Carl Froch....

"For the good of boxing and for selfish reasons, I hope George Groves wins the world title.

If he loses to Fedor Chudinov, I can't see me feeling sorry for him. It will show he just isn't good enough.

If Groves does win, then fair play to him. He will be the world champion, albeit with the WBA regular and against a limited fighter, so he should win. But if he does that, my legacy gets better because I've beaten more world champions than anyone at super-middleweight."

Wow...

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/32474/10891175/brook-vs-spence-jr-carl-froch-genuinely-wants-to-see-george-groves-win-world-title

"Genuinely"

Froch forgetting that Groves spanked him all over the ring in the first fight, one of the worst beatings I've seen him take

I think he is quite a good pundit, provided he isn't talking about himself or can in any way relate it back to himself.

He can't be objective about Groves, Degale, Calzaghe, GGG etc. Sky should stop him talking about them.

BoxingFan88 wrote:
Froch forgetting that Groves spanked him all over the ring in the first fight, one of the worst beatings I've seen him take

He soaked it up and got himself back into the fight, poor stoppage or not he was the one in the ascendency.

BoxingFan88 wrote:"For the good of boxing and for selfish reasons, I hope George Groves wins the world title.

If he loses to Fedor Chudinov, I can't see me feeling sorry for him. It will show he just isn't good enough.

If Groves does win, then fair play to him. He will be the world champion, albeit with the WBA regular and against a limited fighter, so he should win. But if he does that, my legacy gets better because I've beaten more world champions than anyone at super-middleweight."

Wow...

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/32474/10891175/brook-vs-spence-jr-carl-froch-genuinely-wants-to-see-george-groves-win-world-title

"Genuinely"

Froch forgetting that Groves spanked him all over the ring in the first fight, one of the worst beatings I've seen him take

Are you serious? Anyone that knows boxing, knows that Froch was getting Groves out of there. Who cares if he was losing, he won! The end result is all that matters.

Also he smashed him in the rematch.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:
Froch forgetting that Groves spanked him all over the ring in the first fight, one of the worst beatings I've seen him take

He soaked it up and got himself back into the fight, poor stoppage or not he was the one in the ascendency.

Beat me to the punch Hammer.

We could also say he was losing handily and getting beaten up by Jermaine Taylor.....he still rallied to win.

He has a granite chin and a proper throw back fighter. He came back into that fight and took something away from Groves.

Clarified and stamped on that in the rematch.

Taylor was beating Chavez, Mayorga was beating Mosley

Cotto was beating Margarito (loaded gloves possibly, but end result was a Marg win)

Worth remembering the weather this weekend is going to be humid and that is before you add the hot lights..........

Could be a slog for fighters with dodgy tanks...

thr first was a premature stoppage and I don't think anyone can argue with that. Groves hit him cleaner and harder than anyone had in his career. Fair play to Froch and I'd agree he prob would have won in the end but you can't say for certain but it wasn't a clear ending unlike the Taylor fight. Obviously the rematch sorted everything out.

I personally think he's a complete and utter helmet. His interview with Mayweather was hide behind your sofa stuff. But I do respect him as a fighter.

Froch would of stopped Groves the first time. It was only round nine and Groves looked f...ed

Like I said I agree but you can't be 100%. Groves might have landed another bomb? He might have stopped him 1st round if there was more time as Froch was shaky. Ok that's boxing and time ran out but my point is he could hurt him. It's not comparable to Taylor which was obviously conclusive.

But yeah if I was a betting man I'd have lumped it on froch to get him out of there.

well there is no point questioning it (not accusing you)!

Froch got the win and emptied him in the rematch. He settled the controversy at Wembley in my eyes. The bad ref has nothing to do with Carl.

I do agree with you on that. Not Froch fault in the slightest and the rematch is as conclusive as you can get.

In fact I was really routing for Groves but they way he's conducted himself during that rematch and after has really put me off him.

Groves was brilliant in the first fight. People hate Froch going on about being a warrior, but he is. A brave, brave man.

If he kept his mouth shut or was a bit more humble he would be a very famous and loved celebrity in this country. People love fighters like him but his personality let's him down a bit. Shame because when he's not talking about himself or rivals he actually comes across really well.

Which bit of this statement is untrue?

"Froch forgetting that Groves spanked him all over the ring in the first fight, one of the worst beatings I've seen him take"

I never said he should have lost

I said he took a real beating, which he did

So what if he took a beating?

You made the statement, as if to say he shouldn't mention Groves, because he was getting spanked.

He can mention him anytime he wants. He stopped him twice.

I like Froch but he definitely has an enormous ego. Always a fan of his as a boxer and he's not a bad pundit really. As has been said above, as long as the topic of discussion can't be ralted to himself in any way, he's fairly insightful.

I watch a lot of interviews with him and I think he tries to come across as humble but his ego is so big he just can't do it lol.

Just to jump in...

To be fair the fact he took a bit of a beating off a younger, hungrier guy but then took an immediate rematch and put it t bed in the fashion he did makes it better.

Even though the first stoppage was controversial he probably could have found a way out of a rematch, he could have retired really if he had wantd to but he didn't. He came back stronger and put all the BS to bed. Good way to end your career IMO because Groves may not have lived up to his potential yet but the man's no joke.

BoxingFan88 wrote:Which bit of this statement is untrue?

"Froch forgetting that Groves spanked him all over the ring in the first fight, one of the worst beatings I've seen him take"

Up to you to prove he has forgotten isn't it ??......I didn't see any statement in your negative little thread that sees him commenting on the nature of the first fight..

Like the cops arresting someone and then saying we haven't any evidence but we want you to prove you haven't done it.....

Fair point for sure.

Thought Groves vs Chudinov was for the full title stripped from Felix Sturm(which he only won by robbery from chudinov anyway)???

Tyron Zeuge has the 'regular' belt is facing the no hoper Paul Smith

Jermaine2015 wrote:Thought Groves vs Chudinov was for the full title stripped from Felix Sturm(which he only won by robbery from chudinov anyway)???

Tyron Zeuge has the 'regular' belt is facing the no hoper Paul Smith

Yep, its for the WBA Super

Froch has never exactly been the height of professionalism but lets be honest......he's right

I mean the fact this is for a world title is a joke, Chudinov hasn't boxed for over a year.... and he lost to Sturm who was well passed his best

He's always going to grate people and has a very very (too) high opinion of himself but it is a limited opponent and doesn't put Groves into world class category

Baby faced assassin wrote:Froch has never exactly been the height of professionalism but lets be honest......he's right

I mean the fact this is for a world title is a joke, Chudinov hasn't boxed for over a year.... and he lost to Sturm who was well passed his best

He's always going to grate people and has a very very (too) high opinion of himself but it is a limited opponent and doesn't put Groves into world class category

This was home cooking. I saw the fight live. Sturm was gifted the win. He lost clearly. And to compound the dreadful decision, Sturm failed a post fight drugs test

Don't expect anything less from title fights these days, probably why i don't take all that much notice of them anymore.

Disagree with you AdamT on the Groves bout, we don't know what would have happened as the ref stopped it too early BUT he cleared everything up in the rematch so can't see anyone really being able to use that first fight as a stick to beat him with.

Froch's come across as a bit of a twit sometimes but he's a decent pundit and at least he trys to be objective. He's got every right as an ex boxer, pundit or just fan to comment on the sport and on any bout he wants to comment on at least he's got a better view than most of us on what goes on.

Do you know what annoys me most about Carl Froch?

It's that he's made a lot of money in being not that great. If he was as good as say Calzaghe was he'd have made less money. Think, Calzaghe beat Kessler handily. Froch loses to Kessler but then wins a lucrative rematch. Froch, if that good would not have struggled against Groves in first fight who was a novice.....sets up a lucrative rematch. You get where I'm coming from.

No not really, he earned a lot of money because he was invariably in exciting fights and was willing to test himself time and time again something the more talented Calzaghe did not do.

As HH said, how can you get annoyed by a guy that's in exciting fights, has fought everyone he can (you can't really say that about Joe) and always puts on a show. Okay he's a Forest fan and that will always count against him but he definitely deserves some praise for him. Hell i don't even mind the Floyd incident that much, it's obviously a proud moment for him (it would be for any of us) so why not have a brag about it, especially to the no.1 in the sport at the time.

Does Froch have a big ego? Or is he just a vain insecure needy jerk who needs to tell everyone how great he is because deep down he has no self confidence?

Can't fault his bravery in the ring.

Groves 1 was a travesty and groves 2 doesn't prove Froch would have won groves 1.

If ascendancy counts, groves was on top when he lost concentration in the second fight. None of that matters, fight 1 was inconclusive, fight 2 was pretty conclusive.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No not really, he earned a lot of money because he was invariably in exciting fights and was willing to test himself time and time again something the more talented Calzaghe did not do.

Yes but that's entirely my point. If he was more talented (i.e. better) then he wouldn't have been in such exciting fights and therefore would have earned less money. As for Joe Calzaghe not testing himself, that is always up for debate. However his wins against a prime, unbeaten Kessler and Bernard Hopkins is better than anything that Carl Froch achieved.

I don't see it as a point worth making to be honest.

Yeah i'm pretty sure you could make that point about a ton of fighters, the fact is he was in exciting fights and took on all comers, and whilst he didn't have the skills that Joe had he never really turned down a fight and shown his worth in every fight, whilst Joe did it in the 2 you mentioned (why Joe Calzaghe is used to try and brow beat him i'll never know).

Bit of both i'll guess Milky, think you'll find most boxers are a mixture of the two.

Mochyn du wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No not really, he earned a lot of money because he was invariably in exciting fights and was willing to test himself time and time again something the more talented Calzaghe did not do.

Yes but that's entirely my point.  If he was more talented (i.e. better) then he wouldn't have been in such exciting fights and therefore would have earned less money.  As for Joe Calzaghe not testing himself, that is always up for debate.  However his wins against a prime, unbeaten Kessler and Bernard Hopkins is better than anything that Carl Froch achieved.

You lost me too. I'm not a Froch fan at all but you cannot in anyway begrudge him for the money he made. He shipped huge punches pretty much every fight and was rarely in dull  fights. He earnt every penny he's made fair and Square. I don't see how anyone can question that.

melv500 wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No not really, he earned a lot of money because he was invariably in exciting fights and was willing to test himself time and time again something the more talented Calzaghe did not do.

Yes but that's entirely my point.  If he was more talented (i.e. better) then he wouldn't have been in such exciting fights and therefore would have earned less money.  As for Joe Calzaghe not testing himself, that is always up for debate.  However his wins against a prime, unbeaten Kessler and Bernard Hopkins is better than anything that Carl Froch achieved.

You lost me too. I'm not a Froch fan at all but you cannot in anyway begrudge him for the money he made. He shipped huge punches pretty much every fight and was rarely in dull  fights. He earnt every penny he's made fair and Square. I don't see how anyone can question that.

Gee whizz, all this sunny weather must be making everyone a bit dopey.

My point is perfectly valid, in that Froch's ineffectiveness in both Kessler 1 and Groves 1 led him to big money rematches with both foes. Had he'd been more slick in the first fights and won them, such lucrative rematches would not have been made.

I've always been dubious of Froch and his "warrior" credentials. Firstly he never stepped up to Light Heavy where good fights could have been made and had no mind to try to avenge the Ward defeat which confirmed him as the firm number 2 in his division.

Why try and avenge a defeat he knew couldn't?

If he'd been hanging around fighting crap at 168lbs then not moving up might hold some water but he constantly fought the best and again I don't think your point is valid at all.

Mochyn du wrote:

melv500 wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No not really, he earned a lot of money because he was invariably in exciting fights and was willing to test himself time and time again something the more talented Calzaghe did not do.

Yes but that's entirely my point.  If he was more talented (i.e. better) then he wouldn't have been in such exciting fights and therefore would have earned less money.  As for Joe Calzaghe not testing himself, that is always up for debate.  However his wins against a prime, unbeaten Kessler and Bernard Hopkins is better than anything that Carl Froch achieved.

You lost me too. I'm not a Froch fan at all but you cannot in anyway begrudge him for the money he made. He shipped huge punches pretty much every fight and was rarely in dull  fights. He earnt every penny he's made fair and Square. I don't see how anyone can question that.

Gee whizz, all this sunny weather must be making everyone a bit dopey.

My point is perfectly valid, in that Froch's ineffectiveness in both Kessler 1 and Groves 1 led him to big money rematches with both foes.  Had he'd been more slick in the first fights and won them, such lucrative rematches would not have been made.

I've always been dubious of Froch and his "warrior" credentials.  Firstly he never stepped up to Light Heavy where good fights could have been made and had no mind to try to avenge the Ward defeat which confirmed him as the firm number 2 in his division.

Yes you most be be right about the sun because I can't make any sense of a single thing you are saying

milkyboy wrote:Does Froch have a big ego? Or is he just a vain insecure needy jerk who needs to tell everyone how great he is because deep down he has no self confidence?

I agree he suffered bad insecurity which McCracken helped him with early on ,basically being his life-coach.
Froch's body language always seemed to contradict his cocky mouthing off.He was no Nas in that department..

Why oh why ask Froch about Grovrs???? This sums him up

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/32474/10886257/brook-vs-spence-jr-carl-froch-reflects-on-what-is-was-like-being-in-the-ring-with-george-groves

Wonder why no one told him it was Spence and not Spencer in his commentary and his scoring was abysmal must've been getting tips from Ian John Lewis, other than that he did ok.

Cheers

Rodney wrote:Wonder why no one told him it was Spence and not Spencer in his commentary and his scoring was abysmal must've been getting tips from Ian John Lewis, other than that he did ok.

Cheers

Froch's scoring was awful that night. He should know a bit more really, if he's commentating. Guys on here seemed to call the fights better. I like Froch as a fighter, but that commentating was very poor and biased.

melv500 wrote:Why oh why ask Froch about Grovrs???? This sums him up

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/32474/10886257/brook-vs-spence-jr-carl-froch-reflects-on-what-is-was-like-being-in-the-ring-with-george-groves

I think Froch has earned the right to his boasting, and all fighters indulge in denigrating the achievements/abilities of their opponents whilst always having an excuse to explain away their poor performances, but his second fight with Groves shows a truer picture. The exquisite KO papered over the cracks that were clearly evident in the preceding rounds, in which Froch looked like an ageing fighter - his punch rate was lower than i'd ever seen from him, his timing and speed had declined , manifesting in his jab continually falling short as Groves counter with rights hands over the top. And if as he implied that Groves power wasn't all that, his reluctance to let his hands go suggested otherwise, as did him being shook to his boots by a Grove left hook in the 8th round. As Khan observed between rounds when Sky's commentator absurdly suggested that Froch was bossing it, Groves was controlling the pace and range and landing the better shots, an opinion backed up by the punch stats.

melv500 wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

melv500 wrote:

Mochyn du wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No not really, he earned a lot of money because he was invariably in exciting fights and was willing to test himself time and time again something the more talented Calzaghe did not do.

Yes but that's entirely my point.  If he was more talented (i.e. better) then he wouldn't have been in such exciting fights and therefore would have earned less money.  As for Joe Calzaghe not testing himself, that is always up for debate.  However his wins against a prime, unbeaten Kessler and Bernard Hopkins is better than anything that Carl Froch achieved.

You lost me too. I'm not a Froch fan at all but you cannot in anyway begrudge him for the money he made. He shipped huge punches pretty much every fight and was rarely in dull  fights. He earnt every penny he's made fair and Square. I don't see how anyone can question that.

Gee whizz, all this sunny weather must be making everyone a bit dopey.

My point is perfectly valid, in that Froch's ineffectiveness in both Kessler 1 and Groves 1 led him to big money rematches with both foes.  Had he'd been more slick in the first fights and won them, such lucrative rematches would not have been made.

I've always been dubious of Froch and his "warrior" credentials.  Firstly he never stepped up to Light Heavy where good fights could have been made and had no mind to try to avenge the Ward defeat which confirmed him as the firm number 2 in his division.

Yes you most be be right about the sun because I can't make any sense of a single thing you are saying

He's saying that if Froch had been better in the first fight he'd not have had lucrative rematches. This is a totally valid point and I don't understand the controversy. He's not even criticising Froch.......

I'm still not seeing the relevance, he earned money because he fought everyone and was a good watch for the most part.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm still not seeing the relevance, he earned money because he fought everyone and was a good watch for the most part.

I don't think anyone is arguing with that statement. I think the point was (for example) he knocked Groves out in 1st round or won every round in the first fight there'd have not been a rematch. Don't really get why that's not a valid point. A sound argument would be something like "if he was better then he'd have had even bigger opportunities than he did with those rematches". I don't get all the problems on here sometimes. Nobody is allowed to make a pretty logical point on occasions.

The Mighty G wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm still not seeing the relevance, he earned money because he fought everyone and was a good watch for the most part.

I don't think anyone is arguing with that statement. I think the point was (for example) he knocked Groves out in 1st round or won every round in the first fight there'd have not been a rematch. Don't really get why that's not a valid point. A sound argument would be something like "if he was better then he'd have had even bigger opportunities than he did with those rematches". I don't get all the problems on here sometimes. Nobody is allowed to make a pretty logical point on occasions.

It's an illogical and pointless point to make that's why.

[quote="Hammersmith harrier"]

The Mighty G wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm still not seeing the relevance, he earned money because he fought everyone and was a good watch for the most part.

I don't think anyone is arguing with that statement. I think the point was (for example) he knocked Groves out in 1st round or won every round in the first fight there'd have not been a rematch. Don't really get why that's not a valid point. A sound argument would be something like "if he was better then he'd have had even bigger opportunities than he did with those rematches". I don't get all the problems on here sometimes. Nobody is allowed to make a pretty logical point on occasions.

It's an illogical and pointless point to make that's why.[/quote

How is it illogical? You could say anything else about it but it's completely logical to say that if he had convincingly won the first of those fights then the rematch wouldn't have happened? What is illogical?

It's illogical to try and rewrite a career that has happened, he might not even had the fights in the first place.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's illogical to try and rewrite a career that has happened, he might not even had the fights in the first place.

Nobody is re-writing a career. We are commenting and summarising on a career. Nobody is even slagging Froch off on this point. You can't say anything sometimes.......

Sometimes  the better fighters don't get the really lucrative fights because there aren't many credible or mouthwatering opponents for them, Ward, rigo... mayweather would be an exception whose drawing power was such that people would pay for him to face tumbleweed.

Guys who are less 'stand out' are easier to match and sell competitively. That's true to an extent but it depends on how popular and entertaining they are.  In my example above there are Dover  soles with more charisma than Ward and his style isn't easy on the eye. Guys like gatti are at the other end of the spectrum.

 Froch had a rep as a guy who could be outboxed but would keep coming, yes he got his two biggest fights as rematches because competitive or controversial fights  are an easy sell as a rematch, but he'd got himself a following by then so was going to be pulling good numbers whoever he fought.

So, yes it's a valid argument. Had JC's fight with Kessler been a SD there'd have been the potential for a big rematch. But you can also say Froch got big fights because he got popular.  He also timed the end of his career with a boom time for boxing as fast Eddie took hold of things. JC was reluctant to travel when with frank and got his lucrative fights when he finally dusted off the passport.