against Carl, then what do you think 43 year old Hopkins was against Calzaghe?

I’ve already addressed it bud. He held every title at 168.

Again, you don't know the definition of undisputed champ. The WBC, WBA and IBF weren't all on the line when Joe beat Kessler. That would make Joe a unified champ. Something Froch also did

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

some of the biggest nuts and one of the best chins of his generation for sure. i will never know how he got up from that first round shot from groves in the first fight. a lesser man would have no chance of continuing.

100%... I was at that fight and I was saying to my mate “he’s gone, he’s gone”. Such a shame about the BS stoppage because that could’ve potentially been an ATG fight. The atmosphere was electric though, was a great 8+ rounds.

[Chollo Vista]

Great post dude. I have exactly the same opinion. Good fighter but not a great fighter so just misses the cut.

That Taylor fight was a great comeback, many of Froch’s limitations were exposed that night but his toughness, stamina and will to win enabled him to steal the victory.

Joe fought Roy when Roy was 5 years "over the hill", not 5 years "past prime", but 5 years "over the hill".

You want to talk about limitations and being exposed? A shot to hell Roy Jones almost stopped Joe Calzaghe in the first round of their fight. If Roy wasn't so shot to schit, he would've gotten him out of there like vintage Roy Jones did. This is a Joe Calzaghe who, as you put it, had just won his 2nd elite fight in his whole career against Hopkins. Let that sink in.

[redmish]

If Barry Mcguigan is in there, Froch should be. Nothing against Mcguigan, who was a very good fighter but Froch fought better opposition over a longer period. It's a yes from me.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Alright, let me thoroughly respond to these posts.



Let's define and separate the difference between lineal and undisputed champ.

Lineal is when you beat the man, who beat the man, who beat the man. Cool, but in that respect, guy's like Carlos Baldomir are ex lineal champs. Even Jean Pascal is an ex lineal champ despite you saying he wasn't an elite fighter even though Froch beat him in his prime.

Undisputed is when you hold "all major belts" in a weight class at the same time (e.g. WBA, WBC, IBF). Personally, I've never counted the WBO, nor did most reputable boxing organizations. The WBO didn't become widely accepted until after Calzaghe's reign of the belt. Special thanks to Bob Arum for making the WBO belt accepted.

So as you can see, there's a difference between being undisputed champ and lineal champ. Ok cool, if you want to say Joe was the lineal champ, but so was Jean Pascal.



I'm going to be honest with you. Kessler isn't even a HOF'er. You put a lot of weight in beating Kessler, but before he fought Calzaghe, I didn't even know who he was in the states.

Secondly, if you really want to get technical, Joe beat Hopkins who not too long ago had lost twice to Taylor and was forced out of the weight class. Ok, Hopkins beat Tarver, but in the very next fight many could say he was beaten by a blown up Winky Wright. By this time, Hopkins was already breaking records for how "old" he was; so this is really nothing to lay your hat on let alone say this is 1 of 2 "elite" wins by Calzaghe, with the other being Kessler who isn't even a HOF'er who no one even knew of at the time outside of Europeans. That's the hard truth if you want to get techincal.

Also, you named 2 wins (e.g. Kessler/Hopkins) that you deem elite that all came within 2 wins of Joe retiring. Essentially what you're saying is 1993-2008 and only had 2 elite wins at the 14th/15th year points in his career? Those are your words, not mine.




Ok, if you want to hang Joe's career on beating a 43 year old Hopkins, cool. But if that's the case, than what does that make Jermaine Taylor who had already beat him twice at that point?



You clearly gave him credit which is why you marked it as an elite win. That's cool, I didn't think Joe beat Hopkins, but I also didn't think Froch beat Dirrel, but that's a moot point because they both won.



You're wrong.... Egregiously wrong here.

At the time, Kessler beat Andrade, Mundine and Beyer to become the WBC/WBA champ. Cool, but if you're going to rate the Kessler and Hopkins bout that greatly, I really need to know what standard you're using to justify that rating? Is it because Hopkins was for the lineal or Kessler was to unify?



Well, now you're talking about a hypothetical head to head, which has nothing to do with defining who the greater fighter was.



Joe was #1 at a weak 168 lb division, but he was never undisputed champ. To be undisputed, you'd have had to hold the WBC, WBA and IBF at the same time; therefore, Joe wasn't undisputed.

If you want an example of undisputed, see Roy Jones Jr and Mike Tyson off the top of my head.

But ok, Joe beat Eubank for the WBO, Lacy for the IBF and Kessler for the WBA/WBC.

Froch beat Pascal and Abraham for the WBC, undefeated Bute for the IBF and Kessler for the WBA.

Oh and if you say Kessler was over the hill against Carl, then what do you think 43 year old Hopkins was against Calzaghe?




Again, you don't know the definition of undisputed champ. The WBC, WBA and IBF weren't all on the line when Joe beat Kessler. That would make Joe a unified champ. Something Froch also did

WTF is this man???

I never said he was undisputed champ!!!!! Seriously bro work on your comprehension! Read what I post...

I said he was the undisputed #1 which he was. Calzaghe was undoubtedly the #1 fighter at 168 after he beat a Lacy and Kessler. Froch was never the #1 fighter at 168, Ward was.

Hopkins was an elite win. He went on to beat Pavlik, Pascal etc after the Calzaghe fight. But I did say it was close, you are the one who compared it to Dirrell NOT ME.

Kessler retired after he fought Froch cause he was done. Hopkins remained at the highest level for another 6 years after Joe beat him. It’s common sense mate!!! Clearly Hopkins was still an elite fighter, he beat Pascal who is Froch’s BEST WIN.

Froch was never even the real WBA champ, Ward was the super champion. Joe held the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, Ring and lineal titles during his career. Froch only held the WBC x2 and IBF, and then the WBA regular belt.

So you’re trying to downplay an undefeated Kessler but big up an undefeated Bute? WTF man.😂😂

If Kessler isn’t HOF’er how is Froch??? When they fought in their primes KESSLER BEAT HIM. Kessler literally proved he was BETTER than Froch.

This is completely DELUSIONAL. Did you really have to get your computer out to come up with this kind of nonsense?

I’m done with this man, you clearly have a bias regarding Calzaghe and Froch. I honestly don’t have a horse, I wasn’t a huge fan of either although I respect both as fighters.

Whichever way you wanna spin it: Better wins? Calzaghe. Better accomplishments? Calzaghe. Longevity? Calzaghe. Common opponents? Calzaghe.

The evidence is all there, when the truth is staring you in the face some people choose to smash the mirror.