Hatton or Froch - who ranks higher now?

Howdy fellas, it's a beautiful day here in the glorious East Midlands (try to keep the laughter to a minimum there, gents) and I feel like some good old-fashioned debate, so let's see if you can help me out.

There's been, yet again, a lot of talk since Carl Froch's excellent win on Saturday night about how well his legacy and career accomplishments stack up against those of Joe Calzaghe, his fellow Super-Middleweight who is just about as close as one can get to a rival without fighting them or sharing careers which have run parallel to each other. I still feel that, until Froch can at the very least avenge his 2010 defeat to Mikkel Kessler and perhaps nick a 175 lb strap, that comparisons between the two are pointless, and that Calzaghe should rightly be ahead by a comfortable margin. I do think, however, that Froch's record makes for more interesting reading when put alongside a contemporary of Calzaghe, albeit a contemporary who campaigned in the lower weight classes - Ricky Hatton.

Two years ago, when Froch had his first tenure as WBC 168 lb champion ended by Kessler, the idea that he could elevate himself to a similar status to Hatton seemed a little fanciful. Four fights on, however, and the margin between their respective merits appears wafer-thin, to me.

In terms of who each man beat, Hatton gets out of the blocks in this particular race a little quicker. Kostya Tszyu, to me, still represents a better victory than Froch's over Jean Pascal (all things considered, I see Pascal to be just about the best win, from all angles, on Froch's ledger). I can understand the reservations which exist regarding Hatton's win over Tszyu, but the facts of the matter are that, in 2005, Tszyu was universally recognized as the best Light-Welterweight in the world, a crown he'd been unequivocally wearing for the best part of four years beforehand, since he'd stopped the hitherto undefeated Zab Judah in two rounds in a unification match. His age (he was nearing thirty-six) may have been a warning sign, but there hadn't been a great deal of visible deterioration in Tszyu's work in his outings immediately before taking on Hatton; and besides, it's not like he surrendered his IBF and 'Ring Magazine' 140 lb titles with a whimper. His losing performance against Hatton was, in large, a very valiant effort.

Outside of that, however, I think Froch's victims read better than Hatton's, and certainly run a little deeper in terms of consistent quality. Jose Luis Castillo and Jermain Taylor are about on par with each other, I'd guess. Hatton did away with Castillo far more convincingly than Froch did Taylor, but I do believe that Taylor was less of a spent force; indeed, his boxing in the first six rounds or so of that bout brought back memories of the kind of form which had been enough to end the decade-long title reign of Bernard Hopkins at Middleweight four years previously.

As we work our way further down each man's ledger, I think that, collectively, Froch's victories over Arthur Abraham and Lucien Buté can be put half a notch higher than Hatton's wins over Paulie Malignaggi and Luis Collazo, particularly if we factor in the difficulty Hatton had in squeezing past Collazo, a man he was widely expected to beat, even if the fight was at the full Welterweight limit. In stark contrast, Froch barely lost a round against Abraham and Buté before the stoppage, despite being the betting underdog for both fights.

Things don't really improve for Hatton if we go down yet another step, either. Carlos Maussa may have bagged a world title for a brief spell, but is demonstrably a lesser talent than Andre Dirrell, while Glen Johnson surely has more defining moents behind him than Juan Urango - though Johnson's age when Froch beat him takes the shine off that particular scalp, somewhat.

From my point of view, Froch's victims, if we take Tszyu out of the equation, read better than Hatton's. In an overall sense, then, I'd say the two of them are more or less on an equal footing, but the fact that Froch has three times been a significant betting underdog (Taylor, Abraham, Buté) leads me to believe that his list of wins are ever so slightly more meritorious than Hatton's, particularly as the Taylor and Abraham results were achieved on foreign soil.

Both men have suffered two defeats; Hatton to the leading two pound for pound fighters of the past decade, Froch to the aforementioned Kessler and also to Andre Ward, who currently sits atop the 168 lb pile. From the outset, then, Froch's defeats should earn him a little more criticism than Hatton's should for him. After all, what shame is there in losing to the very, very best? Kessler, fine fighter though he is, has never been touted alongside the elite of the sport, although I believe that Ward will take a place in such company once his career is done.

That said, Hatton's defeats weren't just defeats in the common sense - they were humblings. Offensively, he was never in the fight against Mayweather, and the end in the tenth round came almost as a relief. The fact that this fight took place at 147 lb meant that his aura of being indomitable at the lower weight remained intact for a little while longer, but if Mayweather only dented that aura, Pacquiao absolutely obliterated it, handing Hatton surely the most one-sided hammering we've seen in a 'Superfight' since Mike Tyson put Michael Spinks away in 91 seconds, way back in 1988. No less, this was a Pacquiao who, just fourteen months earlier, had been campaigning as a Super-Featherweight.

Granted, we're talking about an all-time great in Pacquiao, whose 2009 form was nothing short of phenomenal. But regardless of the circumstances, I'm not sure I can see any Light-Middleweight or Middleweight in recent times handing Froch a thrashing like that in their first fight as a Super-Middleweight. While his loss to Ward was decisive (though it's worth noting that he never seemed in any real danger of failing to see the final bell), Froch's defeat to Kessler was a hard-fought and, for the most part, closely-contested affair. Close enough, in fact, to spark almost instant calls for a rematch, which look as if they may be answered later on in 2012.

Which brings me on to my next headache issue. Froch, as of yet, has not proven himself the best Super-Middleweight in the world. Hatton, for a good while, was recognized as the best Light-Welterweight in the world by general consensus. Usually, this would swing the edge in this debate back towards Hatton. It still does, I suppose. But given that his loss to Pacquiao was so devastating, how much should we really read in to Hatton's 'de facto' Light-Welterweight champion status? You could argue that, after beating Tszyu, the Light-Welterweight division was a largely poor one. It picked up around the 2009 mark with the arrival of Amir Khan on the world title stage and the continued improvement of Tim Bradley, and perhaps not scoring a win over one of these before they reached such a status hurts Hatton's legacy further still.

Which should we value more - a fighter being seen as the number one in a weak division for around four years, or a fighter hovering around the number two and three spot in a very strong division for a similar amount of time?

To complicate matters even further, level of dominance against the best men they've beaten is fairly even, too. When running down their list of vanquished foes, there are dominant, workmanlike and questionable victories in similar measures.

The margins have so little in them, I'm likely to be scratchig my head over this for a good while yet. Hatton the best singular win in Tszyu, Froch with more depth to his win column beneath that. Hatton's defeats coming only to pound for pound greats, but beaten in a far more convincing manner than Froch has ever been. Hatton the widely-acclaimed number one in a division lacking big fights and names, Froch consistently number two or three in a divison which has plenty of both.

Ultimately, I don't think I can quite bring myself to ignore Hatton's almost universal acceptance as the top man in his weight class, though - particularly as such a factor is one of the reasons why I believe Calzaghe has to be viewed as Britain's greatest ever Super-Middleweight ahead of Froch. Likewise, I suppose my viewpoint regarding the manner of their respective defeats must work both ways; if I'm going to mention how Froch has never been comprehensively stripped down and systematically outclassed the way Hatton was, I must also take note that Hatton has no losses on his record to the 'good, but not great' types such as Kessler.

Virtually pointless in the overall sense, I know, but I guess Hatton nicking a title at a second weight (the very tight decision against Collazo) can perhaps be used as the flimsiest of tie-breakers to make it official; if either man is ahead, it's Hatton, by the the narrowest of margins.

So, after much deliberation, I think Hatton still has to outrank Froch just about, if my fellow Nottingham man were to retire tomorrow. Sorry to go on so long, fellas, but I guess that just goes to show how evenly-matched the two are, as well as highlighting, once again, what a personal and subjective exercise ranking fighters can be.

So who belongs higher in your estimations, the 'Cobra' or the 'Hit Man'? Does anyone take umbrage to how I've gone about solving that particular puzzle, or have a different take on matters to put forward? Fire away if so. Cheers.

Hatton ranks higher........

1. He's a much bigger name at World level and took part in superfights!!!!! as such has higher name recognition and takes more worldwide plaudits!!!

2. His p4p position was higher!!!

3. He only lost to the p4p number 1's of his time!!!

4. Cleaned up his division..

5. Had more longevity!!

No contest for me...

Ha not sure there's much to add after your detailed analysis Chris.

For me Froch ranks higher though. As you say his record is deeper than Hatton's and contains the more impressive names. Hattons ledger is lacking a bit for me pre Tyszu and his wins afterwards don't match up as well when compared to Frochs. Can forgive him his defeats but again the lopsidedness of them is something I have to take into account. Easy to say now that Manny is an ATG and was in devastating form back then but many thought Ricky would be too big and strong on the night.

Not Froch's biggest fan and think his record is sometimes slightly over rated but hes the clear winner for me in this one.

Two different opinions in the first two comments - just what I was hoping for. Fair points from both of you.

No worries.........You make a good case!!!

Just think Hatton will shade it for his "World" exploits...and bigger name!1

But who knows........

I am riding a pretty big Froch wave right now, so I will try to be impartial. Truss makes fair points in that even if Hatton was hammered in his two losses, they were against the 2 finest talents in the divison and for some time before.

But looking at their wins, Froch is creeping up. Contencious or not, Froch has some big wins on his resume. Hatton has Kosta and Castillo but otherwise not really much in terms of elite.

Tricky one and great article which I will read more thoroughly shortly. But on depth of accomplishment and for a run of fights that would make a Bull Fighter flinch, Carl "The Cobra" Froch!

Umbrage, eh? You've not been watching Robert Jay at the Leveson, have you?
No, I don't take that, at all. Firstly, when I saw the thread name, I though Froch immediately. However, on closer inspection it is a fine line.

Everything Truss has said above points to Hatton, but I can't look past Froch's form since Pascal. Hatton-Floyd is Froch-Ward and the fact Froch was never hurt, but outfoxed/boxed all the same edges that measure Froch's way.
I'd compare Tszyu and Bute, too. In all honesty, Tszyu was before I became a hardcore boxing fan and I haven't managed to catch particular fight yet. But obviously the devastating fashion of Froch's win does it for me.

Yes, Hatton had the p4p status and he lost to pure class. But Froch's super-six, Pascal and Saturday night give him the edge for me. Can't argue too strongly though and wouldn't argue against a shout for Hatton, unless Froch wins Kessler II, that is!

The difference is I'm looking at it as more of a "Who will rank higher" question!!!

Rather than who deserves to be ranked higher..

However for longevity and the above points I'd pick Hatton...

I'd also pick Calzaghe over Froch too...but admit to them both being worthy of hof status..

If Zaragoza is..

I would also argue that the win over Jermain Taylor is FAR better than the win over Castillo. Taylor was a bit past it, Castillo was completely shot hanging onto a big name.

Great post and can make arguments for both sides. Factoring in name recognition then there will only ever be one winner.

But that aside...I am still erring on the side of Hatton in that he only lost to P4P No 1's and was recognised as best in his weight class. Don't think the longevity such a difference, the time between Pascal and Bute very similar to that between Tszyu and Pacquiao.

That said, if Froch avenges the Kessler defeat later this year I say he deserves the nod.

Great article, though Chris, by the way.

Thanks Alex. As I said in the article, there's little doubt that Castillo was a more faded force than Taylor. However, I've also taken in to account the manner of victory. Hatton took Castillo apart, and it's worth noting that, even though this was a battle-scarred Castillo a few lb above his best weight, Hatton was the first man to put him on the deck.

I can't quite shake the memory of Froch being made to look almost like an amateur at times early doors against Taylor, and nor can I ignore the fact that, had it not been for Taylor's tendancy to gas late on, he'd have decisioned Carl.

Still a very, very fine win for Froch, of course - I make it second only to Pascal on his ledger - but with all of that in mind I'm happy to keep it as a comparable win to Hatton's over Castillo. A slightly moot point, as Froch's wins past that still give him the greater depth of record, regardless.

Thanks again for contributing.

I see what you mean Alma...and agree with your summation....

It's a good debate..

Hard to argue with Alma there. Hatton was huge, even the Americans were in awe of his following.

Froch will never get that big now, too many Calzaghe comments in his locker, haha.

Think it's a given If you look at the atg lists that fighters who capture the imagination ie are colorful and exciting!!

Rank higher!!!!

Congratulations on becoming a mod by the way.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think it's a given If you look at the atg lists that fighters who capture the imagination ie are colorful and exciting!!

Rank higher!!!!

Congratulations on becoming a mod by the way.............

Cheers Truss

Chris will do most of the work, I'm really just honourary in my mind. Like sportman that get given degrees from Uni's they could never have attended

Froch for me but not by much, I think his better depth of wins just edges it in his favour. I think the loss to Kessler who is a very good but not outstanding fighter is the only thing that Hatton really has on him, I really rate Ward and think that in a few years he'll be considered in the same bracket as Manny and Floyd so I don't think there is any shame in losing to him. Tszyu aside I think that Taylor, Dirrell, Pascal and Bute are better than anything on Hattons resume.

Theres alot to compare and contrast and similarities and differences which you have a done agood job exploring.

In the whole "best wins" kind of outlook I think Froch measures up pretty well to any modern British fighter. Even Lewis, Hamed and Calzaghe cant really boast a significantly better win ledger.

However Froch is riding high at the moment and as I said on another thread I do think the way hes taken on fights back to back leads to a overvaluing some of the wins and undervaling the losses. As a package the wins look good but when you look at them in isolation I dont really think they are quite as impressive.

Johnson, Abraham and Taylor in particular I think were just slightly above decent wins in the circumstances. Johnson was ancient and other than a mediocre Green he had lost every major fight over the last few years and hasnt won one since. He really a gatekeeper as opposed to a top level fighter. Froch did a decent but not amazing job on him. Taylor had beaten Lacy prior to Froch but before that had lost twice to Pavlik and the evidence before and after the Froch fight is of a fighte that was chronically vulnerable and ready to retire. Froch made heavy going of that win. Abraham, limited and outboxed before and after Froch, slightly exposed in the S6 and questionable credentials as a Super Middle. Froch made light work of him. But I cant help feel if there filler fights between these they would not really be looked upon as quite so impressive.

I think a big issue for me is the point you touch upon at the end - becoming the recognised top guy in the division. This surely has to count for something? Lewis, Calzaghe, Hatton and Hamed all did this. In a one belt system you would confident or know for certain that these guys would have been the champion in their weight class. Froch, unfortunately, would not. In a one belt system Froch would not have been a champion. This is abig factor for me. Its what holds back the likes of Benn and Eubank aswell.

Theres the argument Froch was unlucky to have Ward around, true, but Kessler is not really as excusable especially as Calzaghe had proven he could beat him. I also thinks thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston were unfortunate to run into Ali and as a result their hisotrical placings suffer. In other eras they may well have been long reigning and dominant champions. Likewise I think Frochs failure to be able to say he was the best (or even second best) SMW in his division hurts him and maybe gives Hatton the advantage.

The 2 fighters who beat Hatton are still ranked PFP 1&2 and both still unbeaten since Hatton fought them.

The other point is Hatton is a 2 weight world champion,and at light welter Hatton rarely struggled against anyone, his record was outstanding at the weight,got to go with Ricky on this one.

alma wrote:I think frazier was more unfortunate to run into foreman, manos!

Yeah true, he was the third man in the strongest era of heavyweights. As a result he seldom gets rated in the top ten of heavyweights on account of his 1-4-0 results against the other two big guns.

Great article Chris and even as I'm writing this I'm not too sure who I think ranks higher. Froch has a recent record of fights to make you flinch just thinking about it. He made his way through the cream of the crop at SM but he took 2 defeats in the process. He has never made himself the man at SM and with Ward plying his trade there, he won't. That is nothing to be ashamed of but I have Kessler also ahead of him and I don't think its a prime Kessler. I also tend to mark him down for the Taylor fight even though he won and was the Dirrell fight not controversial?

Hatton had his controversial win in Collazo but he did establish himself as the main LWW. Perhaps I'm biased by Hatton's status as the peoples champion but I tend to give him a lot of leeway for his defeatsdue to just how good Floyd and Manny are. As it stands I think Hatton just shades it but its on the toss of a coin. Beating Kessler would change my mind but for Froch.

I fell out of love with boxing for the past 6 or 7 months. Subscribed to Boxnation and haven't watched it once - missus doesn't know yet. Took something special to get back in to it. Think Froch on Saturday did the trick.

Remember the feeling, it was Hatton Tzsyu about 5 or 6 years ago that did the same thing.

Difficult to compare the 2 and don't really see the need to.

too soon to say. frochs career is still in the balance to some degree. couple more victories like the bute, abraham and pascal ones and his resume is starting to look fantastic. couple more fights against guys like ward and dirrell and he starts to look like he found his level just short of the elite same as hatton did.

probably not a lot in their resume's, two fighters who have probably maxed out their talent and made the best they could for themselves... hatton certainly had an easier road - one of those hard to explain phenomena that happen from time to time. He also cherry picked his opponents way more than froch, but to some degree probably because he could. Hard to split them as it stands now

Going on gut feeling I have Frock higher. He has only been well beaten once and that was by a pound for pound fighter. The Kessler fight was close but Kessler clearly won by a couple of rounds in my view. Froch has improved since he fought Kessler and seems to have learned a lot from the experience gained in the Super 6. He made Bute look very naive.

I don't think Froch is as good as Hamad, Lewis, Calzaghe or Buchanan or the old timers Kid Lewis, Kid Berg, Wilde but he must be knocking on the door after those names.

When you look into Hatton's world title fights and wins it is easier to pick holes in his opponents especially his beating of some big names that were post prime.


Hatton just outside the Top 10 for me and Froch now pushing for the 10th spot with still a few defining fights to come in the next couple of years.

Froch all day long for me. Froch's opposition is on average much better, yes Hatton only lost against the 2 P4P No.1 at the time but that doesn't mean much IMHO as he lost to them so I don't know what it adds to his legacy.

I think at the end of their respective careers, Froch will have the better resume.

Both have represented the UK brilliantly but I think Froch should be ranked higher.

For some time now i've felt he should be Britain's biggest boxing star but some people just don't become stars for whatever reason. At this point in his career I wouldn't criticise him trying to make as much money as possible in his last few fights even if this means not picking the most competitive opponents.

Seems everytime Froch does something amazing people find a way to play it down. These will be the same people who will look back on his career and wish more boxers were like him. fearless, entertaining and darn right great.

Agreed davide, I fear he will go the way of that other British three-time world champion called Carl and end up being largely forgotten.

i think everyone gives him credit for consistantly taking difficult fights, but how great he is is open to debate. Sure there were plenty of people bigging up bute before the fight, i wasn't one of them btw, and it was a great win for carl - but given how he folded people are bound to take a re-look at bute and realise he hadnt really fought anybody of real note and that there is the possibility he'd been hyped beyond his level. We'll see how the rest of bute's career goes and it might give us a better idea.

Froch has fought the best the division has to offer, looked great against some, average against others, beaten some convincingly and some less convincingly, but ultimately he was beaten by the best two he fought.

I will look back on his career and wish more fighters were like him... but i can do that without thinking he was necessarily a great fighter... just a very good one. Everyone has their own interpretations of what makes a great.

great article, interesting read.

Froch probably takes it in terms of opponents beaten, although I think the Super 6 format puts a major gloss on some of the wins that would otherwise look less appealing had they not been part of a tournament format.

But I think things like being able to call yourself the best in the division, being the Ring champion, unifying titles etc are all worth something and its often ignored in relation to Froch with sole focus just going on the series of fights he has had.

Froch still has a way to go. Perhaps he should fight Ward again in the next round.

Don't think much gloss is added to Frochs wins if i'm honest.

Abraham- destructive puncher who was widely touted to knock him out, a win that is widely discredited purely because he went on to lose to Ward, I fully expect him to beat Stieglitz.

Johnson- A steady if unspectacular fighter who is no worse than the likes of Urango or Maussa, better to beat a has been than a never was.

Dirrell- Hugely talented fighter who was the architect of his own defeat, Froch won fairly and squarely in a close fight

Bute- Widely accepted to be the divisions number two after Ward, since fighting Tzuyu when did Hatton ever beat someone so highly regarded?

Pascal- The start of it all in a brutal encounter, every bit as good if not better than the Malignaggi win

Taylor- manner of victory takes some gloss off but unfairly said that he was losing a landslide before the final round when he wasn't, it was headed to a split decision with Showtime in particular thinking Froch may have done enough to creep back level going into the twelve.

Johnson - gatekeeper. Ousted from light heavyweight by losing to Cloud and Dawson before. Beaten by Bute after. Decent win, no more than that. Were it he had not a sub for the S6 this would not have been viewed as a particularly top fight for someone of Frochs level.

Abraham - good performance, but opponent coming off a loss to Dirrell though and then outclassed by Ward. questionable credentials when he stepped up in both weight and level. Were it not part of a competition format I dont think the fight would have been as big a deal with both Froch and Abraham coming off losses. It would have been seen as a getting back into contention fight rather than a major one or a world title fight.

Taylor - last gasp knockout against an opponent that was on the slide and had been booted out of middleweight by Pavlik. Everything since suggests shot badly. Managed the win in his back yard though.

Dirrell - close but good win over a talented if green fighter. Dirrell needs to do more though. Were this not part of a tournament I dont think it would have been seen as a major defence of test for Froch.

Pascal - good win

Bute - good win

Overall I think the tournament format made certain fights appear more glamourous than they were. Johnson and Abraham in particular. I think Frochs wins outside of the S6 are better.

Can't rate Hatton lower than Froch tbh

I think Hatton gets a raw deal, he only lost to the best fighters of an era.

No shame in that at all.

Hatton came up short against Mayweather and Pacquiao, Froch came up short against Ward and Kessler theirs a bit of a difference there. Ricky also has the win over Tszyu which is better than anything on Frochs record.

I can see your point of view in most cases there, Manos. However, I must take exception to your analysis of the Abraham win.

As a Middleweight, Abraham was held in high regard. When he was the champion of the IBF and Pavlik the champion of the WBC and WBO, he spent over a year calling Pavlik out for a unification bout; Pavlik and his team said nothing. Having run out of 160 lb opposition, he stepped up to 168 lb for the Super Six series when asked.

I don't like this idea that his credentials were questionable when moving up in weight. Was anyone saying that he had no business operating at 168 lb after he'd knocked out Taylor? If my memory serves me correctly, Abraham was briefly installed as the favourite to win the tournament outright in the aftermath of Kessler's loss to Ward some weeks later.

True, he struggled with Dirrell, but on the evidence of Dirrell's fights in the tournament I'm inclined to say that just about every Super-Middleweight in the world would. He'd also had Dirrell in survival mode in the latter stages and, if we're to believe what the man himself says, Abraham's power was enough to force him out of the game for a very long period.

I'd question how flimsy Abraham's Super-Middleweight claims were, given that he was still installed as the firm favourite to beat Froch when they fought, and had shown more than enough to suggest that his power had shifted up in weight with him. Do you think anyone at all, even if they picked Froch to win, would have predicted a shut out like that beforehand?

I accept that the bubble around Abraham has since burst, but to degrade the win to such a degree strikes me as a little bit of a case of having your cake and eating it. I think much of what you say about his other wins is valid, but I also think that your take on the Abraham victory is a bit of an overly-negative one.

88Chris05 wrote:I can see your point of view in most cases there, Manos. However, I must take exception to your analysis of the Abraham win.

As a Middleweight, Abraham was held in high regard. When he was the champion of the IBF and Pavlik the champion of the WBC and WBO, he spent over a year calling Pavlik out for a unification bout; Pavlik and his team said nothing. Having run out of 160 lb opposition, he stepped up to 168 lb for the Super Six series when asked.

I don't like this idea that his credentials were questionable when moving up in weight. Was anyone saying that he had no business operating at 168 lb after he'd knocked out Taylor? If my memory serves me correctly, Abraham was briefly installed as the favourite to win the tournament outright in the aftermath of Kessler's loss to Ward some weeks later.

True, he struggled with Dirrell, but on the evidence of Dirrell's fights in the tournament I'm inclined to say that just about every Super-Middleweight in the world would. He'd also had Dirrell in survival mode in the latter stages and, if we're to believe what the man himself says, Abraham's power was enough to force him out of the game for a very long period.

I'd question how flimsy Abraham's Super-Middleweight claims were, given that he was still installed as the firm favourite to beat Froch when they fought, and had shown more than enough to suggest that his power had shifted up in weight with him. Do you think anyone at all, even if they picked Froch to win, would have predicted a shut out like that beforehand?

I accept that the bubble around Abraham has since burst, but to degrade the win to such a degree strikes me as a little bit of a case of having your cake and eating it. I think much of what you say about his other wins is valid, but I also think that your take on the Abraham victory is a bit of an overly-negative one.

Well yes, its a view taken with the benefit of hindsight to an extent regarding Abraham. In terms of his SMW credentials, hes 1-3 at the weight basically with the sole win being smashing the remaining life out of Taylor. He never won a title there either and he looked to have found his level a notch below the top guys in the division.

I dont think hes a bad fighter. Very dangerous puncher and very durable but he just. At middleweight its probably unfair to sell him short but looking at who he beat there, its not really particularly amazing. I remember prior to the S6 he was viewed as a kind typical German based stay at home fighter who just fought mandatories. This changed massivley when he knocked out Taylor and people suddenly thought maybe he was the real deal as opposed to an Ottke like figure but by and large it flattered to deceive and the rest of the S6 indicated his true level fairly accurately.

The other thing is when he fought Froch they were both coming off losses. Fair enough it was for a vacant title but the fact they were part of a tournament I think made this seem more of a bigger fight than it would have been viewed had the tournament not been in place because it was part of something.

Having said that, Frochs performance was one of the best of his career for it, so he deserves plenty of credit for that but ultimately I think the win is good but not anything overly special. Would not rate it better than Hattons win over Malignaggi and only slightly better tha Collazo/Urango for instance.

Fair enough reply, Manos.

Overly critical assessment on the whole if i'm honest with the exception of Johnson. Taylor and Abraham were favourites to win for a reason.

i think its frochs to be honest, i had him winning in the kessler fight, and i dont think his loss to ward was that bad, when you look what he did to kessler. froch never looked hurt, he had small pockets of success, but just lost the fight. not a pasting by any stretch of the imagination.

i also think the bute win was outstanding. bute may be fairly untested, but glen johnson is a fairly consistant marking post, and he posed no trouble whatso ever for him, and he was blown away by froch. i think that performance was better than any turned out by hatton.

if froch can rectify the kessler defeat and then put one more big name, or even another title to a lesser opponent (stiligez WBO champ for example) then i think he gets it by a margin.

however if he picks up another defeat before he retires i think hattons legacy will stay out of sight for carl.

88Chris05 wrote:Fair enough reply, Manos.

I would actually have Frochs opposition ahead of Hatton but the purpose of the post was really to illustrate that I think there is tendancy to treat all of Frochs wins as a kind of 5 star package when if you break them down individually its not really the case for various reasons. I do think the Super 6 label and format inflates them slightly.

I also think when measuring Froch, especially in comparison to someone like Hatton, it seems like opposition is basically the only measuring stick being used when I think theres a bit more to that as the end of your article picks up on. Hatton despite not beating as good opposition has the distinction of being a Ring champion and other little benefits like titles in two weight classes (which I think is only superficial) and unifying titles (again superficial in the circumstances). His losses were to literally the two best fighters in the world. With Froch, I think the feeling at the moment is that Ward is true top pound for pounder but Kessler is more of just a divisional rival. Certainly a good fighter but not quite that easily forgiveable sort of super elite that Pacquiao/Mayweather and Ward might claim so I think that loss is more damaging. It would be like Hatton losing to one of his divisional rivals like Malignaggi or Witter who were good fighters but not pound for pound top material.

So while Froch might have actually beaten a better level of opponents Im not sure his actual acheivements match Hattons. As an extreme example, there have been lots of sprinters faster than Jesse Owens in history but not many that could claim to match his achievements or status. The guy who finishes just outside the medals in this years Olympic 100m sprint will almost certainly clock a faster time than anything Owens managed but hes not going to have a gold medal or the distinction of being the best.