Carl Froch Interview

Seems like Froch is doing his very best to avoid having to get a rematch with Groves, also seems to be giving very little credit to a world class performance, dispite his constant ramblings of "respect". If he doesn't get the rematch what do people think Groves' next move should be? Steiglitz and Bika are both very winnable world title fights, and he also has the option of an again winnable Degale fight. Opinions?

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/latest/feature/carl-froch-i-don-t-need-to-fight-george-groves-again-part-one

That's right I've had the chance to interv....only joking

Tris Dixon from boxing news had interviewed Carl Froch following this weekends fight, decent read.

http://boxingnewsonline.net/latest/feature/carl-froch-i-don-t-need-to-fight-george-groves-again-part-one

He's still kidding himself about the stoppage. Apparently 'most people' think it was fair having watched it back. Really Carl?

I think his ego has taken a bashing, he knows the stoppage stinks and is pretending he was injured, caught cold etc... To justify getting out boxed and out fought.

I find froch to have an unlikable personality. But regardless of that I didn't think it was fair to boo him or to receive the abuse he has since.
The guy took a shellacking, and yet his will kept him going. It was impressive stuff, as a boxer he doesn't deserve criticism. Froch earns every penny of his purse.

The second part of the interview is especially good. Very interesting to hear how Froch measure's performance and keeps it in a diary thus allowing himself to see how his current state relates to his his peak performance level, Bute being his absolute best condition.

I think he has a point in that Groves does not look like a 12 round fighter.


http://boxingnewsonline.net/latest/feature/carl-froch-i-don-t-need-to-fight-george-groves-again-part-two

I like Froch. His heart and determination are both special, and make up for what are some pretty obvious technical flaws. But, his post-Groves interviews have made him look like a bit of a delusional egomaniac. Groves wasn't given the opportunity to 'look the ref in the eyes'. He wasn't given anything like the chances that Froch was. He needs to give Groves more credit.

And those scorecards? I just don't get it. I had Groves 5 clear at the time of the 'stoppage'.

There are two threads on the the same article.

Strongback wrote:The second part of the interview is especially good.  Very interesting to hear how Froch measure's performance and keeps it in a diary thus allowing himself to see how his current state relates to his his peak performance level, Bute being his absolute best condition.  

I think he has a point in that Groves does not look like a 12 round fighter.


http://boxingnewsonline.net/latest/feature/carl-froch-i-don-t-need-to-fight-george-groves-again-part-two

Im not so sure if its a case of Groves not being a 12 round fighter as it is Froch being the ultimate 12 round fighter, Froch always comes on strong in the later rounds and Groves lack of expirience possibly meant he didn't know how to react, Groves went 12 with Glen Johnson and came strong in the final rounds against Degale.

I'd rather an obnoxious Froch than a polite Tor Hamer.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'd rather an obnoxious Froch than a polite Tor Hamer.

Haha good point.

Groves threw everything he had at Froch and could be forgiven for thinking he'd have stopped him a long time before the 9th round. It's a given that Froch will be there for the whole 12 rounds, it must be disheartening especially for an inexperience fighter to see him coming on strong after being given a beating.

The only people I've heard to agree with the stoppage is Froch, McCracken, and some pi55ed up Froch fanboy in the pub who didn't know the first thing about boxing haha

rematch, groves will start strong again with the jab but carl knows the threat now n power in the right, keep his left up. carl knows he's got the better chin n engine. if it goes long again, which it would most probably, I just see a legitimate knockout occuring for Froch. I dont like froch but there was still miles to go in that fight n groves was blowing. it was only a matter of time.

DaveVDK, merged your topic with Hampo's as both threads were about the same thing, just makes it a wee bit easier to discuss the interview at hand. Hope you don't mind mate.

Froch kind of reminds me of Khan in his interviews. Khan often refers to himself as a 'warrior' because that's a tag he wants, but nobody else associates it with him so he has to make the point himself. Froch doesn't receive the kind of praise he wants, so he heaps it upon himself, almost like he's trying to write his own reviews, and it makes him come across as arrogant & egocentric.

There's absolutely no question about Froch's stones in the ring, he is a hard man who gives it 100%. But outside the ring he does seem a bit of a berk. Saying "I don't want to make excuses" followed with the predictable "but". And when he's asked about George Groves potential & future career he turns it back on himself and how proud he is of his achievements. Just not necessary. When he's not talking about his boxing career he seems alright, he's just got such a chip on his shoulder about the amount of credit he feels he should get it makes him come across as an ar*ehole.

Strongback wrote:

I think he has a point in that Groves does not look like a 12 round fighter.

Bit of truth there. He's been trained by Booth, and fights in a similar way to Haye in many ways. Someone did make a good point that Groves probably did use up more nervous energy in that fight than he would possibly in a rematch.

I may be going out on a limb here, but reading between the lines I just get a sense that froch doesn't really like groves.

He came across as a megalomaniac in that interview. Scary. Even by his standards.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Froch kind of reminds me of Khan in his interviews. Khan often refers to himself as a 'warrior' because that's a tag he wants, but nobody else associates it with him so he has to make the point himself. Froch doesn't receive the kind of praise he wants, so he heaps it upon himself, almost like he's trying to write his own reviews, and it makes him come across as arrogant & egocentric.

There's absolutely no question about Froch's stones in the ring, he is a hard man who gives it 100%. But outside the ring he does seem a bit of a berk. Saying "I don't want to make excuses" followed with the predictable "but". And when he's asked about George Groves potential & future career he turns it back on himself and how proud he is of his achievements. Just not necessary. When he's not talking about his boxing career he seems alright, he's just got such a chip on his shoulder about the amount of credit he feels he should get it makes him come across as an ar*ehole.

Could have written that myself, though probably less intelligibly. Froch does seem fine when he's not talking about himself. Unfortunately, when we see him, he's usually talking about himself.

Dear me, just read the second half of that interview. Ouch. So full of contradictions (that's the worst bit), equivocation and cringe-worthy self praise it ain't even funny.

Will always be a Froch fan, and I've defended him as best I can for the most part. But he comes across absolutely dreadfully in that interview, for me.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Froch kind of reminds me of Khan in his interviews. Khan often refers to himself as a 'warrior' because that's a tag he wants, but nobody else associates it with him so he has to make the point himself. Froch doesn't receive the kind of praise he wants, so he heaps it upon himself, almost like he's trying to write his own reviews, and it makes him come across as arrogant & egocentric.

There's absolutely no question about Froch's stones in the ring, he is a hard man who gives it 100%. But outside the ring he does seem a bit of a berk. Saying "I don't want to make excuses" followed with the predictable "but". And when he's asked about George Groves potential & future career he turns it back on himself and how proud he is of his achievements. Just not necessary. When he's not talking about his boxing career he seems alright, he's just got such a chip on his shoulder about the amount of credit he feels he should get it makes him come across as an ar*ehole.

To me he has never truly gotten the praise he deserves. The level he's fought at is unheard of for a modern British boxer, would challenge anyone to find a record better than his over the last 25 years. If he'd moved stables earlier from the useless fat Mick he may have had the exposure his record deserves.

I personally prefer to hear him speak than a Hatton, Khan, Nas or Haye as he's achieved far more in the game than all 3 have and has earnt the right to label himself a warrior etc as he's been in some cracking fights with some of the best. Yes, he's arrogant - most boxers at that level are and now understands how to make a headline.. It's called PR guys.

Same people probably calling his chin gone forgetting how JC got put down by Brewer and RJJ of all overrated people as well.

Hard to believe Froch has a degree sometimes. Early stoppage (duh) But I maintain Groves being slumped next to the ref does him no favours.

[quote="88Chris05"]Dear me, just read the second half of that interview. Ouch. So full of contradictions (that's the worst bit), equivocation and cringe-worthy self praise it ain't even funny.

Will always be a Froch fan, and I've defended him as best I can for the most part. But he comes across absolutely dreadfully in that interview, for me.

Not quite as dreadful as

Hatton: ickle me was a ickle over trained, but I was winning the second round by a mile

Khan: I'm a warrior hut I've only got a plastic sword and shield

Haye: I'm going to retire Wlad only to run like a little girl from Gary Glitter

Nas: I was so great yet got whooped in my only mega fight and then quit boxing like a sulky bitch but hey. Look at me I shout!

To put it in to perspective

He hasn't achieved more than Naz, Izzi, although he's eclipsed Hatton and Haye for my money. Lest we forget, Naz first won a belt at 21 in 1995, became the linear featherweight champ a couple of years later and held the crwn for three years. He was THE man at featherweight in that time, beating every other contender. Contrary to popular belief, Barrera was not the first world-class fighter Naz faced; in quality and quantity, his ledger is as good as/better than Froch's.

Froch has been a proper fighter and deserves high rank in any British list, but his record is not superior to that of Hamed.

What does everyone expect Froch to say? "I was lucky that the ref stopped it because I was fighting like a loser and Groves has every right to be mad". Which fighter says thing like that?

Fighters are egomaniacs. They're never behind on the scorecards and they're always just a punch away from victory. Froch is just saying and acting like many fighters have before him.

captain carrantuohil wrote:He hasn't achieved more than Naz, Izzi, although he's eclipsed Hatton and Haye for my money. Lest we forget, Naz first won a belt at 21 in 1995, became the linear featherweight champ a couple of years later and held the crwn for three years. He was THE man at featherweight in that time, beating every other contender. Contrary to popular belief, Barrera was not the first world-class fighter Naz faced; in quality and quantity, his ledger is as good as/better than Froch's.

Froch has been a proper fighter and deserves high rank in any British list, but his record is not superior to that of Hamed.

Who was better than MAB then? And the FW div wasn't exactly stacked like you make out either. He also didn't run in to a guy like Ward or travel to face the likes of Kessler either, when he did travel he beat up an ordinary fighter in Kelley and got outclassed by MAB, who was a heavy underdog.

The perception of Nas being great has never really washed with me, certainly not as great as people make out. And being 'the man' at the weight is a red herring, one would look at Hatton being 'the man' @ LWW too if we want to make a sweeping statement.

Was going to say exactly the same thing Captain, Froch is a long way from Hamed, it's easy to label him a flat track bully but his record is superb and was the man at featherweight for years. His demolition jobs of Bungu and Vazquez snr are a joy to behold, since Buchanan I doubt any british has faced the level of opposition Hamed did.

If most people got hit with the punches Froch has they'd also be talking sh1te too.


Froch is just suffering from garden variety super-cala-frag-alistic-maniacal -Fro-chis.

I use to be a massive fan of froch but what a tool he is being . Its like he refuses to belive what really happened! I think he should take hes own advice on respect. Also anyone see n what carls bro lee has put on twitter? Mocking groves for crying and spouting off about how much money carls got . The guy comes across a complete scumbag .

Carl is a narcissist with a sociopath mindset.

Serious childhood abandonment issues here. His almost morbid obsession with household name status going back to his harassment of Calzaghe tends to suggest that Carl was not a popular kid at all. He feels this great entitlement to be 1 step ahead of his peers even those who are clearly better then he is.

He must be a nightmare to live with.

Sort of reminds me of the character on The Fast Show the father who has to always show up his son in a effort to look and do better then him.

Izzi wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:He hasn't achieved more than Naz, Izzi, although he's eclipsed Hatton and Haye for my money. Lest we forget, Naz first won a belt at 21 in 1995, became the linear featherweight champ a couple of years later and held the crwn for three years. He was THE man at featherweight in that time, beating every other contender. Contrary to popular belief, Barrera was not the first world-class fighter Naz faced; in quality and quantity, his ledger is as good as/better than Froch's.

Froch has been a proper fighter and deserves high rank in any British list, but his record is not superior to that of Hamed.

Who was better than MAB then? And the FW div wasn't exactly stacked like you make out either. He also didn't run in to a guy like Ward or travel to face the likes of Kessler either, when he did travel he beat up an ordinary fighter in Kelley and got outclassed by MAB, who was a heavy underdog.

The perception of Nas being great has never really washed with me, certainly not as great as people make out. And being 'the man' at the weight is a red herring, one would look at Hatton being 'the man' @ LWW too if we want to make a sweeping statement.

If Kelley is ordinary then every single boxer Froch has beaten is ordinary. Bungu, Vazquez, Soto, McCullough, Kelley, Sanchez, Johnson, Medina and Ingle more than match up to Froch's championship reign, the difference being Hamed beat them all quite comfortably and were it not for politics would have been the first to win all four belts.

Hatton was the man at 140lbs until he was splattered by Pacquiao he was without doubt the number one in the division.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Carl is a narcissist with a sociopath mindset.

Serious childhood abandonment issues here. His almost morbid obsession with household name status going back to his harassment of Calzaghe tends to suggest that Carl was not a popular kid at all. He feels this great entitlement to be 1 step ahead of his peers even those who are clearly better then he is.

He must be a nightmare to live with.

Sort of reminds me of the character on The Fast Show the father who has to always show up his son in a effort to look and do better then him.

Sometimes you scare me - and not when you are an assassin!

Atila wrote:What does everyone expect Froch to say? "I was lucky that the ref stopped it because I was fighting like a loser and Groves has every right to be mad". Which fighter says thing like that?

Fighters are egomaniacs. They're never behind on the scorecards and they're always just a punch away from victory. Froch is just saying and acting like many fighters have before him.

I don't think that's what bugs people with regards to this particular interview, Atila. Personally, I can definitely accept that kind of stuff from any fighter, for the reasons you've outlined. But as I said above, it's the contradictions and long sonnets about his own greatness (crucially when in response to a totally unrelated question!) that leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Not verbatim quotes here, but you can get my drift and they are in line with Froch's own words at least.

"It's in the record books, Froch TKO 9 Groves, and that's all there is to it. Groves needs to stop making excuses, it's pathetic." Kessler W PTS 12 Froch is also in the record books now, Carl, but that didn't stop you complaining that you'd been robbed in Denmark for three years after the fight and saying that Kessler caught you on an off-night.

"If Groves wants a rematch, he needs to start showing me some respect and humility." Such as the respect and humility you've shown to Ward in trying to secure a rematch since he beat you, Carl?

And while I can live with fighters giving themselves a healthy dose of credit, it's pretty clear to me that some of Froch's monologues about his own achievements, particularly when you consider the questions which triggered them when they really shouldn't have done, were over-egging the pudding a wee bit.

MAB was indeed Hamed's best opponent (a better p for p fighter, quite possibly, then anything Froch has fought), but I didn't say differently. I did say that Hamed's opposition had consisted of plenty of world-class talent before the Barrera fight. Kelley, Johnson, Vasquez, Bungu, McCullough, Medina, Ingle are easily as accomplished a group of victims as, say, Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Kessler, Dirrell, Glen Johnson and Bute, to pick out the best of Froch's victims. Hamed's record in world title fights/Ring Championship fights was 16-1; Froch's is 9-2. In longevity, Naz has the call as well; I'm afraid I see no area in which Froch's record can be held to be better.

I agree with Captain that on paper Naz has a very strong record, this has been debated at length in the past and Captain's view has been found to be on the money no matter how much it pains me!

I will add, off the cuff, without doing much analysis and just going on gut instinct that my first reaction is that Froch has fought more top level fighters in their prime than Naz has.  In my memory Kevin Kelly was a step up for Naz.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Izzi wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:He hasn't achieved more than Naz, Izzi, although he's eclipsed Hatton and Haye for my money. Lest we forget, Naz first won a belt at 21 in 1995, became the linear featherweight champ a couple of years later and held the crwn for three years. He was THE man at featherweight in that time, beating every other contender. Contrary to popular belief, Barrera was not the first world-class fighter Naz faced; in quality and quantity, his ledger is as good as/better than Froch's.

Froch has been a proper fighter and deserves high rank in any British list, but his record is not superior to that of Hamed.

Who was better than MAB then? And the FW div wasn't exactly stacked like you make out either. He also didn't run in to a guy like Ward or travel to face the likes of Kessler either, when he did travel he beat up an ordinary fighter in Kelley and got outclassed by MAB, who was a heavy underdog.

The perception of Nas being great has never really washed with me, certainly not as great as people make out. And being 'the man' at the weight is a red herring, one would look at Hatton being 'the man' @ LWW too if we want to make a sweeping statement.

If Kelley is ordinary then every single boxer Froch has beaten is ordinary. Bungu, Vazquez, Soto, McCullough, Kelley, Sanchez, Johnson, Medina and Ingle more than match up to Froch's championship reign, the difference being Hamed beat them all quite comfortably and were it not for politics would have been the first to win all four belts.

Hatton was the man at 140lbs until he was splattered by Pacquiao he was without doubt the number one in the division.

Have seen you like a dig at Froch, so probably a bit of a tainted view. And as it's getting late - Kelley, come on and stay off the sauce. You're saying the same Kelley, who was hand picked and had no record to speak of yet still dropped the woefully inept Nas how many times, is just the same as the likes of Kessler/Bute who were the favourites to beat him? Who were in the top 3 of the divisional lists at the time they fought him?

Shown yourself to be a bit of a biased tool fella, let's not make any more silly statements yeah?

And on that note of facepalming nonsense I'm off for an early night.

Izzi wrote:And on that note of facepalming nonsense I'm off for an early night.

You'd be doing yourself a massive favour there, fella.

I'd also add that Naz got a damed sight closer to Barrera than Froch did to Ward, whatever two of the scorecards managed to say. It was only with maximum forebearance that I was able to produce a scorecard of something like 119-110 or 119-111 for the Froch-Ward encounter. Outclassed was the word Izzi used for Hamed against Barrera; I'm not sure that the word can therefore exist to cover the beating meted out by Ward to Froch.

I'm quite the opposite, i'm the most pro Froch poster on this site Izzi so to accuse me of being a tool because I rate the great yes the great featherweight Naseem Hamed higher stinks.

Kelley was a former featherweight world champion so where you've come to the conclusion he had no record to speak of. Would also wager you have not seen the fight if you're using the knockdowns against Hamed, both of them are the very definition of a flash knockdown, a product of Hamed erratic style.

captain has forgotten more about boxing then you presently know Izzi

captain carrantuohil wrote:I'd also add that Naz got a damed sight closer to Barrera than Froch did to Ward, whatever two of the scorecards managed to say. It was only with maximum forebearance that I was able to produce a scorecard of something like 119-110 or 119-111 for the Froch-Ward encounter. Outclassed was the word Izzi used for Hamed against Barrera; I'm not sure that the word can therefore exist to cover the beating meted out by Ward to Froch.

I'm in the camp that it was a comprehensive victory for Barrera. A 4 or 5 point difference for Barrera if the point deduction didn't happen.

I think Barrea while not white washing Naz beat him to the punch all night and humiliated Hamad by seemingly landing a punch in his face every time Naz started his taunting and jeering antics.

The coup de grace of Barrera shouting "Who's your daddy" in Naz's ear as he bounced his head of the ring post completed the destruction of Hamed's ego as a fighter.

Oh, I agree, it wasn't close, strongy. I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that. Just meant that it was a nail-biter when set alongside Ward-Froch. Haven't see a number one in a division make a number 2 look so foolish in a winner take all showdown since Curry sent McCrory to la-la land.

Just when you think Froch could not a bigger prat of himself, he then comes out with an interview like this and eclipses even his own high standards of making a Wayne Kerr of himself.
Bloke needs someone to tell him what an idiot he is making of himself.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Oh, I agree, it wasn't close, strongy. I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that. Just meant that it was a nail-biter when set alongside Ward-Froch. Haven't see a number one in a division make a number 2 look so foolish in a winner take all showdown since Curry sent McCrory to la-la land.

 

Naz Barrera and Froch Ward were similar in that they were clearly one sided and not particularly competitive. The difference is that Froch wasn't shattered by the defeat, and came back to record some good wins, and Froch did come on strong at the end of the fight. To suggest Naz Barrera was more competitive is false imo.


Also must echo Strongy's belief that Kelley was seen as a step up. I've never been a Naz hater but that is what I remember too. Naz was more talented than Froch, but I'm not sure I agree that Naz has a better list of opponents.

To be honest Im not sure a Rematch would be as good anyway or worth it for Froch... He has come off a string of hard fights where he has taken allot of big shots and will be 37... with every fight now there is mroe chance of him losing and to be honest while Groves did well, I dont think Froch particularly looked at his most sharp..

I actually think Froch should retire with the decent record he has, what else has he to prove?, he wont beat Ward, He has beaten Groves all be it with a slightly spoiled stoppage, and rematch would more than likely lean more in Groves favor and be even tougher for Carl..

He should bow out now IMO.

As For Groves, I think he has shown he certainly has enough qualities to challenge the big boys..

Groves Vs Ward?

Again it could be a hard first half of the fight for Ward and would be interesting but can see Wards speed matching Groves and picking him off for a late stoppage, but you get the feeling with Groves that you cant really right him off.

I don't think Froch's pride will allow him to retire with a question mark surrounding his last fight, though I wouldn't complain if he did, he doesn't owe it to anyone to continue. The thing is, in years to come, could he abide the thought of people saying  he avoided a rematch, and that Groves really beat him, especially as he knows he was probably on the verge of taking over?  If he is to carry on then the Groves fight must take precedence over any other imo. I think he'd box more cautiously next time and ease himself into the fight at a steadier pace.


Going back to Naz, I imagine anyone who states with great conviction that Naz has a better record than Froch, might have an in-depth analysis of their ten best wins at hand, although of course their opinion may just be a gut instinct, which I'll admit is how I came to my conclusion. A conclusion I should add that isn't necessarily set in stone. I'll also admit I know more about Froch's opponents and their relation to the division when he boxed them. For all that, I did follow Naz's career quite closely, I enjoyed him for the most part, so a comparison of the records of those ten respective fighters would certainly be of interest,  if anyone had the patience to produce such a list.  Also interesting though not necessarily all that important, would be to know who were expected to beat Naz out of all his adversaries. I will say this for Naz- the ease with which he dominated his opponents could just as easily sway it in his favour.  For me however, his superiority is not as clear cut as some are making out. I would like more convincing, and  would just ask that some people, for the sake of the debate, could adopt a less authoritative tone when offering an opinion about something which can not be proven. A little leeway to the opposing argument sometimes wouldn't go amiss.


After all,  it will be a hundred years next year that Dempsey started his pro career, and many on here are still undecided whether he was some kind of freak of nature or overrated.

I pretty much had to stop reading that interview such was how much I was getting wound up. He must know how the public have taken that fight, the interview is the perfect opportunity to win back some fans with some humility. I don't mean admit he was miles behind and got lucky but something at least. He sounds incredibly unlikable and that's a real shame because he has been superb for British boxing.

They don't want the rematch but I don't see where else he goes. If he fights Ward in the States he gets beaten easily. As for Ward coming over here, after Saturday's scorecards? He'd be insane to think about for a moment.

Probably come as no surprise to nobody to know I personally have Naz above Froch. As the captain has said not sure there is any great difference between their best wins, however the edge for me is two-fold, firstly it is in the manner in which they dealt with the opposition and aside from a a couple of flash knockdowns against Kelley Naz rarely looked troubled in achieving his wins and in the likes of Vazquez and Johnson made wins against top tier feathers look alarmingly easy.

Even in some of his better wins, Froch has made heavier weather of getting the wins than should really be the case, the Johnson fight springs to mind. Also cannot for the life of me seeing Naz during his peak years needing two bites of the cherry to dispatch a fighter of the level of Mikkel Kessler.

Secondly as I have mentioned previously when discussing Froch in these days of fragmented world titles I do put a level of stock in establishing yourself as the man at a weight and whilst his acheivements are manifold thus far Froch has not done this, politics denied him the chance to hold all four belts but be under no illusions Naz was very much the man at feather and was so until the Barrera defeat. Not a chasm between the two by any stretch but my instinct is there is a good few places with Naz perhaps around the 10 mark and Froch a couple of three places lower.

Taylor former undisputed middleweight champion, Pascal future Ring light heavy champ, Abraham, Kessler, Bute, Dirrell. That isn't a bad list of fighters at all. 

Then you've got Kelley, Johnson, Vasquez, Bungu, McCullough, Medina. Not a bad list either. But not as good as the list above either imo.

I have the gap between Naz and Froch as narrow in overall UK tems - 10th vs 11th all time or 10th vs 12th - but still clear, if that makes any sense.

If I can draw a parallel with another sport, consider Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. Now Sampras is obviously one of the greatest tennis players of all time, like Federer, almost certainly in the top 5 of the post-war era. You could argue forever about precisely where they would fit in with Laver, Nadal, Borg and so on. Howver, it seems to me that whatever you do, you can't put Sampras above Federer, who achieved everything that Sampras did, plus a little extra in a few cases.

So it is with Hamed and Froch. Both bona fide British greats, but for me, there is no single area in which I would put Froch's career ahead of Naz. In some areas, we have parity, in others, Naz is slightly ahead (I make it, for example, that Naz beat 9 past, present or future world belt-holders, while Froch, if you include Magee, beat 8). It's fine margins, but Naz comes out on top where there is a difference to be seen.