Froch deserves an easy fight???????

My last contribution got 1 less then o responses but I am not going away that easily.

Carl Froch is to meet Yusef Mack in November. Mack is a fringe contender at best. Handy but not handy enough you would think to beat an elite level fighter in Froch so I am left surprised at this match up. Yet people I talk to are quick to say that Froch deserves an easy, gimmie fight due to the big fights he has been involved with in the last 5 years.

Rubbish! This train of thought should be eradicated from all things boxing related. Can someone justify such a ludicrous statement? Boxing is all about levels. When you reach the top you face the best and you get PAID the best rates. I can't get my head around thios. Froch has what maybe 2 or 3 fights left in him. Sure this fight is at home and will sell out but does nothing for Froch's well built record.

Great point! Froch is very overrated so they are making sure he fights guys he knows he can beat so they can keep up the hype and viewers on Sky. The other thread shows just how overrated he is with people claiming he would beat Eubank, Benn, Calzaghe and top fighters like those guys. Sky will want to keep this going because when they put him in with top fighters before he has lost. One of the guys he lost to was outclassed by Calzaghe which shows how much worse he is than those guys.

Think you're being a bit harsh to be honest onetwo. From what I can understand both Kessler and Pavlik were offered the fight and either priced themselves out of it or didn't much fancy it. If this is true can hardly blame Froch for taking an easier option.

Think you would only have a point if Froch had turned his back on those kind of opponents to take the easy pay day and I certainly have not heard Carl saying he was the steady walk in the park type of fight. Add into this the fact it seems pretty clear after this he is likely to have to get on the plane yet again and go into Bute's back yard and think he deserves a degree of leeway or tolerance on this one

rowley wrote:Think you're being a bit harsh to be honest onetwo. From what I can understand both Kessler and Pavlik were offered the fight and either priced themselves out of it or didn't much fancy it. If this is true can hardly blame Froch for taking an easier option.

Think you would only have a point if Froch had turned his back on those kind of opponents to take the easy pay day and I certainly have not heard Carl saying he was the steady walk in the park type of fight. Add into this the fact it seems pretty clear after this he is likely to have to get on the plane yet again and go into Bute's back yard and think he deserves a degree of leeway or tolerance on this one

Sky cant afford anymore slip ups now after what happened to Khan so this is why they will take on easy fights. I warned people about the hype surrounding Khan and it is the same with Froch. Sky know if he fights the best guys he will lose and they cant afford to take that risk.

Yeah froch always takes the easy option doesn't he, if only he was fighting the luminaries Eubank defended against

Not so Gordy - many so-called experts were pretty much 50-50 on the outcome of Froch/Abraham and we all know what happened there.

Sure, Froch was outclassed by Ward, but everyone is now saying how good Ward is. Also the Kessler fight was close. A loss, sure, but a close loss. No shame in that.

Fair point Gordy, when Froch lost to ward you could see how they thought just the way you have outlined when they chose the previously unbeaten world champion Bute as his next opponent.

froch has certainly become more business and less ambition since joining matchroom. i guess they realised they earn more fighting a less decorated fighter at home than they would have by splitting the purse more with a top named fighter. shame, because a fight against pavlik would have been far more entertaining for the fans. bit unfair to assume certain fighters didnt fancy the job because judging by whom froch is fighting, id say they werent offering a lot. still hes got bute next, and im not sure how well that fight is going to sell, so maybe we cant blame him for wanting to get a bit of money in the bank.

change the record gordon

Onetwo, whilst I agree that he doesn't deserve "an easy fight" he does maybe deserve a fight against someone slighty below elite level, a man like Bika perhaps- competative but not 'even money', after all boxing is, from the boxers position, business- he doesn't have many fights left and should be looking to maximise his earings and not risk another loss unless big money is on the table.

horizontalhero wrote:Onetwo, whilst I agree that he doesn't deserve "an easy fight" he does maybe deserve a fight against someone slighty below elite level, a man like Bika perhaps- competative but not 'even money', after all boxing is, from the boxers position, business- he doesn't have many fights left and should be looking to maximise his earings and not risk another loss unless big money is on the table.

I can understand you're point there but at 35 years of age, Froch still complains about the lack of respect he gets. This fight won't win him new fans but yes a nice payday no worries seems to be the reason.

Obviously some late night moods going on, the only explanation for some of the tripe posted in response to the OP....

One-two - I do agree with the general consensus of your post in that no one deserves an easy fight. Once you are at elite level then yes you should be taking on those around your level & be looking for the difficult fights. The simple way of looking at it is that Froch chose to become a boxer...wanted to fight the best out their & reach the top...now that he is at that level the fights he should be having should all be difficult. No one deserves a 'gimme' fight just because they have taken on a string of top level opponents...

But as we all know boxing isn't as simple as that. I think that Rowley has hit the nail on the head in that I don't think it's a case of people being happy with the opponent he has lined up next....they are just simply willing to look past it due to :

a) Froch's previous run of opponents
b) The fact he has actively seeked out fights against the best in the division

As has been mentioned, before entertaining any thoughts of this fight Froch chased/discussed several options.

Bute - Whilst he did want the rematch which is in place for next year now their was no way that he was stepping back into the ring with Froch immediately. Bute is on record as saying he would take time off & think things over. His coach also noted that Bute would need to get in the ring again for a 'warm up' fight if you will before taking on Froch

Kessler - Long discussions took place between both camps but no decision could be reached. Now whilst I am not 100% sure of the exact circumstances behind the decision it was heavily publicized that the crux of the problem was that the Dane's camp were not willing to come over to the UK for the fight. Now IMO the blame for this not happening lies with Kessler...at the end of the day it was Froch who came 2nd in the Super 6 not him & since Froch was more than willing to travel first time around then I see no reason why Kessler shouldn't for the rematch. Now you could argue that since Kessler won the original meeting he should hold the cards but that falls flat because Froch has a belt...the Dane does not...and if Mikkel want's a crack at Ward then he (at least for me) would need to get past Froch again. So IMO Froch holds all the cards here.

Pavlik - This one is quite simply a mockery. Hearn & Froch have both stated that Pavlik priced himself out of this and since then I have yet to see anything from Pavlik dismissing this suggestion. Pavlik also stated he would not travel to the UK and that he wanted the fight in Atlantic City. How someone who has done nothing relevant in the ring for the past 2 years and has looked worst each and every time can believe he deserves to be in the driving seat round the negotiation table is beyond me.

At the end of the day Froch offered plenty of people out their a fight, from what I have seen and heard from all the camps in question I have no reason to believe that he didn't try his hardest to grab a big fight for his homecoming bout. Which leads me onto another thing, I actually think Froch would have made more money in the Pavlik fight had he said yes and gone over to Atlantic City; it would have been PPV in America and his financial gain would have been higher than the fight with Mack...but since his fans have spent the vast majority of the past 3 years travelling to watch him, at what I would guess would be great expense, he feels that they deserve to be able to see a big fight in both his and their hometown.

So of course I would love to see either of the three above in the ring ahead of the opponent in question I'm not going to hold it against Froch for taking this fight. His previous record & claims surrounding the difficulty in negotiating show that he is never one to shy away from stepping in with the best....bit as they say it takes two to tango and by all accounts Froch's dismantling of the previously highly thought of Bute has seemingly put him in the same bracket Sergio Martinez finds/found himself in.

rowley wrote:Think you're being a bit harsh to be honest onetwo. From what I can understand both Kessler and Pavlik were offered the fight and either priced themselves out of it or didn't much fancy it. If this is true can hardly blame Froch for taking an easier option.

Think you would only have a point if Froch had turned his back on those kind of opponents to take the easy pay day and I certainly have not heard Carl saying he was the steady walk in the park type of fight. Add into this the fact it seems pretty clear after this he is likely to have to get on the plane yet again and go into Bute's back yard and think he deserves a degree of leeway or tolerance on this one

Got to admit I'm with Onetwo on this. I don't think Froch "deserves" an easy fight at all. Sure if he fought three or four times a year then chuck a gimme or two in the mix but he fights but twice a year. Surely six months between fights is enough between one top level fight and another? It's not like he was overly stressed in his last outing.

I think Froch gets too much credit for this "warrior take on all comers" image he has. Sure his level of opponents can't be faulted but the fact he fights so infrequently means he ought to be fighting at that level all the time.

It bugs me but these days boxers only ever do two fights a year now. Unless I was dreaming I seem to remember the norm being about three fights per year around 10 years ago for world champions. Even if a boxer is chucking two bums in and one decent fighter per calendar year at least he's putting it out there more often for the fans. Boxers like Froch are way to inactive. Likewise with Haye, where the gap between his fights are as long as Jupiter's orbit around the sun!

Well said super D. Fighters are way too inactive

I remeber James Toney back in the 90's was very active as a fighter. The K brothers as boring as they are have to be the most active champions around today.

Super D Boon - Think your opening up a whole different can of worms mate. Froch fights as frequently as any other 'top level' fighter. The average fighter considered to be within the realms/just outside the mythical P4P list fights on average only twice a year.

Then their are plenty who don't even fight that frequently. This has nothing really to do with whether Froch want's to fight more or not but simply due to TV dates available to the 'big' channels & PPV dates etc. Put simply their are not enough dates around for the likes of Froch etc to be fighting more than twice a year.

On one hand you are criticising fighters for taking easy fights then your saying well heck they don't fight enough...they should be fighting 3/4 times a year even if a couple are a gimme...

As I was pointing out in my previous post it is all well and good levelling those accusations at fighters who can be accused of being inactive and when they do fight take on tomato cans...Froch can't be accused of that and is one of few fighters who leave everything in the ring for the fans.

Super D Boon wrote:

rowley wrote:Think you're being a bit harsh to be honest onetwo. From what I can understand both Kessler and Pavlik were offered the fight and either priced themselves out of it or didn't much fancy it. If this is true can hardly blame Froch for taking an easier option.

Think you would only have a point if Froch had turned his back on those kind of opponents to take the easy pay day and I certainly have not heard Carl saying he was the steady walk in the park type of fight. Add into this the fact it seems pretty clear after this he is likely to have to get on the plane yet again and go into Bute's back yard and think he deserves a degree of leeway or tolerance on this one

Got to admit I'm with Onetwo on this. I don't think Froch "deserves" an easy fight at all. Sure if he fought three or four times a year then chuck a gimme or two in the mix but he fights but twice a year. Surely six months between fights is enough between one top level fight and another? It's not like he was overly stressed in his last outing.

I think Froch gets too much credit for this "warrior take on all comers" image he has. Sure his level of opponents can't be faulted but the fact he fights so infrequently means he ought to be fighting at that level all the time.

It bugs me but these days boxers only ever do two fights a year now. Unless I was dreaming I seem to remember the norm being about three fights per year around 10 years ago for world champions. Even if a boxer is chucking two bums in and one decent fighter per calendar year at least he's putting it out there more often for the fans. Boxers like Froch are way to inactive. Likewise with Haye, where the gap between his fights are as long as Jupiter's orbit around the sun!

Spot on again! You are on form today! Plus if you add in that Froch has a personality of drying paint and acts like he is the best thing since sliced bread I dont see why fans should be obliged to go easy on him. If it wasnt for Sky overhyping him nobody would know or care who he was! The problem is we just dont seem to be producing the quality of fighters we used to. When you see average fighters like Froch, Haye and Khan getting the big one it really does make you wish for the time when we had had Lewis, Calzaghe, Eubank, Hatton, Benn and fighters of that class.

Gordy - As usual think you are being a little to harsh...I know you love the 'Golden era' lot more than our current crop but if you consider what we produce as a nation of our size it is not too bad at all to be honest.

What you have to remember is that boxing just isn't seen in the same light as it used to be. The sport has slowly (actually very quickly in recent times) regressed since the days of the late 80's early 90's. Kids find other sports a heck of a lot more appealing than boxing and usually they are much more lucrative not to mention safer in the long term.

The dwindling (im not sure it really is) pool of talent you claim exists now is not just something which is relevant to the UK but also to those across the pond where you could also question whether they are producing the fighters/ amount of quality fighters which they used to.

As is always a case with a subject of era's we all have our own which we look very fondly upon and use to berate the 'current' state of the sport with...and that goes for sports other than boxing.

Its the notion that any elite fighter deserves an easy touch that bugs me. Where did that come from?

Easy fights should come at the start of you're career then you move up a level to test yourself and if you come through that you take on the big boys. Froch has made too much of the fact that he has faced elite fighters one after the other for the last 5 years yet all of a sudden he feels sorry for himself and wants to treat himself.

Onetwo - I do agree that the notion of any fighter, especially a champion and someone at the top of the tree, deserves an easy fight is daft. In the current era when many fighters are given cherry picked opponents far too often it is something I don't like seeing...

But as I said there are so many issues within the sport which stops big fights happening on a more frequent basis that is is now common place...

In fact such common place that as you notion too, it has become the norm to just accept it these days.

Though again I will end by saying this is a fight I don't think can be used to pour scorn on Froch. I, like you im going to take a guess, am not happy with the match up but at the same time I'm not going to criticise Froch for taking it. He attempted to make the match-ups we all wanted to see Pavlik, Kessler, Bute (not sure how many actually want to see that again) but they didn't come off....

We should be questioning and criticising those who were involved in the fights not being made & for me that isn't Froch.

Also quick point, had the fight been on PPV here in the UK or I lived in America I would not being paying for the fight because as you mention I don't think it is a great match or great value...however I have SKY for the football and since it will be on their I will sit and watch it.

I think most people were expecting a fight with Kessler. Probably about the biggest fight available for both of them right now and about the most natural fight for both. But it looks like Kessler can only pay lip service to being a better fighter than Froch. Fans been looking forward to this return for many months and had assumed the Dane was gearing up. Pretty sure Kessler won't be fighting a better fighter than Froch next up let's put it that way.


Pavlik was the other that could have created a buzz. He must have wanted that number two spot but in the end not confident enough to travel, and obviously can't expect Froch to come to him.


Please nobody say Dirrell.......



So yes, it's a disappointing fight, but Froch letting down his fans? How can this be? I think it's Kessler who's let down the fans. And to a lesser extent Pavlik, for it was he who called out Froch. Is anyone suggesting the blame is with Froch?

Gordy wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

rowley wrote:Think you're being a bit harsh to be honest onetwo. From what I can understand both Kessler and Pavlik were offered the fight and either priced themselves out of it or didn't much fancy it. If this is true can hardly blame Froch for taking an easier option.

Think you would only have a point if Froch had turned his back on those kind of opponents to take the easy pay day and I certainly have not heard Carl saying he was the steady walk in the park type of fight. Add into this the fact it seems pretty clear after this he is likely to have to get on the plane yet again and go into Bute's back yard and think he deserves a degree of leeway or tolerance on this one

Got to admit I'm with Onetwo on this. I don't think Froch "deserves" an easy fight at all. Sure if he fought three or four times a year then chuck a gimme or two in the mix but he fights but twice a year. Surely six months between fights is enough between one top level fight and another? It's not like he was overly stressed in his last outing.

I think Froch gets too much credit for this "warrior take on all comers" image he has. Sure his level of opponents can't be faulted but the fact he fights so infrequently means he ought to be fighting at that level all the time.

It bugs me but these days boxers only ever do two fights a year now. Unless I was dreaming I seem to remember the norm being about three fights per year around 10 years ago for world champions. Even if a boxer is chucking two bums in and one decent fighter per calendar year at least he's putting it out there more often for the fans. Boxers like Froch are way to inactive. Likewise with Haye, where the gap between his fights are as long as Jupiter's orbit around the sun!

Spot on again! You are on form today! Plus if you add in that Froch has a personality of drying paint and acts like he is the best thing since sliced bread I dont see why fans should be obliged to go easy on him. If it wasnt for Sky overhyping him nobody would know or care who he was! The problem is we just dont seem to be producing the quality of fighters we used to. When you see average fighters like Froch, Haye and Khan getting the big one it really does make you wish for the time when we had had Lewis, Calzaghe, Eubank, Hatton, Benn and fighters of that class.

For god's sake, Eubank is the classic case of fighter that fought one elite fighter every 4 or 5 fights- look at his record- very rare was the occassion when he followed one elite fighter with another-the Watson and Colins rematches are the only time I can think of off the top of my head, and same can be said for Benn. Who you care to pick as the best fighter is a subjective, but who consistently fought the best quality of opposition is surely less open to our personal whims. And as for Sky hyping him, well they did a damn poor job- most casual sports fans knew who Eubank, Benn and Hatton were, Froch isn't a household name in his own home.

Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucien Bute

That is Carl's last eight opponents in order with no fights excluded, please Gordy provide me a consecutive run for either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn that stands favourable comparison with that, and no mention of Sky hype jobs (who fought most of their career on Primetime) or personalities because obviously Froch can't expect to measure up to such a charismatic bloke as Calzaghe on that front, just provide a list of eight for any of the three fighters mentioned.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Its the notion that any elite fighter deserves an easy touch that bugs me. Where did that come from?

Easy fights should come at the start of you're career then you move up a level to test yourself and if you come through that you take on the big boys. Froch has made too much of the fact that he has faced elite fighters one after the other for the last 5 years yet all of a sudden he feels sorry for himself and wants to treat himself.

It's not a new thing though, is it? JC is the greatest SMW Britain has ever produced and one of our top 5 fighters ever probably but in a 46 fight career he only had about 5 fights that weren't soft touches. Including a title reign littered for the most part with tomato cans.

Froch has absolutely nothing for which to reproach himself with regards to this fight.

He went after Kessler and Pavlik, but both (seemingly) put up significant barriers to prevent fights from materializing. He needed to fight again before the year is out, and so naturally it was always going to be a less than stellar opponent from that point onwards. Champions taking on extremely routine defenses of a title is nothing new, as a cursory glance at the records of Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali will show you; amongst the Fraziers, Foremans, Listons and Nortons, there were the Wepners, the Mildenbergers and the Dunns thrown in for good measure.

I agree with every single person in direct contradiction to Super D Xenophobe, Jokey and ONETWODAFTSOD

Anyone....and I mean anyone questioning Froch taking this fight needs to wake up. The lad has fought the best of the best, falling short twice by a very close decision and beaten by a future P4P legend. His run of fights has been nothing short of phenomenal, I mean thinking about it - I can't name ONE boxer in the past 20/30 years who has consistently faced the best of the best in succession and travelled around the world to do it. Froch has nothing to prove to anyone. Its casual fans like Gordy and people who hate him on principal like Super D that probably frustrate Froch because they lack the comprehension to respect what he's done, what he's doing and how fiercely proud he is of being BRITISH. Thats right Super D - you're still a part of our little kingdom, you'd do well to realise that.

I give up with Gordy - although I will leave him with this....I would like you to find 8 opponents Lewis faced one after the other and travelled to do it.

I've got all day.

rowley wrote:Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucien Bute

That is Carl's last eight opponents in order with no fights excluded, please Gordy provide me a consecutive run for either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn that stands favourable comparison with that, and no mention of Sky hype jobs (who fought most of their career on Primetime) or personalities because obviously Froch can't expect to measure up to such a charismatic bloke as Calzaghe on that front, just provide a list of eight for any of the three fighters mentioned.

By way of example Gordy, I don't mean to pick on JC but has he is the greatest his career must therefore be the toughest yardstick, these are what I would consider his top 8 fights (sure many would disagree, this is just my quick opinion) by way of comparison:

Hoppo
Kessler
Lacy
RJJ
Reid
Eubank
Veit
Bika

The first of those was in 1997 against Eubank, the last RJJ in 2008. That's 11 years and 8 fights out of 24 in that period. So 1 in 3.

Tophat, he's beyond reason. Most sensible people would look at your post and think..."oshyt - I've hit a brick wall, fair play" and move on. Gordy will just tell you that because Froch lost to Kessler and JC beat him that Froch is a "hype job"

I mean REALLY?

Are we honestly calling Froch a "hype job"? After all that man has a chieved....wow....casual fans eh...

not only a hype job a sky hype job - even though sky ignored him most of his career

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Tophat, he's beyond reason. Most sensible people would look at your post and think..."oshyt - I've hit a brick wall, fair play" and move on. Gordy will just tell you that because Froch lost to Kessler and JC beat him that Froch is a "hype job"

I mean REALLY?

Are we honestly calling Froch a "hype job"? After all that man has a chieved....wow....casual fans eh...

I think people can be a little too partisan that's all. Whether it's Gordy being too misty-eyed of the 90's 'golden era' of British boxing or (some) Welsh posters feeling the need to attack Froch all the time because of the lip he gave JC coming up. Most sensible reasoned people would place JC higher in Brit all-time rankings and would back him to beat Froch 9 times out of 10 but would also recognise the strength of Froch's recent record and respect his desire to fight regular challenging fights all over the world.

Similarly, as per Jeff's post, I doubt anyone can name a Brit fighter in 20 years with an 8 fight run that trough (even if he did drop 2 decisions along the way). Is it really that hard to appreciate that that's at least a bit good?

I'd have JC winning if I'm honest - think he'd be a nightmare for Froch cos he'd be impossible to put away and thats how Froch would have to do it.

like you say, some posters will never really appreciate how good what Froch has accomplished is - I suppose its down to the more level headed among us to do that for them!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Similarly, as per Jeff's post, I doubt anyone can name a Brit fighter in 20 years with an 8 fight run that trough (even if he did drop 2 decisions along the way). Is it really that hard to appreciate that that's at least a bit good?

To be honest top hat you can go back further than 20 years, Boxing Monthly did an article considering the best Brits ever over a five fight period and pretty much every one of those fighters had at least one guy in their list who was absolute dross, if the best ever could not match the run over five fights seems little reason to think they would fare any better over eight. The only one I personally can think of that could match up is Jimmy Mclarnin who put a fine run together towards the end of his career but then there is a reasonable argument to say Mclarnin is not even British

rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Similarly, as per Jeff's post, I doubt anyone can name a Brit fighter in 20 years with an 8 fight run that trough (even if he did drop 2 decisions along the way). Is it really that hard to appreciate that that's at least a bit good?

To be honest top hat you can go back further than 20 years, Boxing Monthly did an article considering the best Brits ever over a five fight period and pretty much every one of those fighters had at least one guy in their list who was absolute dross, if the best ever could not match the run over five fights seems little reason to think they would fare any better over eight. The only one I personally can think of that could match up is Jimmy Mclarnin who put a fine run together towards the end of his career but then there is a reasonable argument to say Mclarnin is not even British

The mighty Clinton Woods had a good run (albeit over maybe 12 fights)

Prime RJJ
Prime Glen Johnson x 3
Tarver
Cloud

rowley wrote:Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucien Bute

That is Carl's last eight opponents in order with no fights excluded, please Gordy provide me a consecutive run for either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn that stands favourable comparison with that, and no mention of Sky hype jobs (who fought most of their career on Primetime) or personalities because obviously Froch can't expect to measure up to such a charismatic bloke as Calzaghe on that front, just provide a list of eight for any of the three fighters mentioned.

Spot on Jeff. How someone can suggest that Calzaghe only fought world standard boxers in his tenure as world champion is smoking something. I remember the great spectacle of Peter Manfredo Jr!! What an absolute joke that was!! Superb fighter that he was, Calzaghe lacked ambition until the end of his career and then only fought two all time greats who he believed were past their best. And yes, I do believe that Calzaghe would beat Froch, but I respect Froch more for taking on all comers.

bhb001 wrote:

rowley wrote:Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucien Bute

That is Carl's last eight opponents in order with no fights excluded, please Gordy provide me a consecutive run for either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn that stands favourable comparison with that, and no mention of Sky hype jobs (who fought most of their career on Primetime) or personalities because obviously Froch can't expect to measure up to such a charismatic bloke as Calzaghe on that front, just provide a list of eight for any of the three fighters mentioned.

Spot on Jeff. How someone can suggest that Calzaghe only fought world standard boxers in his tenure as world champion is smoking something. I remember the great spectacle of Peter Manfredo Jr!! What an absolute joke that was!! Superb fighter that he was, Calzaghe lacked ambition until the end of his career and then only fought two all time greats who he believed were past their best. And yes, I do believe that Calzaghe would beat Froch, but I respect Froch more for taking on all comers.

Funny how an article critical of Froch ends up in a bashing Calzaghe session isn't it?

I don't think Froch can be faulted for his level of opponents but I agree with the OP that if he fights only twice a year then the high level should be maintained.

I don't think it's opening a can of worms as Ward, Dawson, Hoppo (althgough there's some apology allowed given his age) are all too inactive. I remember that boxers would go every four months or so not every six as seems to be the current trend or every 656 days years or however long it takes for Mars to do a full circle of the sun in David Haye's case.

In all fairness D the Calzaghe comparison is slightly inevitable given firstly they operate in the same division and Joe was one of the shining lights from boxing's golden age that Gorsdy upheld as one from the halcyon days before sky hyped everyone beyond their abilities.

Steve Collins was on Talksport earlier. Said Eubank was the toughest he ever faced and gave the impression that he could never have stopped him. He said Benn was the hardest hitter he faced - reckons Benn's blows were sickening.

Also he reckons he's still got Eubank's WBO belt. Apparently the former champ keeps the belt and the new champ gets a new one. For some reason Collins got the old one and kept it.

Also, Super D, it was other people on this thread who started to compare Calzaghe's career against Froch with comments such as "When you see average fighters like Froch, Haye and Khan getting the big one it really does make you wish for the time when we had had Lewis, Calzaghe, Eubank, Hatton, Benn and fighters of that class." It does give wings to the old joke. Nostalgia ... it's not what it used to be.

Super D Boon wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

rowley wrote:Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucien Bute

That is Carl's last eight opponents in order with no fights excluded, please Gordy provide me a consecutive run for either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn that stands favourable comparison with that, and no mention of Sky hype jobs (who fought most of their career on Primetime) or personalities because obviously Froch can't expect to measure up to such a charismatic bloke as Calzaghe on that front, just provide a list of eight for any of the three fighters mentioned.

Spot on Jeff. How someone can suggest that Calzaghe only fought world standard boxers in his tenure as world champion is smoking something. I remember the great spectacle of Peter Manfredo Jr!! What an absolute joke that was!! Superb fighter that he was, Calzaghe lacked ambition until the end of his career and then only fought two all time greats who he believed were past their best. And yes, I do believe that Calzaghe would beat Froch, but I respect Froch more for taking on all comers.

Funny how an article critical of Froch ends up in a bashing Calzaghe session isn't it?

I don't think Froch can be faulted for his level of opponents but I agree with the OP that if he fights only twice a year then the high level should be maintained.

I don't think it's opening a can of worms as Ward, Dawson, Hoppo (althgough there's some apology allowed given his age) are all too inactive. I remember that boxers would go every four months or so not every six as seems to be the current trend or every 656 days years or however long it takes for Mars to do a full circle of the sun in David Haye's case.

In fairness Super D, I did try to make it clear that the reason I used him for comparison was because I think he is THE best and therefore THE toughest yardstick to measure any other British SMW by. That's not really bashing, or at least it certainly wasn't meant to be.

rowley wrote:Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucien Bute

That is Carl's last eight opponents in order with no fights excluded, please Gordy provide me a consecutive run for either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn that stands favourable comparison with that, and no mention of Sky hype jobs (who fought most of their career on Primetime) or personalities because obviously Froch can't expect to measure up to such a charismatic bloke as Calzaghe on that front, just provide a list of eight for any of the three fighters mentioned.

This^. Seems there's a lot of butt-hurt critics in here with rose-tinted spectacles. Happy to moan that Froch is having an 'easy' fight (like Garcia was meant to be for Khan, right?), then blowing smoke up the collective arse of yesteryear. 'Bum of the month' ring any bells? I'd rather he fight a better opponent, but given how even a single loss these days means a fighter is called 'shot', who can blame them for being more businesslike in their approach?

Froch has travelled, fought a consistent level of opponents and done what most fans want fighters to do, for the last...four years? Yet STILL some people want the moon on a stick. As for him not having much of a personality...well, there's two arguments there. Firstly, it's about what happens inside the ring. Secondly, Froch actually comes across pretty well, and importantly quite GROUNDED most of the time. What do people class as 'personality'? Hatton was thick as two short planks and played on the fact he appealed to drunken football fans. Mayweather is an obnoxious pantomime villain. Pacquiao is as dull a party political broadcast, and Khan...well, he's just a bit of a Tinkywinky. The same people who loved Eubank's personality will complain his fights were sometimes boring and against poor opponents, and Naz's front got tiresome by the end. Oh, I forgot: we had loveable big cuddly Widow Twanky, Mr Bruno. Urh-urh-urh, know wot a' mean, 'arry? Sheer bloody poetry.

How about this crap about frequency of fights? Almost no-one fights more than twice a year, and more than three times is a freak occurrence up there with a good Steps album and American humility. It's marketing nonsense, and the catch-22 is that these guys wouldn't NEED six months to promote a fight if they fought more often, because people would know more about who they are, but they won't do that because the money isn't there...because they're not well-enough-known! How many bands would be unknown now if they'd only performed twice a year?!???

Anyway, rant over. Mack isn't a great choice of opponent, but nothing is a certainty in boxing. People should appreciate guys with Froch's ethic, while boxing still exists.

So you've bought the sky hype then Melkor?

Steps have made a good album?

Eubank was not everybodies cup of tea but he was a different league alltogether to the overrated Froch. I think the people criticising him have forgotten his great fights with world class fighters like Benn, Collins and Watson or more likely have never even seen them! Keep listening to Froch and Sky claim he would beat guys like Eubank but dont say I didnt warn you when he loses again to a fighter that wouldnt stand a chance against Calzaghe, Eubank or Benn! They were different class as anyone who understands boxing will know!

rowley wrote:So you've bought the sky hype then Melkor?

It was the HP sauce adverts which swayed me. Boxing nowadays is caught up in a downward spiral of lower casual exposure, more marketing, PPV fights, discontent over poor fight cards/protected fighters, and frankly I can understand why it's become sidelined. Why pour your life into MAYBE becoming a boxing megastar by the age of forty, when you can become a premiership footballer and earn the same or better money than most boxers, without even being in the top ten players? JMM-a fantastic fighter to watch, exceptionally skilled and yet if he's lucky he can expect to earn what, 5-10 millions dollars in a year? How much is Wayne Rooney on again? Froch is a more inspiring British sportsman than Rooney, but I bet the number of million pound purses he's had could be counted on one hand almost. I genuinely wish we could go back to boxing on terrestrial TV and guys fighting ten or twelve times a year. As entertaining as 24/7 can SOMETIMES be, who wouldn't rather have more ACTUAL fights to watch? Sod Max Kellerman and the face-off crap, just get in the ring more often.

Any chance of my list of 8 consecutive fights from either Eubank, Calzaghe or Benn which is better than the eight listed for Carl Gordy. Don't care who you think is the better fighter, is a different question that one.

At the risk of repeating what happened last time, could you give answering the questions posed a go please Gordy?

Gordy wrote:Eubank was not everybodies cup of tea but he was a different league alltogether to the overrated Froch. I think the people criticising him have forgotten his great fights with world class fighters like Benn, Collins and Watson or more likely have never even seen them! Keep listening to Froch and Sky claim he would beat guys like Eubank but dont say I didnt warn you when he loses again to a fighter that wouldnt stand a chance against Calzaghe, Eubank or Benn! They were different class as anyone who understands boxing will know!

Ward vs Calzaghe would be a very difficult fight to call. "No chance"

Psssh.

I'm not dignifying you with any more responses, I'm sure you do this to wind us up.

Gordy wrote:Eubank was not everybodies cup of tea but he was a different league alltogether to the overrated Froch. I think the people criticising him have forgotten his great fights with world class fighters like Benn, Collins and Watson or more likely have never even seen them! Keep listening to Froch and Sky claim he would beat guys like Eubank but dont say I didnt warn you when he loses again to a fighter that wouldnt stand a chance against Calzaghe, Eubank or Benn! They were different class as anyone who understands boxing will know!

L*L. That's all.

Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn beat far better opponents than Froch. That shouldnt even need explaining. They were around in a better period with better fighters. Froch cant even beat fighters that Calzaghe outclassed which shows how much worse than them he is.

Still waiting

Gordy wrote:Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn beat far better opponents than Froch. That shouldnt even need explaining. They were around in a better period with better fighters. Froch cant even beat fighters that Calzaghe outclassed which shows how much worse than them he is.

That doesn't answer the question though, does it Gordy?

Please could you name any 8 fighters in a row that either JC, Benn or Eubank fought that are better?

I am happy to make the question easier and simply ask: name 8 fighters JC, Benn or Eubank fought at ANY point in their careers that are better than Froch's last 8, if that helps?

I've given you a pretty good headstart with JC.

Waiting for what? If you think Froch is in the same league as Eubank, Benn and Calzaghe then you have been waching too much Sky and need to go and watch those guys fight. Honestly, its not even close. People on here think Harrison and Haye would beat Marciano or that Price is the next Lewis its purely because they are being fooled by Sky or else do not know boxing. Calzaghe outlcassed Kessler who beat Froch so tell me how that makes Froch in the same league as Calzaghe?