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

First topic message reminder :

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.

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.

Name some then. Your triangle argument is utterly irrelevant. It's the debating equivalent of Richard Blackwood.

Gordy wrote: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?

He is waiting for you to answer his question. I am trying to be as nice and polite as possible, as is Rowley, perhaps you could do the same in return and answer the question? (or even my easier one?)

Eubank beat Benn, Calzaghe beat Eubank, Benn beat McClellan, Calzaghe beat Kessler. Eubank beat Watson, Watson beat Benn. ALL of these fighters are better than Froch by a mile. Froch is overhyped and not in their class.

Who did Froch ever beat that is remotely as good as any of those guys? Stop falling for the hype and learn about those fighters and you will see how right I am.

Gordy wrote:Eubank beat Benn, Calzaghe beat Eubank, Benn beat McClellan, Calzaghe beat Kessler. Eubank beat Watson, Watson beat Benn. ALL of these fighters are better than Froch by a mile. Froch is overhyped and not in their class.

Well I guess that's progress, sort of, maybe you can't remember the question as it was on the previous page. The query regarded 8 fighters, not just 1 or 2. If only 1 or 2 were required Buster Douglas would be one the best HW fighters ever (but let's not open that can of worms.....).

I am waiting for a list of eight consecutive fights by either Calzaghe, Benn or Eubank which compares with the last eight Carl has taken. This original thread was about Carl fighting a lesser opponent and you said this was because he was being protected by Sky and was a sorry comparison to great fighters like the aforementioned.

I have no huge issue with you not rating Carl because given he is a currently active fighter I’d expect nothing less from you, however I take real issue with you suggesting he is a protected fighter because the evidence in terms of opposition and locations of his last eight fights suggests the complete opposite is true and my assertion is in terms of taking tough fights he stands head and shoulders above many of the fighters you constantly eulogize over and so should you think otherwise I am asking you to provide evidence to support your claims, beyond your constant witterings about Sky hype jobs etc etc.

Gordy wrote:Eubank beat Benn, Calzaghe beat Eubank, Benn beat McClellan, Calzaghe beat Kessler. Eubank beat Watson, Watson beat Benn. ALL of these fighters are better than Froch by a mile. Froch is overhyped and not in their class.

Even of you're correct, that's only six names, and no one guy has beaten all six.

Gordy wrote:Who did Froch ever beat that is remotely as good as any of those guys? Stop falling for the hype and learn about those fighters and you will see how right I am.

Benn beat Gman. He lost to Collins twice, Eubank and Watson who were the best other fighters on his CV. 1 win 4 losses and a draw against the only 4 top level boxers on his ledger.

So, going back to the question you're doing a brilliant job avoiding (Az would be proud), can you name 8?

He won't.

Froch is clearly a Hype job. FFS why won't you listen? Sky have done a great job of lying to us about Froch's last 8 opponents being any good. The fact they're champions and participants of the super 6 means nothing.

rowley wrote:I am waiting for a list of eight consecutive fights by either Calzaghe, Benn or Eubank which compares with the last eight Carl has taken. This original thread was about Carl fighting a lesser opponent and you said this was because he was being protected by Sky and was a sorry comparison to great fighters like the aforementioned.

I have no huge issue with you not rating Carl because given he is a currently active fighter I’d expect nothing less from you, however I take real issue with you suggesting he is a protected fighter because the evidence in terms of opposition and locations of his last eight fights suggests the complete opposite is true and my assertion is in terms of taking tough fights he stands head and shoulders above many of the fighters you constantly eulogize over and so should you think otherwise I am asking you to provide evidence to support your claims, beyond your constant witterings about Sky hype jobs etc etc.

You have admirable patience Rowley. If I were a Mod I'd have given Gordy a do or die warning - answer the question exactly or be banned. This is why I should never be given any power.......

JabMachineMK2 wrote:He won't.

Froch is clearly a Hype job. FFS why won't you listen? Sky have done a great job of lying to us about Froch's last 8 opponents being any good. The fact they're champions and participants of the super 6 means nothing.

Sky's hype machine is so slick they could also manage to infiltrate our brains when Carl was fighting on ITV and Primetime, they are cunning like that.

[quote="Melkor"]

rowley wrote:

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?!???

I'm not using it as a stick to beat Froch with more than a stick to beat any other top level fighter with. It's this twice a year business that's starting to get to me as I'm sure not so long ago world champs fought more often. If Froch fought more often and shut up with the Khan baiting and dubious claims of greatness then he'd get more respect from general sports fans I'm sure.

The one thing I actually appreciate about the Germans (in a huge bundle of stuff I hate about them) is the fact that they fight often. Marco Huck for example usually fights around three/four times a year. Maybe 3 of his opponents are cans and maybe one decent pro operator but the fact is the German boxers please their fans by fighting often. Wlad/Vitali for all their naysayers fight three times a year.

There's all kinds of reasons as to why the cream only fight twice a year now but I'm getting fed up of it. This is why I agree with the OP in that no matter who you are, if you only fight twice a year then there shouldn't be easy fights.

Would have to question whether Watson and Collins were world class in the first place, their reputations were all built on fighting eachother with the only notable top class American any of them beat being McClellan. They all fought some very good opponents from time to time but by no means were they fighting and beating world class opposition all the time.

Watson would have outclassed the overrated Froch. He gave Eubank two very tough fights. Froch would not have got close to beating Eubank or Benn. Watson did. Thats the differance in class. Its like comparing a premiership football player to one in division 2.

i know you are obsessed with eubank gordon. hes also my second favourite fighter so im not gonna knock you for that. if you think he beats froch fair enough. but why mix it with your other obsession with sky hype jobs? if anything it diminishes your own point, as eubank had far more fights on sky than froch has.

Eubank was not overhyped on Sky. He was a world class fighter that didnt need to be hyped. Froch is massively overhyped because he is an average fighter that Sky are trying to build up. The likes of Eubank, Calzaghe and Benn didnt need the hype because they were the real deal.

Gordy wrote:Eubank was not overhyped on Sky. He was a world class fighter that didnt need to be hyped. Froch is massively overhyped because he is an average fighter that Sky are trying to build up. The likes of Eubank, Calzaghe and Benn didnt need the hype because they were the real deal.

Getting late and you're still avoiding the question I see.

Mind if we try another? How many fights on Sky has Carl 'Sky hype job' Froch had?

I actually don't know the answer but I'm guessing it's around 2. Which would be only 25% of his 8 fight run that exceeds anything by JC, Eubank or Benn (I assume you know this which is why you refuse to answer).

alma wrote:I agree ghosty. We all love Watson, but was he really world level? Ok he beat Benn but...

Outclassed by Mike McCallum prior to the Eubank fights.

seanmichaels wrote:

alma wrote:I agree ghosty. We all love Watson, but was he really world level? Ok he beat Benn but...

Outclassed by Mike McCallum prior to the Eubank fights.

That was the body snatcher at his best. Awesome performance to be fair.

This thread is confirmation to me that Gordy is on the wind up. Best just to not engage the conversation.

Ha so I am the wind-up now? Because I can recognise Froch is an average fighter who is not in the same league as Eubank, Benn or Calzaghe who were great fighters? Looks like I am the only one on here able to spot a hype job when I se one but keep believing Sky Sports and thinking Froch is the best thing since sliced bread. He already lost to fighters that would be completely outclassed by Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn if you actually watch boxing.

Ward would be a huge favourite against Eubank and Benn while a fight with calzaghe would be very close. May be inclined to favour Kessler over them as well.

Ward??? Give me a break! Who has Ward beatan thats anywhere near as good as those guys? Kessler has already been outclassed by Calzaghe. He is not at their level. You are talking about a whole different league with the guys. The ones now are simply not as good. If Calzaghe, Benn or Eubank were around now they would beat the guys at the moment although of the three Calzaghe was the best. Nobody around now would come close to him and I include the rubbish heavyweights in that. Different class altogether.

In beating Froch and Kessler, Ward already has a better record than either Eubank or Benn and I fully expect him to add the scalp of Dawson to his resume too further cementing his claim as the divisons second best of all time.

Looks like its not only Froch that is living in a dream world! I really wish Eubank, Calzaghe and Benn were still around just to prove I am right and show that Froch is average! Although Froch would probably high tail it out of there if that were the case! Those fighters were just a seperate class to the ones around now. Boxing has been falling apart since Lewis retired. The standard just isnt the same now. America has lost interest in boxing and if the Olympics are anything to go by the standard there is gone to the dogs.

You don't give up on your drivel do you?

Gordy wrote:Ha so I am the wind-up now? Because I can recognise Froch is an average fighter who is not in the same league as Eubank, Benn or Calzaghe who were great fighters? Looks like I am the only one on here able to spot a hype job when I se one but keep believing Sky Sports and thinking Froch is the best thing since sliced bread. He already lost to fighters that would be completely outclassed by Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn if you actually watch boxing.

Nice to see you back on.

Can you have a pop at any 1 of the 3 questions you still haven't answered please, Gordy?

No offence, but I have been following boxing for years and Ive picked up a thing or two about it in that time. I dont just rely on the media or sky to tell me whos good or not. I can spot a hype job a mile away and tell the differance between real class and clever pr work. Ive been putting up with people for years believe everything they hear about boxing so Im well used to it by now!

Gordy wrote:No offence, but I have been following boxing for years and Ive picked up a thing or two about it in that time. I dont just rely on the media or sky to tell me whos good or not. I can spot a hype job a mile away and tell the differance between real class and clever pr work. Ive been putting up with people for years believe everything they hear about boxing so Im well used to it by now!

Can you use the extensive knowledge you've picked up to answer a politely asked question then please, Gordy?

Gordy - Have to say you don't help yourself. All you have done so far is state your belief about Froch being a hype job and then reiterated the same point over and over without actually replying to anyone's question....which to be honest are both relevant & fair...

In the context of creating some debate it may actually be a good thing for you to answer, since debating is kind of the point of the site.

At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war.

However the question people are posing are out of the fighters you have named could you hand on heart turn around and say any of them have had close to the 8 fight streak that Froch has had before this fight?

Given your last few posts I would also like to see who in this modern climate you don't think is hyped and is actually any good because by the sounds of it anyone outside of the 'golden era of the 80's/90's' is just another product of the SKY hype machine....

GORDY - Sky Sports 3 are showing a special on Carl Froch, RIGHT NOW!!

Suggest you switch on.......

owen10ozzy wrote:At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war

The funny thing is that most people agree with this, or, at least, would have no problems with it. Most have stated that Calzaghe would UD Froch every time. Most have said that Froch and Benn would be a ding-dong battle. There's a bit of a split of opinion on Eubank vs Froch, but it's still been recognised that it's a worthy challenge for both fighters. Gordy's posts make it sound like everyone is saying that Froch is some sort of all time great. They’re not. Really people are just posting to point out that a) It's a bit of a fallacy that Eubank/Collins/Watson/Benn were in some sort of golden era that puts them leagues ahead of todays SMWs (the analogy being used is comparing Premiership to League 2 players!), b) It's a fallacy that Eubank/Watson/Benn/Calzaghe have great records......because they don't......and Froch's is better. If you want to talk about guys that were around that weight circa 1994-95 and were a class above the likes of Froch, then James Toney and RJJ spring to mind.

Gordy wrote: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?

As far as I recall this was a throwaway line by Az, someone who is known to have a dislike of Marciano on here* who dropped it into a post for effect. I don't think even he really believes it.

I've seen you repeat this numerous times, using the word people which suggests more than one person thinks this when in fact I would imagine the true figure would be less than one.

If more than one person can truly say they think Harrison would beat Marciano, I'll apologise. But if not, I reckon you should stop using this line as a tool to try to bash the collective knowledge of the board with.

Thanks mate.

*maybe not in real life...

Boxtthis wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war

The funny thing is that most people agree with this, or, at least, would have no problems with it. Most have stated that Calzaghe would UD Froch every time. Most have said that Froch and Benn would be a ding-dong battle. There's a bit of a split of opinion on Eubank vs Froch, but it's still been recognised that it's a worthy challenge for both fighters. Gordy's posts make it sound like everyone is saying that Froch is some sort of all time great. They’re not. Really people are just posting to point out that a) It's a bit of a fallacy that Eubank/Collins/Watson/Benn were in some sort of golden era that puts them leagues ahead of todays SMWs (the analogy being used is comparing Premiership to League 2 players!), b) It's a fallacy that Eubank/Watson/Benn/Calzaghe have great records......because they don't......and Froch's is better. If you want to talk about guys that were around that weight circa 1994-95 and were a class above the likes of Froch, then James Toney and RJJ spring to mind.

You are half right. But please dont settle for half of the truth! Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn were far better than Froch. That was a much better period of boxers. Froch is an average fighter that is in a worse era of boxing. People might think fights between him and those other great fighters would be close but believe me they would not be. They would be very one sided because Froch is just not in their class. To highlight where you are wrong you should realise that Froch has already lost to guys that were not in the same class as Eubank or Benn or Calzaghe. Calzaghe himself outclassed one of these fighters. This is the differance. As for Roy Jones! Dont even get me started on that phoney, he is one of the most overrated boxers in history!

For me, Ward beats Calzaghe. We seen Joe struggle with Hoppo and Ward at this stage of his career looks every bit as good as the Hopkins Calzaghe fought but could sustain it for 12 rounds.

As for Benn vs Froch, I think Froch stops him, and although Benn is a very hard puncher I just dont see him getting rid of Froch. Benn is more vulnerable and Froch takes advantage of this.

Eubank blows hot and cold, and while on his day he is a very good technician and I think Froch has the ability yo beat him. Over a 3 fight series I would pick Eubank to win a couple, although never with more than a point or 2 in it.

Dont even get me started on that phoney, he is one of the most overrated boxers in history!.

Is that you, coxy?

Ah yes, Roy "phoney" Jones. Only the second man to ever win titles from Middleweight to Heavyweight.

What a joker.

Roy Jones was massively overrated. He never took on any challenges and spent his career taking on averge opponents to make him seem better than what he was. Ever ask yourself why he nver fought Eubank, Benn or Collins? Ever wonder why when he fought Calzaghe he was totally outclassed? He was built up massively in America who were completely biased against Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn so he could get away with not fighting them. They knew they would beat him and Jones knew it to! Thats why the fights never happened even though they were in the same division!

Gordy wrote:Roy Jones was massively overrated. He never took on any challenges and spent his career taking on averge opponents to make him seem better than what he was. Ever ask yourself why he nver fought Eubank, Benn or Collins?

Because they refused to travel to America to take on the man who was widely regarding as top of the tree? Or should Jones come to England and fight in leisure centres?

Gordy this is just getting silly now. I have in the past provided you with direct quotes from Eubank’s own autobiography where he admits he did not want to fight Roy Jones and would have only done so in the event Jones was his mandatory. This is a recorded, written and published point of fact straight from the horse’s mouth. If you want to believe Eubank would have beaten Roy fine, you’re in the minority but are entitled to your opinion but don’t argue or suggest Chris was chomping at the bit for the opportunity as it is demonstrably untrue.

I have no real issue if you want to occupy this strange world where nobody who fought outside the early nineties had any talent and anyone who has fought outside of this period on Sky is a joker but don’t lie or ignore facts to support your arguments as it is not debating and is only going to raise the ire of the other users of the board.

Gordy wrote:Ever ask yourself why he nver fought Eubank?

Because Eubank publicly admitted that he didn't want the fight and would have avoided it in any way possible.

Gordy wrote:Ever wonder why when he fought Calzaghe he was totally outclassed?

Because he was about a decade past his best.

Hope this clears everything up.

Gordy wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war

The funny thing is that most people agree with this, or, at least, would have no problems with it. Most have stated that Calzaghe would UD Froch every time. Most have said that Froch and Benn would be a ding-dong battle. There's a bit of a split of opinion on Eubank vs Froch, but it's still been recognised that it's a worthy challenge for both fighters. Gordy's posts make it sound like everyone is saying that Froch is some sort of all time great. They’re not. Really people are just posting to point out that a) It's a bit of a fallacy that Eubank/Collins/Watson/Benn were in some sort of golden era that puts them leagues ahead of todays SMWs (the analogy being used is comparing Premiership to League 2 players!), b) It's a fallacy that Eubank/Watson/Benn/Calzaghe have great records......because they don't......and Froch's is better. If you want to talk about guys that were around that weight circa 1994-95 and were a class above the likes of Froch, then James Toney and RJJ spring to mind.

You are half right. But please dont settle for half of the truth! Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn were far better than Froch. That was a much better period of boxers. Froch is an average fighter that is in a worse era of boxing. People might think fights between him and those other great fighters would be close but believe me they would not be. They would be very one sided because Froch is just not in their class. To highlight where you are wrong you should realise that Froch has already lost to guys that were not in the same class as Eubank or Benn or Calzaghe. Calzaghe himself outclassed one of these fighters. This is the differance. As for Roy Jones! Dont even get me started on that phoney, he is one of the most overrated boxers in history!

Gordy, I tried to be as nice as possible, I really did, so, one last chance, to save yourself from the epic cavern of retardation your post deposits you in - PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION(s) PUT TO YOU.

Failure to answer simply comfirms you are either a) a pure WUM; b) clinically retarded; or c) a bit of both.

Note to Mods: This isn't an attack on Gordy, it is setting out a position, something which Gordy can clarify in an instance with his response.

Gordy wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war

The funny thing is that most people agree with this, or, at least, would have no problems with it. Most have stated that Calzaghe would UD Froch every time. Most have said that Froch and Benn would be a ding-dong battle. There's a bit of a split of opinion on Eubank vs Froch, but it's still been recognised that it's a worthy challenge for both fighters. Gordy's posts make it sound like everyone is saying that Froch is some sort of all time great. They’re not. Really people are just posting to point out that a) It's a bit of a fallacy that Eubank/Collins/Watson/Benn were in some sort of golden era that puts them leagues ahead of todays SMWs (the analogy being used is comparing Premiership to League 2 players!), b) It's a fallacy that Eubank/Watson/Benn/Calzaghe have great records......because they don't......and Froch's is better. If you want to talk about guys that were around that weight circa 1994-95 and were a class above the likes of Froch, then James Toney and RJJ spring to mind.

You are half right. But please dont settle for half of the truth! Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn were far better than Froch. That was a much better period of boxers. Froch is an average fighter that is in a worse era of boxing. People might think fights between him and those other great fighters would be close but believe me they would not be. They would be very one sided because Froch is just not in their class. To highlight where you are wrong you should realise that Froch has already lost to guys that were not in the same class as Eubank or Benn or Calzaghe. Calzaghe himself outclassed one of these fighters. This is the differance. As for Roy Jones! Dont even get me started on that phoney, he is one of the most overrated boxers in history!

Dissappointed with myself for getting sucked back into this. Again, it's a clear confirmation that Gordy is orchestrating a wind up. No real person could be so ignorantly selective with the "facts" or so pig-headedly stupid.

Gordy wrote:Roy Jones was massively overrated. He never took on any challenges and spent his career taking on averge opponents to make him seem better than what he was. Ever ask yourself why he nver fought Eubank, Benn or Collins? Ever wonder why when he fought Calzaghe he was totally outclassed? He was built up massively in America who were completely biased against Calzaghe, Eubank and Benn so he could get away with not fighting them. They knew they would beat him and Jones knew it to! Thats why the fights never happened even though they were in the same division!

Don't you mean your idol Calzaghe?

[quote="Boxtthis"]

Gordy wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war

Dissappointed with myself for getting sucked back into this. Again, it's a clear confirmation that Gordy is orchestrating a wind up. No real person could be so ignorantly selective with the "facts" or so pig-headedly stupid.

Tony Blair?

[quote="seanmichaels"]

Boxtthis wrote:

Gordy wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:At the risk of people thinking I am siding with you Gordy, I actually think that Calzaghe is a fair few levels above Froch, I would also fancy Benn to out fight him in what would be a war

Dissappointed with myself for getting sucked back into this. Again, it's a clear confirmation that Gordy is orchestrating a wind up. No real person could be so ignorantly selective with the "facts" or so pig-headedly stupid.

Tony Blair?

God told him those facts.

which one?

That God told him that attacking Iraq was a humanitarian venture.

Why, when people say that God told them to do something, does it always end up hurting other people. Why does God never tell these complete f**ktards to pour a hot bath, drink a nice glass of wine, slip into said bath and cut their femoral artery with a razor blade?

Because God (or Allah or whatever name you want to give him/her) is make believe and simply used as an excuse to commit horrific acts.......?