Carl Froch Interview

First topic message reminder :

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

Nadal?

Yes, I said that Nadal is in the argument for top 5, mobile, and he may well be top dog of all by the time he's done. It just seems to me that the easiest comparison is between Sampras and Federer (7 Wimbledons v 7, 5 US Opens each, a similar length of time at number one, although fed slightly ahead). It's just that when you add in their respective clay court careers, the end of year titles, winning percentages, Fed's twenty odd CONSECUTIVE GS semi-finals and so on, there isn't really a single area in which Sampras can be place above Federer, no matter where they both finish up in the overall pecking order.

That's how I see Hamed and Froch, although I would emphasise that it's not intended as a slight to Froch, who must take extremely high rank in any UK list. Just not ahead of Naz.

Never got the hype about Froch when he was being showcased on the BBC way back when, thought he'd done little of note to warrant a shot at Calzaghe but he slowly won me over with some exciting fights although there was always a question over his pure boxing ability (guts and determination often saw him over the line when technique went out the window).

However, I simply cannot abide the waffle that he comes out with at times and this interview does nothing but reinforce my belief that the man is well on his way challenging the likes of Mayweather and Broner for p4p prat-dom.

Perhaps Froch needs Sat-Nav for Christmas as he's clearly forgotten where he came from and seems intent on heading for disaster if he faces Ward.

If Groves doesn't serves rematch after pushing Froch harder that the majority of "elite fighters" he's faced over the years then I'm really at a loss as to how Froch deserves a rematch against Ward who had one of his easiest nights against an "elite fighter"

Good luck to him but he's looking a bigger plank by the second

Sounds a bit tragic Dave. All this hatred for a guy you're never going to meet.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Sounds a bit tragic Dave. All this hatred for a guy you're never going to meet.

That would hold more water if Chris hadn't taken out a e-restraining order against you

Just a quick thought.....if he actually gets Ward to the UK and beats him.....i know its a long shot obviously given the talents of Andre.....but where would you then rank Froch in the p4p list??

4th or 5th - at or near the head of the group that keeps a respectful distance behind the three obvious leaders, Ted Kid Lewis, Wilde and Lennox Lewis.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Sounds a bit tragic Dave. All this hatred for a guy you're never going to meet.

I live in hope, it's all I have left!

mobilemaster8 wrote:Just a quick thought.....if he actually gets Ward to the UK and beats him.....i know its a long shot obviously given the talents of Andre.....but where would you then rank Froch in the p4p list??

With the additional "Warrior Points" he'd earn along with the "It's a bloody miracle" "Never in a month of Sundays) bonuses, I'd have to put him at 0 (it's one position above #1)

Well considering people threw Martinez and Bradley into the wilderness of P4P lists for struggling in fights (Murray & Pacquiao respectively)....

Surely Froch should be banished to the swamps of the dark regions of P4...Poundland (maybe even get a job there while he's at it).

The question mark for me on froch's record is two-fold. Firstly, the 'super 6 effect'.  We talk about these guys like they are household names when without the super 6 (in another division) they are just a bunch of top ranked fighters.  Dont get me wrong i liked the idea and getting the belt holders and top contenders to fight each other was great, but ultimately, if froch had fought Johnson in a defence it would be just another past it champion, and dirrel just another young contender.

The second point which has already been made is that froch lost twice in the super 6, some think it should have been three. In the Taylor fight prior to the super 6, he was 15 seconds from defeat. They were all good fighters, but he didnt really differentiate himself from the pack and was found wanting against the man who did set himself apart.

Personally, I thought bute was an accident waiting to happen after the Andrade fight, and Kessler looked past his best in the return.

I realise that looks like a hatchet job, so let me say I have the utmost respect for what Froch has achieved and how he has conducted himself in the ring. He's had a series of very tough fights and come out on top in most of them. The pascal win, and the Abraham wins were excellent performances.

I don't think there's much between him and naz in terms of opposition. Naz was the man in his division but it wasn't the greatest era. Up to Barrera he dominated most of his opponents. And you can make a case that he was on the slide before that fight. Ultimately, being top dog and the dominance if his opposition are the key differentiators to kerp naz anove carl for me....but take the best attributes of both and you have some fighter... With probably the most unpleasant personality in boxing history!

milkyboy wrote:The question mark for me on froch's record is two-fold. Firstly, the 'super 6 effect'.  We talk about these guys like they are household names when without the super 6 (in another division) they are just a bunch of top ranked fighters.  Dont get me wrong i liked the idea and getting the belt holders and top contenders to fight each other was great, but ultimately, if froch had fought Johnson in a defence it would be just another past it champion, and dirrel just another young contender.

The second point which has already been made is that froch lost twice in the super 6, some think it should have been three. In the Taylor fight prior to the super 6, he was 15 seconds from defeat. They were all good fighters, but he didnt really differentiate himself from the pack and was found wanting against the man who did set himself apart.

Personally, I thought bute was an accident waiting to happen after the Andrade fight, and Kessler looked past his best in the return.

I realise that looks like a hatchet job, so let me say I have the utmost respect for what Froch has achieved and how he has conducted himself in the ring. He's had a series of very tough fights and come out on top in most of them. The pascal win, and the Abraham wins were excellent performances.

I don't think there's much between him and naz in terms of opposition. Naz was the man in his division but it wasn't the greatest era. Up to Barrera he dominated most of his opponents. And you can make a case that he was on the slide before that fight. Ultimately, being top dog and the dominance if his opposition are the key differentiators to kerp naz anove carl for me....but take the best attributes of both and you have some fighter... With probably the most unpleasant personality in boxing history!

And this folks, is the beginning of Carl's legacy being pecked at by us Boxing vultures  Love it!!

I agree with it all by the way!

Who would have thought that a lack of humility and refusal to accept or acknowledge the most blatant of points would get people's backs up?

Still, goes a long way to explaining my own "popularity" on the boards

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The question mark for me on froch's record is two-fold. Firstly, the 'super 6 effect'.  We talk about these guys like they are household names when without the super 6 (in another division) they are just a bunch of top ranked fighters.  Dont get me wrong i liked the idea and getting the belt holders and top contenders to fight each other was great, but ultimately, if froch had fought Johnson in a defence it would be just another past it champion, and dirrel just another young contender.

The second point which has already been made is that froch lost twice in the super 6, some think it should have been three. In the Taylor fight prior to the super 6, he was 15 seconds from defeat. They were all good fighters, but he didnt really differentiate himself from the pack and was found wanting against the man who did set himself apart.

Personally, I thought bute was an accident waiting to happen after the Andrade fight, and Kessler looked past his best in the return.

I realise that looks like a hatchet job, so let me say I have the utmost respect for what Froch has achieved and how he has conducted himself in the ring. He's had a series of very tough fights and come out on top in most of them. The pascal win, and the Abraham wins were excellent performances.

I don't think there's much between him and naz in terms of opposition. Naz was the man in his division but it wasn't the greatest era. Up to Barrera he dominated most of his opponents. And you can make a case that he was on the slide before that fight. Ultimately, being top dog and the dominance if his opposition are the key differentiators to kerp naz anove carl for me....but take the best attributes of both and you have some fighter... With probably the most unpleasant personality in boxing history!

And this folks, is the beginning of Carl's legacy being pecked at by us Boxing vultures  Love it!!

I agree with it all by the way!

I did apologise for it looking like a hatchet job. I guess that was because it was a hatchet job:laugh:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Well considering people threw Martinez and Bradley into the wilderness of P4P lists for struggling in fights (Murray & Pacquiao respectively)....

Surely Froch should be banished to the swamps of the dark regions of P4...Poundland (maybe even get a job there while he's at it).

It would be similar to Rigo's beating of p4p#3 Donaire, which for me propelled him into the Top 6.

But it's never going to happen in a million months of sundays, so I shan't worry myself too much trying to think about it....

I've read over the past few days on different threads a number of posters implying Kessler was fairly ordinary and isn't a fighter Froch should have struggled with.

I really have to disagree.  In terms of his record and fighting ability Kessler represents Froch's best win. A younger Kessler and the one that met Calzaghe was a fearsome fighter with an incredible work rate and very decent punching power. Kessler turned pro very young at 19 and IMO was past his best when he beat a somewhat green, at championship level, Froch in their first fight.

Nobody claims the SMW division has much historic depth to it but Kessler will go down as one of the best that ever fought in it.

Did anyone follow the in fight betting? I would love to know what the final pdds for both boxers were before betting was suspended for the stoppage.