Carl Froch....

by BoxingFan88 Thu May 25, 2017 8:28 am

First topic message reminder :

"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

by melv500 Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:03 am

horizontalhero wrote:
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.

I dont actually disagree with what you said. I dont like froch but respect him as a fighter and completely agree he ended any doubts about Groves in the second fight. And actually in his defence the first fight i think he thought would be a walk over and he was complacent. Richie Woodhall said he saw them sparring a couple of years before and Froch absolutely wiped the floor with him so I think that had something to do with it.

Anyway yes i agree he can boast all he likes but his views against former opponents or anyone he doesn’t like are completely unbalanced, his ego takes over. he hates Groves but likes him now because he can say he beat more SMW world champs than anyone else, which I think is pretty shallow. I see why people like him but he gets on my nerves because of that. And actually i said earlier when he isnt talking about himself or a rival he actually comes across very well. Apart from scoring Kell Brook fights that is....

by melv500 Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:30 pm

The Mighty G wrote:
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.......

Even if that's case then so what? Just seems a completely pointless statement to make.

by The Mighty G Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:42 pm

milkyboy wrote: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.

Exactly - which is all the original poster was saying. I don't get all the hassle on this one guys. thought it was a pretty intelligent point and neither even pro or anti Froch.

by milkyboy Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:53 am

Indeed mighty, I thought it was a fair point, but was only telling part of the story.

Calzaghe was a better fighter than Froch, but being worse than JC wasn't the sole reason why Froch got the big money fights! I'm not Froch's biggest fan (something of an understatement) and you can certainly argue that the super 6 largely laid out his career map for him, but you can't argue that he was prepared to travel, put it on the line and generally gave good value.

JC, whether he was happy just towing the warren cash cow formula or frustrated by it, didn't test himself until late in his career. Then when he did take control, you could argue that the consensus was that BHOP was ripe for the picking... turned out not to be the case... and the Jones fight was just a cynical money spinner.

by The Mighty G Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:28 pm

milkyboy wrote:Indeed mighty, I thought it was a fair point, but was only telling part of the story.

Calzaghe was a better fighter than Froch, but being worse than JC wasn't the sole reason why Froch got the big money fights! I'm not Froch's biggest fan (something of an understatement) and you can certainly argue that the super 6 largely laid out his career map for him, but you can't argue that he was prepared to travel, put it on the line and generally gave good value.

JC, whether he was happy just towing the warren cash cow formula or frustrated by it, didn't test himself until late in his career. Then when he did take control, you could argue that the consensus was that BHOP was ripe for the picking... turned out not to be the case... and the Jones fight was just a cynical money spinner.

Totally agree - an (at least) equally important fact is that he was always there to TAKE the big money/important fights.

by melv500 Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:17 pm

The Mighty G wrote:
milkyboy wrote: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.

Exactly - which is all the original poster was saying. I don't get all the hassle on this one guys. thought it was a pretty intelligent point and neither even pro or anti Froch.

This is what the original post was. Read the first sentence. I'd say it's pretty anti-Froch and seems begrudging on him making money probably the hardest way possible. God I can't believe I'm actually defending Froch.

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.

by Hammersmith harrier Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:40 pm

That's not critical at all is it, total garbage.

by TheSquaredCircle Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:42 pm

These days it doesn't pay too be too good (with the exception of floyd). If you are a grafter in the ring I.e good chin, powers of recovery etc then people get to witness exciting fights and may buy the next Ppv or Wembley seat. People who are extremely skilled like rigo, loma, Crawford, Ward etc will never break into the mainstream properly. Calzaghe fights were just a tad boring.

by Guest Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:13 pm

Poor old Joe.He was knockout artist at the start of his career, extends it by 5 years with brittle bones in his hands, and he's a bore.
Try reading his autobiography, though...better than Night Nurse

by milkyboy Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:04 pm

Never thought his fights were boring, infact I think he was brave as they come and never shy to let his hands go (probably why his hands went). The man himself? Well he wasn't captain charisma that's for sure.

Thankfully I haven't read his bio and never will, as andy implies, it's coma inducing qualities are the stuff of legend

by Herman Jaeger Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:41 pm

Just wondering, do we all agree that Froch took on all-comers from the Pascal fight onwards I seem to remember Golivkin and DeGale was his mandatory?

http://www.boxingscene.com/carl-froch-looks-back-key-fights-key-moments-his-career--119276

by AdamT Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:43 pm

I seem to remember Froch was old when DeGale was mandatory.

GGG? Really? How many fights had Gennady have at 168?

Froch did take on all comers. Big respect for Froch. He was a real fighter. Tough as nails and some underrated skills. Hall of fame career for sure!

by Herman Jaeger Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:15 pm

Well seeing as Truss accused me of being a fanboy I thought I'd cast a critical eye for a change there was a time the captain said no way was Froch hall of fame worthy. I agree though Adam definitely hof but not an all time great

Just I seem to recall an interview in which Froch said something like he didn't want to fight Golivkin because the Kazakh hit too hard

Now no disrespect to George but lower world class Groves at Wembley was all very good and attracted a crowd well beyond the fight's worth but surely a finale against Golivkin would be more worthy of a film script to use the Cobra's words?

Golivkin to move up to his weight at Wembley stadium now that really would have been epic I think that's the word they use these days

Froch was very good British great but he retired at the peak of his earning power. If he wanted to be great he would have defended against DeGale then gone for a crack at the light heavyweight title and a certain Kovalev

by Derbymanc Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:13 am

That was the tail end of Frochs career and he was starting to slow a little, think he should have taken on Degale and would have beaten him but by that point seemed to find it hard to get 'up' for anything other than massive fights. He stated he wanted to fight in Vegas (which was why the Chavez negotiations) but only remember GGG stating he'd take the fight after Froch stating it was Chavez or nothing.

definitely worthy of a HOF place and even though he's a Forest fan got a ton of respect for the guy

by Herman Jaeger Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:37 am

I have a ton of respect for Froch too he's got enough quality on there to make him a nailed on British great and hof worthy(back row)

But put on Golivkin and maybe another couple of names that called him out

Therefore a couple of defences against Stevenson and Hopkins up at light heavyweight if he had beat Kovalev maybe if he's still going give Beterviev a crack

Imagine Froch's cv with Kovalev, Stevenson, Hopkins, Golivkin chuck in DeGale and that's all-time great territory

But let me ask you something derby- how many of the names I've mentioned does Froch actually beat?

by huw Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:39 am

AdamT wrote:I seem to remember Froch was old when DeGale was mandatory.

GGG? Really? How many fights had Gennady have at 168?

Froch did take on all comers. Big respect for Froch. He was a real fighter. Tough as nails and some underrated skills. Hall of fame career for sure!

Hall of fame career I'm not so sure.

He was undoubtedly a British great but then so were Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank, both of whom had better resumes in my opinion and neither have made it.

Maybe Britain should do it's own hall of fame for the British boxers as we have had so many great and inspiring fighters that don't get the credit they are due in the US.

by LionsV2 Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:52 am

Herman Jaeger wrote:I have a ton of respect for Froch too he's got enough quality on there to make him a nailed on British great and hof worthy(back row)

But put on Golivkin and maybe another couple of names that called him out

Therefore a couple of defences against Stevenson and Hopkins up at light heavyweight if he had beat Kovalev maybe if he's still going give Beterviev a crack

Imagine Froch's cv with Kovalev, Stevenson, Hopkins, Golivkin chuck in DeGale and that's all-time great territory

But let me ask you something derby- how many of the names I've mentioned does Froch actually beat?

So you're adding three years onto a 38 year olds career, there's always another fight.

by Herman Jaeger Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:55 am

Look at the number of fights it's a different game today to that of Greb's era

Fighters box much less frequently and mature much later

Greb's era they normally peaked mid to mid late twenties

by LionsV2 Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:03 am

The relevance of that to Froch being what exactly?

Anyone who retires with a win will always have questions asked about one more fight and it's pretty ridiculous really, boxers should be aiming to retire on top instead of descending into a Roy Jonesque retirement tour of blackouts.

by Herman Jaeger Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:20 am

Had Froch carried on then except for Ward and not including DeGale it was time for his competition to go up a notch

The sort of names that could have propelled him into all time great territory

by Derbymanc Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:23 pm

Morning Hermy, Think he'd beat Stevenson, Degale and Hopkins, Kovalev and GGG is a toss up and depends on how he handles the power. Alas they were all (bar Hoppo and Degale) just a little too late for him and at the time i don't think he'd have got the credit he would deserve for beating the others.

Personally think he made the right choice to retire at the top.

by Herman Jaeger Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:02 pm

I hate saying it coz I loathe the man but Stevenson connects on Froch with the full might of that left hand and he's a gonner, Hopkins outpoints Froch in a stinker, GGG stops Froch in front of 100,000 at Wembley in a battle that was just getting going, and Kovalev beats Froch in a disappointingly one sided encounter too big too strong

That's just my take assuming these fights take place against a post Groves 1 Froch

Difference between a British great and an all timer is vast

Forgot DeGale that's 50/50 against the fresher man

by The Mighty G Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:34 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's not critical at all is it, total garbage.

Exactly!

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:34 pm

If you're Hammer welcome back..If you're not Hammer can we have him back..

More the merrier..

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:30 am

Hard to call GGG v Froch because 8 pounds can be a lot for some fighters...Look at Gomez v Sanchez/Nelson etc.

Even look at Ricky Hatton.....

Pick the huge Callum Smith to beat Golovkin....

by Mochyn du Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:34 pm

I always look at Carl Froch and see the best Paper Champion the sport has ever seen. In fact, I may do an article on who's the best ever paper champ. Whilst most seem to crave one world champion, and love an all action fighter like Froch, just remember, in an ideal world he would never have been a world champion.

by Derbymanc Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:30 am

You can't say he'd never be world champion as if there was one champion per (850 million) weight divisions then he would have fought the champ and we don't know what would have happened, it's just speculation.

We'll have to agree to disagree Hermy

by EX7EY Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:44 am

I think anybody suggested Froch ducked Degale by retiring is clutching at straws. As someone above stated, there's always another fight. Nothing wrong with bowing out with a win. And yes he mentions it every opportunity he gets but the reality is he went out on a massive high. After the first Groves fight, to pack out Wembley and put it all to bed with a brutal KO of a bitter rival...probably not going to retire on better terms than that.

It never bothers me when fighters choose not to move up. At the end of the day if they are fighting at a comfortable weight then why should they? Yes, it definitely presents an opportunity to elevate your status if you move up and do well but for me it isn't something I think is necessary.

And for what it's worth, if Froch was anywhere near his best he would have absolutely mauled Degale. Degale can't fight for 12 rounds and Froch wouldn't have let him off the hook. As for GGG that all depends on how his power carries into SMW and at the moment we have zero evidence so it's pointless to say he ducked him.

by Herman Jaeger Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:01 pm

EX7EY wrote:I think anybody suggested Froch ducked Degale by retiring is clutching at straws. As someone above stated, there's always another fight. Nothing wrong with bowing out with a win. And yes he mentions it every opportunity he gets but the reality is he went out on a massive high. After the first Groves fight, to pack out Wembley and put it all to bed with a brutal KO of a bitter rival...probably not going to retire on better terms than that.

It never bothers me when fighters choose not to move up. At the end of the day if they are fighting at a comfortable weight then why should they? Yes, it definitely presents an opportunity to elevate your status if you move up and do well but for me it isn't something I think is necessary.

And for what it's worth, if Froch was anywhere near his best he would have absolutely mauled Degale. Degale can't fight for 12 rounds and Froch wouldn't have let him off the hook. As for GGG that all depends on how his power carries into SMW and at the moment we have zero evidence so it's pointless to say he ducked him.

I think I'd agree with that I think Froch would have sha€ all over DeGale but then I would say that as always a fan of Froch and never a fan of DeGale

by 3fingers Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:09 pm

In what year did frock supposedly duck degale?

by Herman Jaeger Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:28 pm

Who said Froch ducked DeGale?

by aja424 Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:05 am

Frochs at his best would be 80/20 in Frochs favour. The age factor would have made it closer to 50/50. Glad it never happened.

by Muscular-mouse Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:15 pm

3fingers wrote:In what year did frock supposedly duck degale?

last year outside Weatherspoons in Poole

by Mochyn du Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:46 pm

Herman Jaeger wrote:Who said Froch ducked DeGale?

Froch ducked DeGale

by Guest Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:02 pm

DeGale,28,is ducking Froch,38,just because DeGale,28 is younger than Froch,38.This is why Etc

by Steffan Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:13 pm

The Slimester Froch ducked DeGale. A prime Chunky beats a prime Slimeball all day

by Derbymanc Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:29 pm

No chance, Froch the great smashes him to pieces :-). (how come you have such a distaste for Froch btw Stef?)

by Steffan Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:33 pm

Derbymanc wrote:(how come you have such a distaste for Froch btw Stef?)

Because he is a very distasteful person

by Steffan Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:34 pm

DeGale would outchunk the Slimster Froch and win on points. Unless the judges were on the Matchroom books

by Derbymanc Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:34 pm

H'e s a bit up himself and he supports Forest but don't think he's that bad :-). I think Degale's too lazy to beat him, starts of well in the early round, switches off, Froch takes over and doesn't let up.

It's levelled against Degale a lot and i just don't think he can box any other way now. (I hope i'm wrong cause other than the Groves fight, i don't mind the Chunkster) but have a feeling he may have a career of what if's (it's still a good one but there'll be a question of could he have done more)

by Sponsored content