Benn, Froch and Eubank

It's been brought up so I'll ask it

Who had the better cv?

Carl Froch!

Froch fought all the best in his division. The other two can't really say the same.

Can you see Froch beating Toney and Jones, Adam?

No but I see him fighting both.

Why do you assume that?

He avoided two boxers Hopkins and Chunky and said Golivkin hit too hard

This Froch took on all comers is a myth

He wouldn't have gone anywhere near Toney surely?

Froch, and it’s not particularly close for me.

Froch has far less filler on his record than both, his top wins are easily just as good and more numerous, and to top it off his defeats are far easier to mitigate for than Benn’s while his close shaves came against better fighters than those of Eubank.

I thought Watson was one of the best modern fighters never to win a belt...Pick him and Benn to beat anybody Froch beat...Also pick the strong Watson to wear down Froch...

McCallum said Watson was the toughest s.o.b he ever fought...Wonderful battle that one.

Yes a worn Eubank lost to Collins in close fights.

Eubank though for me.

Where is Haito...

Herman Jaeger wrote:Why do you assume that?

He avoided two boxers Hopkins and Chunky and said Golivkin hit too hard

This Froch took on all comers is a myth

He wouldn't have gone anywhere near Toney surely?

He didn't avoid either of them.

In a head t head I think he beats Benn and loses to Eubank. Would love it to be the other way around as preferred Benn.

Think that Frock would have struggled with some of their opposition though, Benn's in particular.

McClellan would have been very dangerous for Froch and I feel Watson would have beaten him.

Benn and Eubank had each other as well which allowed for them to have the legacy fights.

Froch had some great fights and is a British great, just don't feel he had enough defining fights to surpass their careers. Can't see either Benn or Eubank losing against Kessler in their prime's.

Ward would have beaten both so no shame in that loss.

The Calzaghe fight was probably the one he needed but the timing was wrong for him there.

They're only defining fights because they were popular and well known in this country; Froch consistently beat better fighters and wouldn't have struggled with someone like Ray Close or even Malinga. Kessler post Watson has too much for Eubank and has the engine and chin to outlast Benn too.

Stupid argument holding Close against Eubank.

Honeyghan ko 2 Bumphus.

Bumphus td6 Starling.

Eubank performed.. like Starling when he had to be on it.

Hearns struggled with Alphonso Hayman...Pipino Cuevas wold have beat him easier.

Froch has beaten no one better than Benn and Watson.

I'd argue that Jermain Taylor is better than the pair of them, do think there's a tendency to over rate the three of them based on being British and having fought each other on mainstream television.

You're not wrong and neither am I...

We do tend to look back favorably over time...I don't know...the Watson I remember was a beast..

Maybe I am over rating them a little..

Froch and Benn would have been epic and could have gone either way. If Groves can put him on his arse Benn can keep him there the second best fight ever to be made at the weight after Benn and Gerald. Froch with the better boxing skills could have got on his bike if he wasn't getting the better of the exchanges and out pointed Benn

Interesting what McCallum said but don't forget that was a career light middle talking about a strong at the weight natural 168'er. Hard to call Froch and Watson but potentially epic

Eubank and Froch again hard to call another possible  epic

Jones too good and Toney would have made him look foolish


Forgot Froch and McClellan. Talk about epic. Could have even rivalled Benn G-Man that one. Who the fuc£ wins that one I've no idea

Herman Jaeger wrote:Froch and Benn would have been epic and could have gone either way. If Groves can put him on his arse Benn can keep him there the second best fight ever to be made at the weight after Benn and Gerald. Froch with the better boxing skills could have got on his bike if he wasn't getting the better of the exchanges and out pointed Benn

Interesting what McCallum said but don't forget that was a career light middle talking about a strong at the weight natural 168'er. Hard to call Froch and Watson but potentially epic

Eubank and Froch again hard to call another possible  epic

Jones too good and Toney would have made him look foolish


Forgot Froch and McClellan. Talk about epic. Could have even rivalled Benn G-Man that one. Who the fuc£ wins that one I've no idea

Watson was a 160 pounder before he moved up best to remember also.....But you make valid points........

We see what we see.....................

Watson was winning the second fight with Eubank barring the tragedy he may have gone on to a successful run at 68

He was stopped twice Froch never stopped

Though saved by the bell against Groves of course

I'm not sure what being stopped twice by an ATG in McCallum and a top fighter in Eubank means in relevancy ??.....

Unless they both fought them and even then styles make fights as I alluded to earlier with the Bumphus-Honey-Starling series.

Watson was the only stoppage win McCallum had at Middleweight notwithstanding the journeyman.

He was stopped by a light middleweight so I give Froch a great chance to beat Watson too I think is what I was trying to say

You're better at debating these fantasy matches than me so I'll leave it to you and the others

Just to finish Toney and Jones both beat Eubank and Benn for me though Benn could stop Jones once if they met five times

LionsV2 wrote:They're only defining fights because they were popular and well known in this country; Froch consistently beat better fighters and wouldn't have struggled with someone like Ray Close or even Malinga. Kessler post Watson has too much for Eubank and has the engine and chin to outlast Benn too.

I'm not sure about consistently beating better fighters.

Up until Taylor his CV was very underwhelming. Then came the super 6 which got him some good fights, he lost to Ward and I think Dirrell was very unlucky to lose the fight.

After the super 6 he had Bute and the Kessler rematch.

Would Benn have struggled with Groves? I would say it is unlikely.

All about opinions but I feel Froch benefited from the sky coverage for some much needed hype at the end of his career. Not saying he wasn't good, obviously, just don't see him on another level to Benn and Eubank.

Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, Bute, Kessler and Grovez *2 is a far better resume than either Eubank or Benn can lay claim to.

Herman Jaeger wrote:He was stopped by a light middleweight so I give Froch a great chance to beat Watson too I think is what I was trying to say

So you are going to credit Ward more and Kovo less from now on for moving up and beating Kovo at 175....

Good lad...

88Chris05 wrote:Froch, and it’s not particularly close for me.

Froch has far less filler on his record than both, his top wins are easily just as good and more numerous, and to top it off his defeats are far easier to mitigate for than Benn’s while his close shaves came against better fighters than those of Eubank.

what town are you from again Chris?

Nah it's probably froch on resume. Head to head, you'd pick him to outlast benn in a bit of a war but not guaranteed, eubank would be nip and tuck.

I do agree with the premise that this froch the warrior stuff is a case of him saying it enough everyone believes it.

The super 6 shaped his career. Bute was his way back to a belt, Kessler a chance to avenge a defeat at home for big bucks. Groves got big hype but was a domestic tussle. He distanced himself from Stevenson and was way more interested in easy bucks against chavez than a GGG legacy definer at the end of his career. Now i don't blame him for any of this... I think he took smart career decisions and took the fights he needed to... and he was a ballsy SOB in the ring. I just don't think it's quite the resume of man who picks the hardest route everytime to show what an old school warrior he is.

Not that the old school warriors ever voluntarily took the hardest route either!

LionsV2 wrote:Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, Bute, Kessler and Grovez *2 is a far better resume than either Eubank or Benn can lay claim to.

Are they?

Groves in my mind is decent. Same could be said for Bute and Abraham (at Super Middle). Johnson was in his 40's after a long career. Dirrell threw the fight away as he thought he had it won (and probably would have in the US).

Pascal was good but hadn't really fought anyone of note when he fought Carl and hasn't been any more than good since.

Kessler was a good all rounder but not great. Taylor had a decent record when they fought and was a good fighter.

I guess a lot depends upon where and how you rate the fighters that have been in there against both but I feel that Benn had a few fighters at the same levels as these guys on his resume.

Would suggest Eubank is as good as Kessler. Watson as good as Taylor (if not better). Barkley and Dewitt as good as Bute and Abraham with a few more of that type of level.

I'm by no means slating Froch. Just think it's very fine lines between him Benn, Eubank and Watson with Calzaghe's Welshness putting him way ahead of all three!

Another interesting one is Nas. I'd say he is more HOF worthy than Froch but again he hasn't yet been inducted.

I wouldn't agree with much of that to be honest and it seems a very one eyed view of things highlighting Froch's opposition without doing likewise for Eubank and Benn.

For starters I'd have Taylor as comfortably better than Watson, tragedy has made us see him in a more positive light than his resume perhaps deserves while Bute and Abraham would be above Barkley and Dewitt too.

Eubank has a very light record with regards to quality, his only real wins of note being Benn, Holmes, Watson and Rochiggiani while Benn has McLellan, Barkley, DeWitt and a split against Malinga.

Lions has got this,  head to head's a different matter but resume-wise Froch has the best of these three outside their wins against each other the other two don't have as many standout wins

Funny though you've now got Froch rooting for Groves in this series coming up the guy he couldn't stand

Groves goes and wins it that'd do quite a bit for Froch's resume

Groves gets banged out in the first or second round and those Wembley wins will lose a bit of sheen

Herman Jaeger wrote:Lions has got this,  head to head's a different matter but resume-wise Froch has the best of these three outside their wins against each other the other two don't have as many standout wins

Funny though you've now got Froch rooting for Groves in this series coming up the guy he couldn't stand

Groves goes and wins it that'd do quite a bit for Froch's resume

Groves gets banged out in the first or second round and those Wembley wins will lose a bit of sheen

I get what you are saying but Leonard has more top wins but a cv that comprises of a lot fewer good fighters than Mayweather and Manny...

It is where one eclipses the other that is in question.....

Not that I have a problem with Froch being rated higher......It's just some fans weight one category as more important than the other and others don't.....

Floyd's got greater longevity than Ray too so who knows one day Floyd might get to rank higher than Ray? Time will tell

Will and can Floyd's depth trump Ray's quality?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Lions has got this,  head to head's a different matter but resume-wise Froch has the best of these three outside their wins against each other the other two don't have as many standout wins

Funny though you've now got Froch rooting for Groves in this series coming up the guy he couldn't stand

Groves goes and wins it that'd do quite a bit for Froch's resume

Groves gets banged out in the first or second round and those Wembley wins will lose a bit of sheen

I get what you are saying but Leonard has more top wins but a cv that comprises of a lot fewer good fighters than Mayweather and Manny...

It is where one eclipses the other that is in question.....

Not that I have a problem with Froch being rated higher......It's just some fans weight one category as more important than the other and others don't.....

... or use whatever criteria suits a fighter they like and whatever doesn't suit a fighter they don't

Eubank was very much like Lennox Lewis in that he could be lazy against less than top drawer opponents. However, Froch for either him or Benn would have been very much a "live" combatant, and I believe that both would have trained accordingly. The Benn that beat McClellan would have been a far more dangerous fighter than the one that took a UD against Mauro Galvano. Also the Eubank that beat Benn is a very different proposition to the one in cruise control against Ron Essett.

I'm not going to go into details about who would win as I believe it would be a moot point. However, a big fight against a British rival in a World Title fight generally gives a decent fight and a worthy spectacle. I don't doubt that any of these proposed mythical bouts would be great to watch for the reasons mentioned above.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Lions has got this,  head to head's a different matter but resume-wise Froch has the best of these three outside their wins against each other the other two don't have as many standout wins

Funny though you've now got Froch rooting for Groves in this series coming up the guy he couldn't stand

Groves goes and wins it that'd do quite a bit for Froch's resume

Groves gets banged out in the first or second round and those Wembley wins will lose a bit of sheen

I get what you are saying but Leonard has more top wins but a cv that comprises of a lot fewer good fighters than Mayweather and Manny...

It is where one eclipses the other that is in question.....

Not that I have a problem with Froch being rated higher......It's just some fans weight one category as more important than the other and others don't.....

... or use whatever criteria suits a fighter they like and whatever doesn't suit a fighter they don't  

But I still enjoy your posts nevertheless..

Every fan should like Froch because he wants to be loved....I imagine he is the most approachable sportsman in history...

Always said he is the British Larry Holmes...

Froch and Larry were misunderstood.....Holmes had Ali...Froch had Calzaghe.

Both are vain but nice guys deep down...Tell them they are wonderful and they'll sign anything.

I love to hate Froch as he makes a complete Muppet of himself whenever he opens his mouth, but he's just needy and insecure and desperate to be loved... and hasn't learnt that the way to be loved is to feign modesty when others say how great you are... rather than go round telling everyone how great you are and hope they agree!

He may well be a nice guy underneath it all.

Let's have a look:

Neither Froch, Eubank or Benn were the best in their divisions. All held alphabet belts of one denomination or another (Eubank and Benn at two weights).

Here are their best wins:

Benn

1. McClellan
2. Galvano
3. Barkley
4. DeWitt
5. Wharton

*His performance in the Eubank rematch was also notable - many believing he deserved the decision. On the flip side, many felt he was given a gift against Malinga first time around.

Eubank 18-4-2 in title fights

1. Benn
2. Watson 2
3. Malinga
4. Rocchigianni
5. Wharton

*Many felt he was given a gift in the first Watson fight and the following decisions were also contentious: Benn 2, Close 1, Schommer, Amaral.  

Froch 10-2 in title fights.

1. Kessler 2
2. Pascal
3. Groves 2
4. Bute
5. Taylor
6. Abraham

*Many felt he was fortunate to get a decision over Dirrell and the first Groves win was contentious.

Based on that, you'd have to give the edge to Froch, followed by Benn and then Eubank.

hazharrison wrote:Let's have a look:

Neither Froch, Eubank or Benn were the best in their divisions. All held alphabet belts of one denomination or another (Eubank and Benn at two weights).

Here are their best wins:

Benn

1. McClellan
2. Galvano
3. Barkley
4. DeWitt
5. Wharton

*His performance in the Eubank rematch was also notable - many believing he deserved the decision. On the flip side, many felt he was given a gift against Malinga first time around.

Eubank 18-4-2 in title fights

1. Benn
2. Watson 2
3. Malinga
4. Rocchigianni
5. Wharton

*Many felt he was given a gift in the first Watson fight and the following decisions were also contentious: Benn 2, Close 1, Schommer, Amaral.  

Froch 10-2 in title fights.

1. Kessler 2
2. Pascal
3. Groves 2
4. Bute
5. Taylor
6. Abraham

*Many felt he was fortunate to get a decision over Dirrell and the first Groves win was contentious.  

Based on that, you'd have to give the edge to Froch, followed by Benn and then Eubank.

I actually agree with your assessment. Though Eubanks could beat both head to head. I think he would edge Froch in points. I honestly think Froch would stop Benn late. Probably coming from behind to do so.

I will say that Benn certainly has the best win of the 3. Though he obviously has the most devastating losses too.

LionsV2 wrote:I wouldn't agree with much of that to be honest and it seems a very one eyed view of things highlighting Froch's opposition without doing likewise for Eubank and Benn.

For starters I'd have Taylor as comfortably better than Watson, tragedy has made us see him in a more positive light than his resume perhaps deserves while Bute and Abraham would be above Barkley and Dewitt too.

Eubank has a very light record with regards to quality, his only real wins of note being Benn, Holmes, Watson and Rochiggiani while Benn has McLellan, Barkley, DeWitt and a split against Malinga.

Taylor comfortably ahead of Watson?

Not sure I agree with that

Look at Taylor's proximity to Hopkins, Hopkins' proximity to Calzaghe, Calzaghe's proximity to Eubank and Eubank's proximity to Watson

I don't see how you can deduce Taylor is streets ahead of Watson, I don't see that at all

Are we then to believe that Watson is at the level of Hopkins or Calzaghe? I don't so.

Watson would give both those two very tough fights neither would have a blowout against Watson

If Watson had gone on to put a good run together at 68(ahead on the cards before the tragedy and his frame better suited to 68) it's quite possible he could have surpassed Taylor's record

Whether he would have surpassed Hopkins is another matter

As I have said, it's all about opinions and it's an interesting debate.

Would have been good to have put Herol Bomber Graham into the equation for head to heads but obviously they would have had to be non-title fights....

Think Froch and Benn would have had the power to KO him but would they have been able to get to him.

Benn would have had the better 'punchers chance' as I believe he was the harder puncher.

Have read that Eubank once sparred with Herol and refused to ever have a proper fight with him after that!

Benn definitely had way more single shot power than Froch and you'd have had to pay Eubank a fortune to meet Herol Graham wanted nothing to do with him

Herman Jaeger wrote:Watson would give both those two very tough fights neither would have a blowout against Watson

If Watson had gone on to put a good run together at 68(ahead on the cards before the tragedy and his frame better suited to 68) it's quite possible he could have surpassed Taylor's record

Whether he would have surpassed Hopkins is another matter

I can't see him troubling Calzaghe or Hopkins, not quite sure what his high standing is based on really.

Maybe that he stopped Benn and had a contentious points loss to Eubank and was ahead on the cards their second fight?

I think that shows he's a fairly good boxer, don't you?

If he could trouble Eubank and Eubank was one of Joe's hardest fights then not unreasonable to deduce he can trouble Calzaghe

If Eubank can trouble Calzaghe then Watson can too seeing as he's close to Eubank

If Calzaghe is close to Hopkins and Eubank is close to Calzaghe then Watson has to be close to Hopkins

No form line showing one is clearly ahead of the others

huw wrote:As I have said, it's all about opinions and it's an interesting debate.

Would have been good to have put Herol Bomber Graham into the equation for head to heads but obviously they would have had to be non-title fights....

Think Froch and Benn would have had the power to KO him but would they have been able to get to him.

Benn would have had the better 'punchers chance' as I believe he was the harder puncher.

Have read that Eubank once sparred with Herol and refused to ever have a proper fight with him after that!

Eubank was always complimentary about graham. There are various versions of the story of Eubank sparring graham. The common themes and not disputed are graham handed him a boxing lesson, but that Eubank dropped him (once, twice, for a count, spark out depending on the version).

It should be remembered that this was in 86/87 I think so prime graham v young Eubank

Herman Jaeger wrote:If Calzaghe is close to Hopkins and Eubank is close to Calzaghe then Watson has to be close to Hopkins

No form line showing one is clearly ahead of the others

Calzaghe pretty much shout out Eubank, it wasn't a close fight in the slightest as for the rest of the logic well it's pants.

Hopkins overall career shows he's clearly ahead of Watson and Eubank.

Re taylor, you have to look at styles make fights. Taylor had good boxing ability but poor stamina/punch resistance. Ergo he was able to look good against boxers like Hopkins/winky but get beaten up by every other decent fighter who took him to the trenches.

He handed Froch's backside to him until he gassed. Great win for frochbut Taylor a difficult fighter to rate.

LionsV2 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:If Calzaghe is close to Hopkins and Eubank is close to Calzaghe then Watson has to be close to Hopkins

No form line showing one is clearly ahead of the others

Calzaghe pretty much shout out Eubank, it wasn't a close fight in the slightest as for the rest of the logic well it's pants.

Hopkins overall career shows he's clearly ahead of Watson and Eubank.

Calzaghe may very well outpoint Watson but it's on record there's video evidence that Calzaghe felt (a post Watson) Eubank was one of his most physically demanding fights and he was glad he didn't have to fight too many fighters like Eubank in his career