A bold claim from Eddie Hearn but how does it stack up.

[kamicazze]

I agree with Glyn Rhodes on the topic of rematches with Pascal and Kessler. Kessler needs a good showing against Bute for the match to mean something, then the Pascal rematch does nothing for Froch's legacy now. if anything Pascal winning the title has enhanced froch's legacy, and going on to face him again would do him no favours. Ideally Kessler and Bute are kept apart and Froch can fight them both separately. However one thing we are forgetting is that Johnson and Ward are not walkovers and are as likely of beating froch as Kessler and Bute are.

[Glyn Leach]

Were he to beat Johnson, Ward, Kessler, Hopkins or Dawson.

He'd pissed all over Calzaghe's and Lewis's resume would need serious debate alongside.

Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Pascal, Abraham, Johnson, Ward, Kessler and Dawson.

I said as much in an earlier post David, the sticking point being Hopkins - by the time Froch had cleared out the 168lbs, which would take 3 or 4 fights, Hopkins would be 49 or 50 and amazing as he is he can't go on forever. Today's Hopkins would help Froch's legacy, but what will he be like in 2013?
The alternative would be to fight B-Hop at 175 for the WBC belt ASAP then drop in weight, which is never easy. But dominating 168 would be essential to Frochy's claim IMO.
PS I now wish to be known as Ryan Leach

[whiskey]

X 2 - even though I am in an admittedly massive minority in the scoring of Kessler vs Calzaghe - I still feel Kessler vs Calzaghe was close, but a far worst Kessler beat Froch clear.

So did Dirrell IMO, but thats another matter.

Froch is still away from Joe, Froch has had 2 close ones. One in which he was 14 seconds from defeat and the other which, a majority of global fans, feel he lost. Joe had two very controvesial ones - Reid and Hopkins.... but then Hopkins has just done a number on Froch's best win to date and Reid was most definitely an off night. 2 (and for my money 3) close ones in a 12 year reign.... yes lots of crap in the reign, isn't bad going. Froch has had 2 close shaves and a loss in a 2 year reign at world class.

You like to portray things in a manner which bolsters your deluded opinion.

The fact is the whole of the Calzaghe camp knew a week prior that Kessler's team had requested to delay the fight, as he was nursing a hand that was bruised bone-deep and had been unable to spar for 3 weeks. Darren Barker spent 2 days from a proposed week in Denmark, but it was halted because he couldn't use it at all and decision was taken to rest it right up until the fight, despite only having a lacklustre week of training going into it.

Upon arrival in Wales Kessler's promoter Morgans Palle suffered a massive heart attack, Mikkel and his manager (Betina Palle) spent the lion's share of the week at his bedside.

He had painkilling injections prior, meanwhile Joe took as absolutely long as he could to get to the ring. Kessler was in the fight for the opening rounds, then then dropped right out by the mid rounds despite not being hurt, bust up or taking any real sort of punishment.

Compare that to having a kick up the backside in a woeful fight with ward, fighting in front of 15,000 of his own fans in the biggest fight to date in Danish history on their main television channel - whilst Froch didn't even know if the fight was on or off right up until the Tuesday night before the fight.

Froch opened up Kessler's face like a can of beans - but the Dane was prepared to die in there in front of his country to keep his career alive, and that, combined with a pedestrian and casual approach by Carl gave him the W.

The facts are this, it took Joe 11 years to fight a fellow belt holder, wheras Froch fought a top legitimate contender in his very first defence. In America ! it took Joe 14 solid years before he fought abroad. Meanwhile Carl will have boxed an impressive 5 times out 7 on foreign soil since he first captured the title by the time the S6 is over. It's not a cake walk fighting away, unlike fighting some bum in your hometown... every quarter, for a decade.

The reality is Calzaghe swerved Johnson three times and was set to face a law suit from lack of earnings as a result of it. Even the Lacy fight had a caveat that if he withdrew they had to pay Jeff $100,000 compensation.

You can suck Joe off all day for me, but the reality is he never went anywhere, content to fight dross for a decade. The fact the likes of Evans Ashira and Peter Manfredo litter his final fights - along with a shot to pieces Roy Jones who DECKED him.

His best name is Hopkins, who arguably beat him - and Bernie didn't handle Pascal like Froch did, nor did Bernie knock out Jermain Taylor, in a fight even his own team admitted that saw the very best of him. If you want to say he was finished so be it, but you need to turn that highly-critical approach to Joe's career too, because if Jermain was shot... wtf about Eubank, Brewer, Mitchell, Jiminez, Pudwill, McIntrye, Veit, Woodhall, Sheika ?

Froch is fighting guys in their prime - and most of all, he is winning 'fight of the year' in the process.

Despite fighting at British level only about 2.5 years ago.

"No Show Joe" at no1 , give us another laugh please. Carl aint even 75% through his career yet.

[stujones]

Facts are I for one have never, and will never place No show Joe at Number 1. I've been criticised on here no end for an "anti Joe" posts.

But if you want to start stating facts. How many defending champions has Froch faced? I'll be the first to give him his dues when he fights Ward, and I hope he wins.

You mention Joe's 11 years until he fought a belt holder - your actually wrong if you want to be pedantic about it was 9... however it was still a disgrace... 90% of Joe's lengthy reign were absolute turd.... I'm not arguing. But there is a big difference between first belt holder (someone Carl hasn't managed yet - but lets hope he will in the Autumn) and a first legitimate contender - that was in Joe's fourth defence just over a year into his reign.

You make it sound Kessler was Joe's first legitimate contender, when it wasn't. How much better is Arthur Abraham, whose won about 4 rounds in his last 36 than the likes of Robin Reid?

Froch is doing great but I wish him all the best, but you claiming that Kessler was Joe's first test highlights incredible bias on your part.

I have been and continue to be hyper critical of Joe's career.... find me one post of mine in which I have said - Damn that Joe fought some of the best names... I don't even rate Reid highly, never have done... FFS I even scored the Kessler fight a draw - no bias, deluded, Joe Fan would do that surely?

But - I still don't agree with the school of thought that you should classify a L (and it was a clear L) against Kessler as a reputation enhancing performance. It wasn't. Some people have seemed to have ignored that result, plus AA was coming off a defeat.

He's doing incredibly well though, and your right he another 3/4 years left. Continues his run for 3/4 and he does surpass Calzaghe, no doubting it. At the moment, facts are he has just made 2 successful titles defences in two reigns - both of these being controvesial. For me, thats not Britains finest ever fighter - by some distance. But in 4/5 title defences (preferably not controvesial, clear wins) against the quality he is facing and then he will be right up in the debate.

He's not even ahead of Lloyd Honeyghan yet.

[glahn]

Froch is certainly one of the ballsiest British fighters of all time. He certainly isn't among the most talented or most complete fighters from these isles, but he is compiling a hell of a record and if he continues winning then he will have a credible claim of belonging in the top 10. If he beats Ward and Kessler then you would probably have to put him near the top 5.

[McCannW14]

So who is in your Top 5 then mate?

Calzaghe
Lewis
Honeyghan
Hatton
Eubank
Cooper(becuase he was an icon)
Benn(maybe)

Clearly you do not think there was a sport called "Boxing" before 1985. Chucking in Cooper just because he has been in the news lately does not show any knowledge of pre-1980s boxing.

In the modern category, how about Naz? Unified champ, beat all the other champs, lost one fight and that was to a hall of famer. Hmmmm.Ever heard of Ted Kid Lewis? Ken Buchanan? John Conteh? Howard Winstone?

Thanks Toby.

Buchanan, Conteh, Jimmy Wilde, Kid Lewis, and maybe even Dave Charnley could be in mine. Herol Graham worthy of mention too.

[whiskey]

Facts are I for one have never, and will never place No show Joe at Number 1. I've been criticised on here no end for an "anti Joe" posts.

But if you want to start stating facts. How many defending champions has Froch faced? I'll be the first to give him his dues when he fights Ward, and I hope he wins.

You mention Joe's 11 years until he fought a belt holder - your actually wrong if you want to be pedantic about it was 9... however it was still a disgrace... 90% of Joe's lengthy reign were absolute turd.... I'm not arguing. But there is a big difference between first belt holder (someone Carl hasn't managed yet - but lets hope he will in the Autumn) and a first legitimate contender - that was in Joe's fourth defence just over a year into his reign.

You make it sound Kessler was Joe's first legitimate contender, when it wasn't. How much better is Arthur Abraham, whose won about 4 rounds in his last 36 than the likes of Robin Reid?

Froch is doing great but I wish him all the best, but you claiming that Kessler was Joe's first test highlights incredible bias on your part.

I have been and continue to be hyper critical of Joe's career.... find me one post of mine in which I have said - Damn that Joe fought some of the best names... I don't even rate Reid highly, never have done... FFS I even scored the Kessler fight a draw - no bias, deluded, Joe Fan would do that surely?

But - I still don't agree with the school of thought that you should classify a L (and it was a clear L) against Kessler as a reputation enhancing performance. It wasn't. Some people have seemed to have ignored that result, plus AA was coming off a defeat.

He's doing incredibly well though, and your right he another 3/4 years left. Continues his run for 3/4 and he does surpass Calzaghe, no doubting it. At the moment, facts are he has just made 2 successful titles defences in two reigns - both of these being controvesial. For me, thats not Britains finest ever fighter - by some distance. But in 4/5 title defences (preferably not controvesial, clear wins) against the quality he is facing and then he will be right up in the debate.

He's not even ahead of Lloyd Honeyghan yet.

Fair point Stu. Im referring generally to the people who are on Calzaghe's cock as the best these shores ever produced which is utter fantasy. Lennox and Hatton both have done more.

[stujones]

Facts are I for one have never, and will never place No show Joe at Number 1. I've been criticised on here no end for an "anti Joe" posts.

But if you want to start stating facts. How many defending champions has Froch faced? I'll be the first to give him his dues when he fights Ward, and I hope he wins.

You mention Joe's 11 years until he fought a belt holder - your actually wrong if you want to be pedantic about it was 9... however it was still a disgrace... 90% of Joe's lengthy reign were absolute turd.... I'm not arguing. But there is a big difference between first belt holder (someone Carl hasn't managed yet - but lets hope he will in the Autumn) and a first legitimate contender - that was in Joe's fourth defence just over a year into his reign.

You make it sound Kessler was Joe's first legitimate contender, when it wasn't. How much better is Arthur Abraham, whose won about 4 rounds in his last 36 than the likes of Robin Reid?

Froch is doing great but I wish him all the best, but you claiming that Kessler was Joe's first test highlights incredible bias on your part.

I have been and continue to be hyper critical of Joe's career.... find me one post of mine in which I have said - Damn that Joe fought some of the best names... I don't even rate Reid highly, never have done... FFS I even scored the Kessler fight a draw - no bias, deluded, Joe Fan would do that surely?

But - I still don't agree with the school of thought that you should classify a L (and it was a clear L) against Kessler as a reputation enhancing performance. It wasn't. Some people have seemed to have ignored that result, plus AA was coming off a defeat.

He's doing incredibly well though, and your right he another 3/4 years left. Continues his run for 3/4 and he does surpass Calzaghe, no doubting it. At the moment, facts are he has just made 2 successful titles defences in two reigns - both of these being controvesial. For me, thats not Britains finest ever fighter - by some distance. But in 4/5 title defences (preferably not controvesial, clear wins) against the quality he is facing and then he will be right up in the debate.

He's not even ahead of Lloyd Honeyghan yet.

Fair point Stu. Im referring generally to the people who are on Calzaghe's cock as the best these shores ever produced which is utter fantasy. Lennox and Hatton both have done more.

Sorry for the rant there Gomez, just a bit fed up of people assuming I'm a Calzaghe nut hugger cause of my location.

To answer your question, Imogen Thomas told me the answer was Ryan Giggs.

I'd certainly have Lewis and Hatton ahead of Joe Calzaghe, but for me Froch is not in the equation for debating yet. Could very well be when his career is over. Even if he loses to Ward he could still come again.

There are alot ahead of Froch at the moment, I'd have him CURRENTLY in the Steve Robinson bracket (okay, that IS a fighter I am bias and possible deluded about).

[McCannW14]

Facts are I for one have never, and will never place No show Joe at Number 1. I've been criticised on here no end for an "anti Joe" posts.

But if you want to start stating facts. How many defending champions has Froch faced? I'll be the first to give him his dues when he fights Ward, and I hope he wins.

You mention Joe's 11 years until he fought a belt holder - your actually wrong if you want to be pedantic about it was 9... however it was still a disgrace... 90% of Joe's lengthy reign were absolute turd.... I'm not arguing. But there is a big difference between first belt holder (someone Carl hasn't managed yet - but lets hope he will in the Autumn) and a first legitimate contender - that was in Joe's fourth defence just over a year into his reign.

You make it sound Kessler was Joe's first legitimate contender, when it wasn't. How much better is Arthur Abraham, whose won about 4 rounds in his last 36 than the likes of Robin Reid?

Froch is doing great but I wish him all the best, but you claiming that Kessler was Joe's first test highlights incredible bias on your part.

I have been and continue to be hyper critical of Joe's career.... find me one post of mine in which I have said - Damn that Joe fought some of the best names... I don't even rate Reid highly, never have done... FFS I even scored the Kessler fight a draw - no bias, deluded, Joe Fan would do that surely?

But - I still don't agree with the school of thought that you should classify a L (and it was a clear L) against Kessler as a reputation enhancing performance. It wasn't. Some people have seemed to have ignored that result, plus AA was coming off a defeat.

He's doing incredibly well though, and your right he another 3/4 years left. Continues his run for 3/4 and he does surpass Calzaghe, no doubting it. At the moment, facts are he has just made 2 successful titles defences in two reigns - both of these being controvesial. For me, thats not Britains finest ever fighter - by some distance. But in 4/5 title defences (preferably not controvesial, clear wins) against the quality he is facing and then he will be right up in the debate.

He's not even ahead of Lloyd Honeyghan yet.

Fair point Stu. Im referring generally to the people who are on Calzaghe's cock as the best these shores ever produced which is utter fantasy. Lennox and Hatton both have done more.

You think Hatton has done more than Froch?

Apart from a washed up and end of the line Kostya Tszyu, what else did Hatton do?

Froch is miles in front of Hatton.

[whiskey]

Apart from a washed up and end of the line Kostya Tszyu, what else did Hatton do?

Froch is miles in front of Hatton.

I think they're cut from the same cloth, they both took on big challenges and were prepared to go abroad to do it.

Yes there was a lot of mediocre opponents on Hatton's record, but Tszyu onwards he fought everyone he could worth fighting.

His two defeats came against the very best, "at their very best" - on both occaisions he had a shit load of terrible luck in my opinion. Sure we can point at Cortez, declare he was interfering like it's some excuse for Ricky - but lets be honest the bald f*ck did pull off Ricky at absolutely every point, broke up his rythm, he also allowed Mayweather to elbow and forearm his way through the entire fight without any recourse. Cortez royally ruined one of the most anticipated fights Ive ever seen brewing. Ricky was already up against going up to 147 and fighting in Mayweather's town with huge mickey mouse gloves on.

The scenario surrounding Pacquiao was a total farce, Ricky was without KK and Floyd ran the guy into the ground. He had him running up desert hills in army boots until his feet split open and required a chiropractor to resolve. Then he would drive ricky down to the gym were they had a 160/170lb world amatuer champion southpaw in Erislandy Lara, who would beat on a tired out Hatton ofr several rounds. Then would chuck him on a running machine. I think any tech work was done by Beard behind Floyd's back who saw what was unfolding and secretly tried to salvage it.

Pacquiao knocked out a shell of Hatton that night. And subsequently rather than analyse and pinpoint the reasons for failure, Ricky sank into a huge depression over the fact he lost and then bowed out.

Ricky could have been the greatest fighter ever in the UK - had he stuck around fighting total bums, month in, month out - with the odd faded has-been dragged over. He could have done 20,000 tickets standing on his head for a bum.

But the fact he rolled the dice and had a go, shouldn't diminish what a great light welterweight he was. At his best no way on earth would Bradley or Khan have lived with him during 2005.

Greatness is not aquired, by sitting it out whilst all your peers try and fail - greatness is earned by having a go !

Boxing not like top trumps, where speed 10 beats power 6 - there are a shed load of factors that can be the difference between winning and losing a fight - crowd, judges, location, fan support, injury, training camp problems - phycological problems (worrying about promoter arguments, girlfriend etc).

The biggest factor is location. A fighter who fights abroad and against TOP level opposition gets my respect win or lose. These lying bastards who say "oh...err i dont like planes" etc can piss right off.

[stujones]

Facts are I for one have never, and will never place No show Joe at Number 1. I've been criticised on here no end for an "anti Joe" posts.

But if you want to start stating facts. How many defending champions has Froch faced? I'll be the first to give him his dues when he fights Ward, and I hope he wins.

You mention Joe's 11 years until he fought a belt holder - your actually wrong if you want to be pedantic about it was 9... however it was still a disgrace... 90% of Joe's lengthy reign were absolute turd.... I'm not arguing. But there is a big difference between first belt holder (someone Carl hasn't managed yet - but lets hope he will in the Autumn) and a first legitimate contender - that was in Joe's fourth defence just over a year into his reign.

You make it sound Kessler was Joe's first legitimate contender, when it wasn't. How much better is Arthur Abraham, whose won about 4 rounds in his last 36 than the likes of Robin Reid?

Froch is doing great but I wish him all the best, but you claiming that Kessler was Joe's first test highlights incredible bias on your part.

I have been and continue to be hyper critical of Joe's career.... find me one post of mine in which I have said - Damn that Joe fought some of the best names... I don't even rate Reid highly, never have done... FFS I even scored the Kessler fight a draw - no bias, deluded, Joe Fan would do that surely?

But - I still don't agree with the school of thought that you should classify a L (and it was a clear L) against Kessler as a reputation enhancing performance. It wasn't. Some people have seemed to have ignored that result, plus AA was coming off a defeat.

He's doing incredibly well though, and your right he another 3/4 years left. Continues his run for 3/4 and he does surpass Calzaghe, no doubting it. At the moment, facts are he has just made 2 successful titles defences in two reigns - both of these being controvesial. For me, thats not Britains finest ever fighter - by some distance. But in 4/5 title defences (preferably not controvesial, clear wins) against the quality he is facing and then he will be right up in the debate.

He's not even ahead of Lloyd Honeyghan yet.

Fair point Stu. Im referring generally to the people who are on Calzaghe's cock as the best these shores ever produced which is utter fantasy. Lennox and Hatton both have done more.

You think Hatton has done more than Froch?

Apart from a washed up and end of the line Kostya Tszyu, what else did Hatton do?

Froch is miles in front of Hatton.

Not quite correct is it, Graham Houston has just posted a blog saying no British fighter has had the run of Froch. Now I'm not going to be arguing this - but then Graham states about the run being comprised of former, current (well actually not) or future world champions (well Dirrell still hasn't won a world title) - but anyway pedantics aside, lets look at Hatton post Tszyu.

Maussa - A current world champion (at the time of the fight)
Collazo - A current world champion (at the time of the fight)
Urango - A current and future world champion
Jose Luis Castillo - A former long standing world champion and at the time ranked in the top ten P4P - Universally recognised as the #1 Lightweight and #2 Light Welter at the time of the bout.
Floyd Mayweather Jnr - Don't need to say anything about him.
Juan Lazscano - Not a world champion.
Paulie Malignaggi - A former world champion (didn't lose the title in the ring).
Manny Pacquiao - Don't need to say anything about him.

That isn't exactly NOTHING post Tszyu is it. Sure, no one can deny and say boxing politics certainly helped Juan Urango's world title win (Ricky vacating the IBF title moving up to challenge Collazo) - but all of those champions Ricky faced, Maussa, Collazo, Urango and Malignaggi all won their titles in the ring. They were not awarded the belt, Cleverly style. Only Urango actually fought for a vacant title - the rest of them Maussa, Collazo and Malignaggi beat a defending champion when winning the belt.

[Autobarn]

re moorer being a missing scalp of lewis':

couple of knocks against this, apart from the fact that moorer lost the unifier to holyfield (winner took on lewis, twice)

mentally unstable, or moody fighters, did not perform well vs lewis. mccall in the rematch, akinwande, and obviously golota were already beaten, before the first bell. moorer is one of those fighters that you have to have a teddy atlas screaming to THROW SOME PUNCHES. moorer would sulk his wah through and get knocked out, vs a fighter as imposing as lewis.

also, moorer wasn't quite on of the big three, i.e. bowe (whom lewis wanted in his first title run), holyfield (popular afer the tyson wins in the mid/late '90s) and tyson.

and, moorer being a light heavyweight much of his career, vs lewis, the most successful of all "super heavyweights". looks like being a mismatch.

[stujones]

re moorer being a missing scalp of lewis':

couple of knocks against this, apart from the fact that moorer lost the unifier to holyfield (winner took on lewis, twice)

mentally unstable, or moody fighters, did not perform well vs lewis. mccall in the rematch, akinwande, and obviously golota were already beaten, before the first bell. moorer is one of those fighters that you have to have a teddy atlas screaming to THROW SOME PUNCHES. moorer would sulk his wah through and get knocked out, vs a fighter as imposing as lewis.

also, moorer wasn't quite on of the big three, i.e. bowe (whom lewis wanted in his first title run), holyfield (popular afer the tyson wins in the mid/late '90s) and tyson.

and, moorer being a light heavyweight much of his career, vs lewis, the most successful of all "super heavyweights". looks like being a mismatch.

I do agree, I'm not saying MM would have beaten Lewis.... just that if your considered a the second best world champion, you want to fight the man - and for a small period Lewis was considered the #2 champion behind Moorer (first reign). Then when Lewis was waiting for the WBC and the Tyson/Bruno stuff - Moorer was defending his IBF title.... again a time period (During Lewis' POMP) in which Moorer was considered above Lewis.

There was a time in which Lewis could have challenged or defended against Moorer and it would have been considered a lot more worthy than, I would say, the majority of his fights. Holyfield, Tyson, Klitchsko and Tua (just on the basis of the result between Tua and a past it Moorer) might be deemed more worthy.... but all the rest, I would consider MM a more meaningful test and a better fight for his legacy (pre 2000).