Carl Froch says he is a Hall-of-Famer

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/18252456

"Not taking anything away from Joe Calzaghe, but Jeff Lacy was massively overrated - Jermain Taylor used Jeff Lacy for a warm-up fight before fighting me [in 2009] and Taylor didn't see the final bell in my fight," said Froch.
"Jeff Lacy couldn't cut it at world level and Joe Calzaghe exposed him for what he was. But Lucian Bute is a great fighter, was unbeaten in 30 fights with 24 knockouts.
"When people look back on my career, I want them to say: 'There's a fighter that fought everybody. Look at his record - yes, he got beat, but he came back to win a third world title. Carl Froch is a Hall-of-Famer, a legend, and we've got so much respect for him'.
"I'll go down in the history books and I'll be remembered forever and ever, unlike other fighters - and I'm not going to mention any names - who have got undefeated records or retire undefeated, and you say to yourself: 'Who did he box? He didn't box him, he swerved him, he boxed him when he was well past his best'.
"The '0' doesn't mean a great deal. In one fight I've gone from being the underdog, finished, on the verge of retirement to the cream of the crop, the main man. But I already knew it."


Regards

Steffan

i rate jc pretty highly shah, and bhop was a nightmare to negotiate with. I think calzaghe genuinely did go looking for legacy, but after he lost the warren shackles it was just a touch late in the day really... and he seemed to go for the money and the names more than the challenge, I dont blame him for it actually, it made a lot of sense but it takes a little shine off his legacy.

Are you saying that you'd take prime jc over prime bhop? Hopkins makes most peoples top 5 all time middles and given his frame i'm sure he'd have made a pretty useful super middle. You clearly have a high opinion of calzaghe.

The only fight Calzaghe made without Warren was Roy Jones Jr, which doesnt really reflect well on Calzaghes ambitions to be fair.

I do have a high opinion of Calzaghe but I think the older and wiser Hopkins got (to a point!) he'd had a better chance. When Pavlik got the crap beaten out of him by Hopkins a lot of people commented that if he fought like that against Calzaghe - he'd have won as it was akin to his younger days. Thats utter Love sacks - Hopkins chose to withdraw/spoil and counter Joe because thats the only way he could come close to beating him and the clever old Bar Steward nearly did it. I think Joe always had Bhop number - Just as Toney has always had Calzaghes - but his own experience and skill took him closer than his youth ever would have. He recognised and acknowledged Calzaghes ability - first in turning down a massive payday for a years hiatus (during which a Toney fight also fell through) and peanuts against harrakka(sp?) and second in adopting a ultra negative tactic which he didnt do for anyone else (he was only very negative in other fights)

I do hold Hopkins in high regard too - but this is one of those that he loses.

Im not sure about the Hopkins fight always being a win for Calzaghe at all. I thought it was a fight of two halves. Hopkins won the first half, Calzaghe the second. But Hopkins began to run out of steam over the latter part of the fight which made me think if he was younger with a better engine he would be better equipped to last it out. I would favour a younger Hopkins to beat Calzaghe on the balance of probabilities but think the fight is always going to be close and hard to score.

Wouldn't argue too much manos, mine is more on the basis that a more aggressive Hopkins loses to calzaghe rather than age based. I just think the experience of the older version played much more of a part than his physical condition.

interesting theory shah... a rubbish one, but interesting

watching the fight with my mates, the consensus was, jc scraped home unconvincingly, but we were left in little doubt about who we thought would win had the fight happened when hoppo still had a pulse

Part of the issue, to nitpick with Froch, is that some of his wins I think are overvalued.

I rate the Bute and Pascal wins highly because they were unbeaten fighters, in Butes case a champion and in Pascals case a guy who would go on and win the championship.

Dirrell was talented and unbeaten but was a little green and hadnt acheived much up to that point. And hasnt really gone on to do much since thus far although he did beat Abraham.

But the Johnson, Abraham and Taylor wins are wins I think that have quite large negating factors attached to them for one reason or another and as such I dont really think they are top wins in many ways.

Then you also have Frochs losses which I think are a little bit more damaging to his legacy and status than many people currently feel. The losses are kind of papered over by the willingness Froch had to take tough fights and travel seems to be a feeling shared amongst alot of people. But I still think the issue of losing to the two best guys he faced at the weight and failure to really establish himself as the man in his division hurts his legacy. I cant praise the guy enough for the fights he tkes on or his attitude but I get the sense that its that as much as everything else that is driving his legacy whereas its almost like the inverse of that is the argument against Calzaghe.

There are worse fighters than Froch and poorer records than he has in the HoF though so I would not begrudge him entry at all and maybe his run of fights and attitude will end up counting for alot in that regard.

if froch beat kessler in a rematch then takes on another 2 decent fights then he surpasses joe slightly. if he loses again then it'll aways be calzaghe

agreed manos... given who else is there, i don't begrudge him his hall of fame comments. The calzaghe jibes are cheap and unnecessary. He was fairly humble in defeat against ward, he could do with showing some in victory.

gotta admire his front though. i guess you can speak the truth without telling the story, and 'taylor didnt see the final bell with me' is doing the former whilst prefixing it with 'taylor boxed my ears off before gassing enough for me to luck out with a few seconds left' tells the latter.

manos de piedra wrote:I rate the Bute and Pascal wins highly because they were unbeaten fighters, in Butes case a champion and in Pascals case a guy who would go on and win the championship

Bute especially. Foolishly, I was arguing his case as a top supermiddleweight prior to the fight, based mostly upon longevity. I retract some of my overstated praise now after that stunning performance from Froch.

I was quite surprised by Bute. We will now hear how he was never any good and was always overrated, etc etc etc.

However - he has beaten real opponents. Andrade is nobody's fool and Bute handled Johnson better than Froch. So in spite of that woeful showing against Froch - he is actually a decent boxer, making Froch's win all the more impressive.

With regards to the OP - there is no doubt at all that Froch is, indeed a HoFer. I know that his attitude to former legends grates on some - my fiance being an example - who insists that she keeps "trying to like him" before he "lets himself down" with comments like the above. For my part - he has just achieved a stunning and incredible victory, against the bookies' odds and is entitled to say whatever he likes whilst riding the wave of euphoria.

Meanwhile, we adults, should remember the maxim "Self praise is no recommendation" and rate him fairly and justly, according to our own belief of his abilities.

Personally, I have him as a nailed on no2 in the UK SMW table now and chasing Calzaghe hard for the top spot.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I rate the Bute and Pascal wins highly because they were unbeaten fighters, in Butes case a champion and in Pascals case a guy who would go on and win the championship

Bute especially. Foolishly, I was arguing his case as a top supermiddleweight prior to the fight, based mostly upon longevity. I retract some of my overstated praise now after that stunning performance from Froch.

I was quite surprised by Bute. We will now hear how he was never any good and was always overrated, etc etc etc.

However - he has beaten real opponents. Andrade is nobody's fool and Bute handled Johnson better than Froch. So in spite of that woeful showing against Froch - he is actually a decent boxer, making Froch's win all the more impressive.

With regards to the OP - there is no doubt at all that Froch is, indeed a HoFer. I know that his attitude to former legends grates on some - my fiance being an example - who insists that she keeps "trying to like him" before he "lets himself down" with comments like the above. For my part - he has just achieved a stunning and incredible victory, against the bookies' odds and is entitled to say whatever he likes whilst riding the wave of euphoria.

Meanwhile, we adults, should remember the maxim "Self praise is no recommendation" and rate him fairly and justly, according to our own belief of his abilities.

Personally, I have him as a nailed on no2 in the UK SMW table now and chasing Calzaghe hard for the top spot.

A lot of nonsense is being talked about Bute now. Like you said he beat decent fighters in Andrade and Johnson. I wouldn't buy into the theory that he is chinny either. A chinny fighter wouldn't have made it to round 5. No fighter at 168lbs could have taken what Bute did. His reaction to getting hurt is Butes problem. He shows he's hurt and backs onto the ropes where his defence is nothing special. He's a much better boxer from the centre of the ring but Froch never let him do that which was spot on.

I would still like to see Bute v Ward. Ward couldn't do what Frcoh did. That would be a battle of skill and Bute is a skilful fighter. My money would be on Ward but I would like to see how Ward deals with a boxer he hasn't been in with many.

For me, Froch's record is now better than Joe's. Calzaghe has great wins over Kessler and Lacy and proved his competitiveness at the very highest level with that awful fight with Hopkins, but that really is it. Carl's record is just a bit deeper.

However, I have no doubt Joe would take a close but clear UD if they had fought in their respective primes 9/10. Too busy, too good a boxer and too durable for Carl to find a way to beat him. Doesn't matter though, Norton had Ali's number and he's struggling to find a place in a lot of people's top 20's.

If Carl goes on to beat Kessler and another quality fighter I think he should and will be rated higher than his former obsession.

Don't see why he shouldn't be a hofer...........

Zaragoza and canizales are in there...............

In fairness to him..he does take the best on!!!!!

Be proud of him..the boy done good!!!

For me Calzaghe still edges it, Both will probably be HOF's. Froch is a great value for mioney fighter, when matched well. I'd rather eat my own eyes than watch him in with Dirrel again. And if he was in with Dirrell again, I'd put money on Dirrell winning and making Froch look slow and silly.

One thing that sets joe appart from Froch is that no-one had Joe's number, Ward, Dirrell and to some extent Taylor all had Froch's number, slick fighters will give carl problems, depending on who Froch is matched with in his final few fights he could do his legacy damage. Kessler is winnable, I like Pavlik, but will a rematch with ward or dirrell do him any good, not if he loses emphatically.

But then again, Carl would probably go for those fights, where as joe would give them a wide berth.