Is Carl Froch a HOF'er?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

no, it is not... you have already proved yourself wrong

the HOF is for... contributions to the sport

ATG... is for greatness

Bowe/McGuigan/Gatti were inducted into the HOF for contributions to the sport

Froch is only a HOF'er lol

and what an outstanding contribution he made

#overachiever

you should be up to speed now bro... unless you are one of them

Nobody will ever remember Froch the way they remember Gatti. His fights with Ward are legendary.

Truth hurts kid.

Your reputation proceeds you and you have proven it correct. People don’t respect your viewpoint and I can see why.

Ignore list...

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3288970/

Let me know when the Froch-Bute version is released.

[ShaneMosleySr]

I think he will definitely be a hall of fame fighter.

[aboutfkntime]

Nobody will ever remember Froch the way they remember Gatti. His fights with Ward are legendary.

Truth hurts kid.

Your reputation proceeds you and you have proven it correct. People don’t respect your viewpoint and I can see why.

Ignore list...

you just crawled up your own ass to hide LMAO

kid, I just painted you a fkn picture... you dumb cvnt !

you gave two completely different criteria for greatness...

the HOF is for GREAT fighters IMO

The HOF is about a contribution to the sport.

the HOF is obviously for... contributions to the sport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...g_Hall_of_Fame

ATG is obviously for... genuine greatness

The competition that a boxer faced (and beat) – This is the number one factor in determining greatness, and the only factor that is absolutely necessary. All other factors of determining greatness depend on this central point, and are not as necessary as facing (and beating) top-level competition.

a article I just found proves everything that I just said

it also proves everything that I have ALWAYS said... every fkn month, immediately after the P4P updates loooool

the total junk that modern fans today use to justify greatness is ABSURD... yea, including titles, including longevity, including weight hopping... everything

https://www.************.com/2014/05...ess-in-boxing/

like I have always said... FOR YEARS... WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how... nothing else matters

P4P is completely different... all that other junk can be relevant

[sunny31]

It’s a wider concept, it’s a combination of both. You do realise that words can have more than one definition... it’s seriously not that complicated. Different fighters are great for different reasons.

Bowe beat a prime Holyfield twice. Was that not a great win?

McGuigan possibly, but beat a great fighter in Pedroza. Was that not a great win?

Who did Froch beat that was better? What makes you consider him a HOF fighter when he doesn’t have a great win?

There are quite a few fighters in the hall without a single great victory. You're only focused on that because it supports your argument. Froch's whole body of work says he should be given serious consideration, and probably in. There are a dozen or so fighters in there who have comparable or less impressive resumes.

As they've already been mentioned, let's look at Gatti, and Jackson. Gatti isnt in Froch's class as a fighter, that is absolutely clear to anyone with half a brain. Gatti was a fringe world level guy, extremely exciting fighter who could get dragged into dog fights against C level guys, had no wins over any b level guys, and got destroyed by A level guys. I actually do agree with him being in the hall though, as I think winning titles at 2 weights, a fairly significant run as champion from 95-98, and being in potentially the greatest fight ever, gets him in.

Jackson, yes he beat Norris but he also got beat up by Mike Mcallum and Mcllellan twice and kod. I could make the argument that Terry Norris made a career of beating smaller or washed up fighters, but I wont...i rated him...point being, you can take apart anyones resume.

Jacksons best wins were Norris, Graham, Baek, is that better than Pascal, Kessler, Abraham, Taylor, Bute, Dirrel? I think most people would say no, considering all factors. Even Groves who had a win over Degale, and after Froch beat him went on to win a belt and pushed Badou Jack very close.

You can argue froch may have lost the Dirrel fight, but you can also argue he won the first Kessler fight. What you cant argue is that he faced a gauntlet of competition that was unusual for modern fighters.

He got outclassed once, against Ward, an outstanding HOFer in his own right. Froch's conditioning impressed me that night, he was the guy coming on strong, Ward was counting down the clock, as I said in my first post, I think the 12 round distance was a disadvantage to Froch. He was a betting underdog on more than one occasion and won emphatically. His comeback win against Taylor is one of the more exciting things I've seen in boxing.

Overall I think he will deservedly get in, he was the consensus 2nd best fighter of his generation at his weight, when the number 1 was a p4p 1 type of guy. He fought everyone, and when Ward did have his hiatus Froch stepped up and became a star, he isnt first ballot but for sure he gets in. I'd bet money on it.

[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.

RJJ-94-02=GOAT

Are you going to respond to this post or at least tell me why you labeled Kessler as an "elite" win with the likes of Hopkins.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

you just crawled up your own ass to hide LMAO

kid, I just painted you a fkn picture... you dumb cvnt !

you gave two completely different criteria for greatness...





the HOF is obviously for... contributions to the sport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...g_Hall_of_Fame

ATG is obviously for... genuine greatness




a article I just found proves everything that I just said

it also proves everything that I have ALWAYS said... every fkn month, immediately after the P4P updates loooool

the total junk that modern fans today use to justify greatness is ABSURD... yea, including titles, including longevity, including weight hopping... everything

https://www.************.com/2014/05...ess-in-boxing/

like I have always said... FOR YEARS... WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how... nothing else matters

P4P is completely different... all that other junk can be relevant

So you’re basically saying what I said is correct.

The HOF is for both great fighters and also people who have made great contributions to the sport.

Examples:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson- Firstly great fighter but also made a great contribution to the sport.

2. Nat Fleischer- Made a great CONTRIBUTION TO THE SPORT so is a HOF’er.

Are you really this ******?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

RJJ-94-02=GOAT

Are you going to respond to this post or at least tell me why you labeled Kessler as an "elite" win with the likes of Hopkins.

Nah, I’m not even reading your bias nonsense.

“B-Hop wasn’t elite”😂😂😂 3 years later be beat Froch’s best win.

Calzaghe>Kessler>Froch. Their fights prove that.

Mark Twain...

[Blond Beast]

I honestly couldn't have put it better and those are much the same things I love about the sport at any level, that test of character, of the will to win regrdless of what natural skills or physical attributes a fighter has. And yeah, make it 15 rounds in this currect era and Froch was one of those who woulda thrived on it. One of the few guys who always seemed to get stronger at the end of the fight as his opponents started to fade.

Truth machine in the ring... I like that.

I’ll compound that appreciation. I was never a big Froch fan at first. But he seemed to always over preform. There’s lots of fighters who get plenty of love for underperforming at the highest level to put it into perspective. He’s a legit tough guy with more talent than he will ever get credit for. Even if u think Froch is going to lose a fight, u will prolly end up betting half as much as u said u would at the window. Maybe even pat yourself on the back if he wins.

[Chollo Vista]

Nah, I’m not even reading your bias nonsense.

“B-Hop wasn’t elite”😂😂😂 3 years later be beat Froch’s best win.

Calzaghe>Kessler>Froch. Their fights prove that.

Mark Twain...

Lol I'm just asking questions, trying to understand your standard and requirement. You don't even understand the standard and requirement. Kind of hard to have a convo without initial ground rules and standards.

Anyway, glad you conceded