Froch's next fight

looks like it may not be Kessler, sadly, and the golden run of opp will come to an end.

so, who should he fight next.

Looking over the division i see a couple option

Edwin Rodriguez - undefeated, young hungry
Kelly Pavlik - won't stop going on about Froch and is a fight I fancy Carl to win. Might even be one that HBO want, given Pavlik's popularity there.

Personally I am really disspaointed it won't be Kessler, or doesn't look likely to be. Froch would beat him IMO and who knows if Kess will fight will be on in a year.

Who should he go for if not Kess or Bute rematch next?

What happened with the Kessler fight?

It probably will be Pavlik. Its a money fight and one he should easily win. He deserves a break and more money fights.

Groves or Stieglitz

Groves probably wouldn't take it but it'd show us where he is and be an easy night for Froch that'd be easily marketable.

Stieglitz is fighting Abraham in August but that means he'll be primed for November/December

No need for Groves to go anywhere neat him. He's not ready by a long way.

From the bits I have read Hearn was saying Kessler wanted silly moeny, given it will be in the autum having it outside would be dicey and there is a finite amount you can pay someone in front of 10K in the Nottingham arena. Pavlik would be my bet, chomping at the bit for the fight and carries name recognition

I know Groves isn't ready but it'd be a learning curve for him. Sink or swim etc. I think Froch would win, but it'd be a great fight for in the UK, but unfortunatley if he lost the UK public would think he's crap so no point I guess.

I really dislike Pavlik. not fit to lace Frochs gloves or grace the same ring. never fought outside America, every time he's faced World Class he's failed.

Stieglitz.

Seems that Kessler was also demanding that the fight be in Denmark again, to which Hearn has (quite understandably, really) said absolutely no way.

Pavlik at the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, where they've both had successes and disappointments in the past, would be a good option. Pavlik's still a reasonably big(ish) name, clearly wants the fight and it's one I'd back Froch to win. I think their respective styles make it likely to be an entertaining affair, too. Would much prefer to see the fight in England, of course, but while Pavlik may be confident, I don't think he's that confident.

Not sure Pavlik would come to the UK and I thought Froch wanted a couple more fights at home. Certainly not another 2 in a row away.

Heard Heran say Froch needed a lesser opponent. Dangerous ploy unless it is someone really poor who can't punch.

The thing is Kessler doesn't really need the fight unless it's for silly money or unless he's squandered his cash on fast women and loose cars. I doubt that as he seems sensible enough although those tats are horrible.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:
I really dislike Pavlik. not fit to lace Frochs gloves or grace the same ring. never fought outside America, every time he's faced World Class he's failed.

Stieglitz.

Hate to say this but Pavlik was a bonafide champion whereas Froch isn't and has never been.

what does bonafide mean? always confuses me that word.

Super D Boon wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:
I really dislike Pavlik. not fit to lace Frochs gloves or grace the same ring. never fought outside America, every time he's faced World Class he's failed.

Stieglitz.

Hate to say this but Pavlik was a bonafide champion whereas Froch isn't and has never been.

Hate to say this but your opinion on Carl Froch means absolutely nothing around here.

Most other things - great posts, informative etc but when it comes to English boxers you really do have a chip on your shoulder.

Carl Froch was a bonafide champion. If you're on about "unified" then I would question Pavliks level of opposition. Up until Jermain Taylor I'd like you to give me 2/3 opponents that were world class. He faced Martinez and lost.

Froch stepped up to World Class and performed. Pavlik gets found out.

So....is this another Welshman holding a grudge against Froch because *shock horror* he is actually pretty damn good?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:
I really dislike Pavlik. not fit to lace Frochs gloves or grace the same ring. never fought outside America, every time he's faced World Class he's failed.

Stieglitz.

Hate to say this but Pavlik was a bonafide champion whereas Froch isn't and has never been.

Hate to say this but your opinion on Carl Froch means absolutely nothing around here.

Most other things - great posts, informative etc but when it comes to English boxers you really do have a chip on your shoulder.

Carl Froch was a bonafide champion. If you're on about "unified" then I would question Pavliks level of opposition. Up until Jermain Taylor I'd like you to give me 2/3 opponents that were world class. He faced Martinez and lost.

Froch stepped up to World Class and performed. Pavlik gets found out.

So....is this another Welshman holding a grudge against Froch because *shock horror* he is actually pretty damn good?

Uh no It means nothing to you but I don't care about that.

Froch is not bonafide as he's not the best in the division and never has had a legitimate claim to being so. Same with boxers such as Cleverly and Burns - paper champions.

Have to point out that Pavlik was the man that beat the man so to say he's "not fit to lace Frochs gloves" is a ridiculous statement. Pavlik may be way passed it or exposed by Hopkins but the fact is, he beat the man. Something Froch has not done.

You're right I aint keen on Froch or Haye for that matter but can't think of any other English boxers I dislike. Oh yeah Bruno. But loved Lennox and will be rooting for Chis so both English boxers there.

Steiglitz is a good shout if he beats AA. Froch would hammer him in Notts in a unification

Pavlik would be good for his US exposure, but at this point in his career i think Froch is fine just having 2/3 massive fights in UK.

Super D Boon wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:
I really dislike Pavlik. not fit to lace Frochs gloves or grace the same ring. never fought outside America, every time he's faced World Class he's failed.

Stieglitz.

Hate to say this but Pavlik was a bonafide champion whereas Froch isn't and has never been.

Hate to say this but your opinion on Carl Froch means absolutely nothing around here.

Most other things - great posts, informative etc but when it comes to English boxers you really do have a chip on your shoulder.

Carl Froch was a bonafide champion. If you're on about "unified" then I would question Pavliks level of opposition. Up until Jermain Taylor I'd like you to give me 2/3 opponents that were world class. He faced Martinez and lost.

Froch stepped up to World Class and performed. Pavlik gets found out.

So....is this another Welshman holding a grudge against Froch because *shock horror* he is actually pretty damn good?

Uh no It means nothing to you but I don't care about that.

Froch is not bonafide as he's not the best in the division and never has had a legitimate claim to being so. Same with boxers such as Cleverly and Burns - paper champions.

Have to point out that Pavlik was the man that beat the man so to say he's "not fit to lace Frochs gloves" is a ridiculous statement. Pavlik may be way passed it or exposed by Hopkins but the fact is, he beat the man. Something Froch has not done.

You're right I aint keen on Froch or Haye for that matter but can't think of any other English boxers I dislike. Oh yeah Bruno. But loved Lennox and will be rooting for Chis so both English boxers there.

Did Calzaghe ever have a legitimate claim to being the best in the division? Perhaps for 10 minutes until he vacated after the Kessler fight???

PS Jermaine Taylor was probably the man at the time.

It will be a tune up fight against a relative unknown. No one can begrudge Froch for that after his run of opponents.

I like the idea of pavlik v Froch, I'd pick froch by close ud. I don't think pavlik would be the cake walk that some make out.
Pavlik was completely legit at middleweight, he beat a very good taylor in a barnstormer, the higher weight rematch obviously wasn't as good. Neither did his attachment with booze help him much.

People are having revisionist history on his Martinez fight too, That fight was close until the last quarter. Martinez was down early in the fight.

Pavlik's problem is that his middleweight bang never travelled north with him, and he had proper pop at middle.

I'd guess he'd have similar power to Frock at SMW. Froch would have to be on his game again (which without doubt he would be), it'd be a fun fight.

Hate the idea of Hopkins v Froch, I hope Hopkins retires, and takes his place in the hall of fame. Hopkins Froch would be horrible, Hopkins makes everyone look bad, even beating him can damage your career, cause casual fan will remember you being part of a horrible fight.

For me there are two ways of looking at it, if you define bonafide or legitimate as either being undisputed or undoubtedly accepted as number one then D is right in saying Froch has never been that. However in these days of fragmented titles there are certain things one should expect or ask of a champion such as willingness to travel, willingness to face the best and a desire not to take gimmes and on this front Froch is virtually without peer, so I have no real issues with people wanting to call him a proper champion.

Sean you know as well as me that Joe certainly had a claim that was pretty much beyond dispute to be divisional number one, the fact that it took him an age to get there does not change that.

rowley wrote:
Sean you know as well as me that Joe certainly had a claim that was pretty much beyond dispute to be divisional number one, the fact that it took him an age to get there does not change that.

Of course. I do however think Froch was the 'man' albeit for a short time after Pascal and Hopkins. Pavlik similarly was the man until Hopkins served him his arris.

How does having 2 belts, off the back of beating only 1 name fighter, make you the bonafide/undisputed/top man in the division?

1 win against Taylor then 3 defences against Lockett, Rubio and Espino can hardly be a mark of greatness. Especially as it was only the WBC and WBO belts, not WBA and IBF also, and following winning them interdispersed with his routine defences were a close catchweight UD over Taylor and getting twice exposed by the only world level opposition he fought in Hoppo and Martinez.

If the Kessler fight (Which I think Froch would win this time round) doesn't materialise which seems to be the case then I would like the Pavlik fight to happen. I fancy Froch to win that with a late stoppage because I just don't think Pavlik is the fighter he used to be and even then I thought he was somewhat over-rated.

His recent 'troubles' outside the ring won't of aided his return to the big time and I think combining that with the wave that Froch is on there isn't anyone other than Ward who could stop him right now.

UK ideally for obvious reasons but the odds of Pavlik travelling is unlikely. Cobra doesn't have any issues crossing the atlantic so it's a win/win for Carl.

pavlik martinez was a tough fight, pavlik certainly wasnt exposed. however pavlik has never looked half as dangerous at smw, and is only there because he cant keep himself in prime condition anymore.

To be fair to Pavlik, it was only silly sanctioning body politics that prevented him from being the undisputed middleweight champion. He beat the guy that had held all four titles so there cant really be any reasonable argument against him being seen as the top guy in the division (his loss to Hopkins was not at middleweight). Taylor was stripped ridiculously of two of the four titles for rematching Hopkins and then fighting Wright instead of some mandatory. In the one belt system everyone craves Pavlik would have been the champion until Martinez beat him.

I think it would be a good fight for Froch to take.