Froch's win - How does that rate?

Craig14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2933
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 12:25

Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Craig14 »

In world title wins by a brit?
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27513
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by stujones »

I would say higher than Lacy vs Calzaghe (based on Bute being more proven than Lacy).... lower than Hatton vs Tszyu.
Dioufy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7351
Joined: 16 Sep 2006, 23:09

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Dioufy »

Best I have ever seen from a British fight, bar maybe Hatton/Tyszu.
Craig14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2933
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 12:25

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Craig14 »

And lower than Honeyghan-Curry. But still it's got to be there or there abouts.
bigped
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1572
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 16:26

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by bigped »

was it that froch was really good? or that bute was just pretty hyped and bad??
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Horse »

bigped wrote:was it that froch was really good? or that bute was just pretty hyped and bad??
Bute has plenty of good wins and is a proven world class fighter. It was Froch being very good.
dbf
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1793
Joined: 28 Nov 2003, 11:06

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by dbf »

Great win - it was the unexpected dominance that surely puts quite high on modern lists. Was Mormeck better than Bute? Think so. But Haye had to do it the hard way, Froch made this look easy.

So happy for Carl he deserved a good win on a major TV station at home.
Hagler2002
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3512
Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Hagler2002 »

Bute was a hype job, nothing on his CV to suggest he was at world level and he gave the Super 6 a wide berth.

Froch's win was a good one but no better imo than his stoppage of Jermain Taylor.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27513
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by stujones »

bigped wrote:was it that froch was really good? or that bute was just pretty hyped and bad??
I don't think we can say Bute was just pretty hyped. Okay, so he hasn't fought the likes of Ward or Dirrell - but he has beaten some decent top tenners and done it well. His form against common opponents was better than Froch's.

However, I thought when they were showing clips of him on ringside doing some pad work and he looked really bad, no defence and look sluggish. Was this one fight too many at Super Middle for Lucian? Was there problems in his camp?

Lucian was bad, but I think his previous form highlights he is not just hype over substance - there was some substance there.

Froch was also really good.
NazNaci1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4517
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 00:58

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by NazNaci1 »

Great win for Carl. Fantastic performance.

I'd place that win pretty much higher than anything Calzaghe did, but not at the level of, say Honeyghan. Still, a great night for British boxing.
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Horse »

dbf wrote:Great win - it was the unexpected dominance that surely puts quite high on modern lists. Was Mormeck better than Bute? Think so. But Haye had to do it the hard way, Froch made this look easy.

So happy for Carl he deserved a good win on a major TV station at home.
I would say that Bute is better than Mormeck.
Hagler2002
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3512
Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Hagler2002 »

The Dark Destroyer wrote:
Hagler2002 wrote:Bute was a hype job, nothing on his CV to suggest he was at world level and he gave the Super 6 a wide berth.

Froch's win was a good one but no better imo than his stoppage of Jermain Taylor.
Well, he was behind on the cards against Taylor, a fight which Taylor looked good in. In this he was dominant from almost the first second. A much better win.
Taylor was shot, Bute was a hype job, my point is Froch's win tonight was his best followed closely by stopping Taylor not the manner in how he did it.
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Horse »

Hagler2002 wrote:Bute was a hype job, nothing on his CV to suggest he was at world level and he gave the Super 6 a wide berth.

Froch's win was a good one but no better imo than his stoppage of Jermain Taylor.
Bute has wins against Johnson, Andrade, Bika & Miranda. His C.V. clearly showed he was at world level.
yiddo14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by yiddo14 »

Calzaghe would have smashed Bute too probably but he didn't. Bute was Froch's Ottke if you like!

Froch has a better record than Joe. Doesn't mean he would have bested the Welshman though in a fight but it would have been a humdinger that's for sure!
Hagler2002
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3512
Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Hagler2002 »

bengulnaci1 wrote:Great win for Carl. Fantastic performance.

I'd place that win pretty much higher than anything Calzaghe did
Without doubt that is the stupidest thing I've heard tonight.
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13439
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by jameswilson »

stujones wrote:
bigped wrote:was it that froch was really good? or that bute was just pretty hyped and bad??
I don't think we can say Bute was just pretty hyped. Okay, so he hasn't fought the likes of Ward or Dirrell - but he has beaten some decent top tenners and done it well. His form against common opponents was better than Froch's.

However, I thought when they were showing clips of him on ringside doing some pad work and he looked really bad, no defence and look sluggish. Was this one fight too many at Super Middle for Lucian? Was there problems in his camp?

Lucian was bad, but I think his previous form highlights he is not just hype over substance - there was some substance there.

Froch was also really good.
Bute I think was over-rated to a point in a similar way that Lacy proved to be. Bute may not go on the bad run Lacy did, but I rank Froch's win as equal to Calzaghe's domination of Lacy.

Bute's big victories were all over below par opposition and a lot was made about his body punching. Now how many real top class fighters at any weight do you see stopped by body shots? Hatton breaking Castillo's ribs is the only one that springs into my head. The fans made out like Bute was the best body puncher in history based on body punch stoppages of guys who most World class boxers would stop (with respect to some of them.)

It's an excellent win but there are better wins by British boxers, but no doubt I am buzzing like everyone else. :DDD
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13439
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by jameswilson »

The Dark Destroyer wrote:
yiddo14 wrote:Calzaghe would have smashed Bute too probably but he didn't. Bute was Froch's Ottke if you like!

Froch has a better record than Joe. Doesn't mean he would have bested the Welshman though in a fight but it would have been a humdinger that's for sure!
Lets see how Froch does if he ever ventures north of 168.
I really think if he makes weight as easily as is rumoured then if he should be moving in any direction it is down in weight. Froch said he struggled with Ward's size, well he shouldn't be stepping up to face bigger guys if that is the case, even if he could ppotentially win a World title there.
Datsue
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Datsue »

Hagler2002 wrote:
The Dark Destroyer wrote:
Hagler2002 wrote:Bute was a hype job, nothing on his CV to suggest he was at world level and he gave the Super 6 a wide berth.

Froch's win was a good one but no better imo than his stoppage of Jermain Taylor.
Well, he was behind on the cards against Taylor, a fight which Taylor looked good in. In this he was dominant from almost the first second. A much better win.
Taylor was shot, Bute was a hype job, my point is Froch's win tonight was his best followed closely by stopping Taylor not the manner in how he did it.

I'd shy away from using phrases like hype job but yes Taylor=former undisputed middle champ, beat B. Hopkins.

Bute = beat Sakio Bika & Brian Magee.

So glad Froch smashed him to pieces & so glad I over-rated the Canadian but the "exuberance" button has been pressed, & people are getting silly.

You'll only be able to judge the magnitude of this win if Bute manages to come back & do soemthing in his career, 'cos for now Bute's a bloke who stepped up to genuine elite level & got massively exposed. Great performance from Frochy & I"m so pleased for him but I am not going to say stupid shit like "best British win ever" & "He's gonna do that to Kessler" because... He won't.

Whoever said Lacy=Bute was more on the mark.

Anyway, I don't care. I love you, Carl Froch.
NazNaci1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4517
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 00:58

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by NazNaci1 »

Hagler2002 wrote:
bengulnaci1 wrote:Great win for Carl. Fantastic performance.

I'd place that win pretty much higher than anything Calzaghe did
Without doubt that is the stupidest thing I've heard tonight.
Well, that's your opinion and that's fine. However you post, regarding someone else's opinion reeks of stupidity, so if you disagree, then fine, you disagree.
Hagler2002
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3512
Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Hagler2002 »

Horse wrote: Andrade, Bika & Miranda
Are you joking?
Datsue
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Datsue »

jameswilson wrote:
stujones wrote:
bigped wrote:was it that froch was really good? or that bute was just pretty hyped and bad??
I don't think we can say Bute was just pretty hyped. Okay, so he hasn't fought the likes of Ward or Dirrell - but he has beaten some decent top tenners and done it well. His form against common opponents was better than Froch's.

However, I thought when they were showing clips of him on ringside doing some pad work and he looked really bad, no defence and look sluggish. Was this one fight too many at Super Middle for Lucian? Was there problems in his camp?

Lucian was bad, but I think his previous form highlights he is not just hype over substance - there was some substance there.

Froch was also really good.
Bute I think was over-rated to a point in a similar way that Lacy proved to be. Bute may not go on the bad run Lacy did, but I rank Froch's win as equal to Calzaghe's domination of Lacy.

Bute's big victories were all over below par opposition and a lot was made about his body punching. Now how many real top class fighters at any weight do you see stopped by body shots? Hatton breaking Castillo's ribs is the only one that springs into my head. The fans made out like Bute was the best body puncher in history based on body punch stoppages of guys who most World class boxers would stop (with respect to some of them.)

It's an excellent win but there are better wins by British boxers, but no doubt I am buzzing like everyone else. :DDD
Yes, this, sorry, that was what I meant to post!

:TU:
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Horse »

Hagler2002 wrote:
Horse wrote: Andrade, Bika & Miranda
Are you joking?
No. Why did you take Johnson's name out of my quote?

Bute was clearly a proven world class fighter with the wins he had.
Hagler2002
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3512
Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Hagler2002 »

bengulnaci1 wrote:
Hagler2002 wrote:
bengulnaci1 wrote:Great win for Carl. Fantastic performance.

I'd place that win pretty much higher than anything Calzaghe did
Without doubt that is the stupidest thing I've heard tonight.
Well, that's your opinion and that's fine. However you post, regarding someone else's opinion reeks of stupidity, so if you disagree, then fine, you disagree.
Oh I wasn't aware that we all had to bow down to your opinion on a public forum, agree, not challenge it and take it as gospel!

I'd appreciate it if you could start off by telling us how Froch's win tonight was better than Calzaghe's dominant display against Kessler.
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Horse »

Hagler2002 wrote:Oh I wasn't aware that we all had to bow down to your opinion on a public forum, agree, not challenge it and take it as gospel!

I'd appreciate it if you could start off by telling us how Froch's win tonight was better than Calzaghe's dominant display against Kessler.
Calzaghe wasn't dominant against Kessler.
Hagler2002
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3512
Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04

Re: Froch's win - How does that rate?

Post by Hagler2002 »

Horse wrote:
Hagler2002 wrote:
Horse wrote: Andrade, Bika & Miranda
Are you joking?
No. Why did you take Johnson's name out of my quote?

Bute was clearly a proven world class fighter with the wins he had.
He was clearly a 'fringe' level world class fighter, that's why he wasn't in Super 6 and when giving the opportunity he choose not to become involved.

Do you think really think Andrade, Bika & Miranda are on the same level as Pascal, Taylor, Dirrel, Abraham & Ward?
Post Reply