The Sky Sports debate / chat thing last night...

[Jack B]

I didn't see the debate but although I like Froch and think he such a credit, I cannot help but wonder if his techniques infront of the camera are a part of a reason why his popularity isn't up there (still). No-one can say Eddie aint promoting him right, but I still feel the public haven't engaged with him.

While he is often articulate, insightful and intelligent when being interviewed I do find sometimes with Froch it seems to be a case of "why say 50 words when 5,000 will do". Like when explaining Kessler 2 on Sky sports he had to explain how he lost to Ward, but beat Bute to win the IBF belt and Kessler has had a long lay off but just beat the defending champion Brian Magee to win the WBA belt, so hopefully the WBA and IBF belts will be at stake.... all he needed to say was "its a unification fight".

Interesting points. When you say the public "haven't engaged him", do you think that is because of his personality, or just the way his career has gone (i.e. television issues for some of his biggest fights)? It's hard for me to judge how his profile has developed (or not) over the years, as being a boxing fan based in the East Midlands, he's always been well-known to me, ever since I started following the sport seriously (around the time Froch first won the Commonwealth title and was fighting on the BBC).

Regarding his punditry/interview work, as I said I like him, but I get your point regarding the over-explaining. My guess is that it has just become a force of habit through regularly dealing with presenters/interviewers who clearly have only a very basic grasp of the boxing landscape (although, to be fair, that's probably as much boxing's fault as the presenters).

[stujones]

I think if I went to the average man in the street who watches the "big fights" and knows about Pacquiao and Mayweather (maybe not Marquez) and asked them "who is Carl Froch" - most wouldn't know. In Wales some might have heard the name as someone who thinks he can beat Joe Calzaghe, but if I showed them a picture of Froch they wouldn't know.

Now back on Sky and given Eddie's exclusive contract perhaps that will change. I've notice that Sky's boxing coverage is going very much like their darts coverage with the animations and the "lets get ready to meet your hero" - most people will recognise Phil Taylor and I think Sky hope Froch can become the Phil Taylor of boxing.

Not sure why it is - I don't want to blame Hennessy, most boxers would give their right arm to have a world title fight showcased live on Saturday on a terrestial TV channel. Froch was on ITV, BBC and Sky in the early days - but is certainly not got the advertising attention that he has now from the TV companies. Now all Sky show is Brook, Froch, Khan and Bellew really (Frampton, Rees and Barker not quite up there yet). Might be controvesial but I think in the early days he didn't have a style that is that attractive to watch - he wasn't the most authordox of fighters. He wasn't a fan friendly 200 killer punches a round of a prime Ricky Hatton, there was nothing about Froch's early career that you could go "wow - he is the best at this". He isn't super fast, he wasn't always throwing as many punches as he should. Even though his fights has been exiting, his unauthordox style wasn't necessarily eye catching - although this could be changing. I'm finding it difficult to explain, but hope you get what I mean.

Whilst he was never a Junior Witter, awkward unauthordox fighters are often hard to sell. You can be a backfoot fighter with fantastic grace and be appreciated, you can be a Tyson esque fighter and become a fans favourite - but if you had to describe Froch's style in a term it would be quite hard to explain.... Naz was a different kettle fish, while clearly unauthordox he has natural talent that was amongst the best this country has ever produced - he was pure excitement. Froch has been hit and miss (lots of great fights, but some boring ones also).

[liamlion]

Well for a start I don't think you can call Chisora a journeyman, he's a former British champ who has challenged for the European and World title in his last few fights. And losing to Klitchsko is hardly poor form.

As for Froch, you could easily put your Haye spin on it and say he lost to Kessler, got 'picked apart' by Ward, fought 2 journeymen in Johnson and Mack and Abraham wasn't all that anyway.

It's easy to discredit someone, both these guys have achieved a lot, just because you dislike David Haye it's not fair to look at his achievements with different eyes to Froch's.

I don't dislike David Haye. Quite the opposite. His career has frustrated me but that's by the by.

Chisora hasn't ever beaten a fighter who would be regarded as anything above a clubfighter or a hasbeen in the States and he's lost numerous times. He's a journeyman.

That journeyman clearly beat Helenius (who was being heavily touted) and he pushed Vitali closer than anybody else has done since Lennox Lewis beat him. He's been British, Commonwealth and Europena champion and he's challenged for World titles

It's nothing short of idiocy calling Chisora a journeyman!!!! .....look up Ernie Smith, Peter Buckley, Barrie Jones, Peter McDonagh, Willaim Warburton etc. to see what a journeyman looks like

Have I missed something... Who did Del Boy beat to become European champion?

The Helenius fight was close and I didn't necessarily agree with decision, but IMO neither fighter clearly won.

[Wales]

At a push Chisora could be called a "gatekeeper" but I'm content to use "journeyman" until he actually beats someone who isn't another journeyman.

massive difference between Journeyman and gatekeeper, no?

[JLP]

At a push Chisora could be called a "gatekeeper" but I'm content to use "journeyman" until he actually beats someone who isn't another journeyman.

massive difference between Journeyman and gatekeeper, no?

There is a crossover point between the two and I think Chisora is probably in that grey area. I lean towards the journeyman tag when I'm using him as a tool to make a broader point. D

On Froch's popularity (or lack of it): I think people over-analyse why Froch hasn't 'crossed-over'. The reason is simple. A lot of people are prejudiced against people with a Midland's accent. For whatever reason, it is linked with dullness, dreariness, and boredom. Frank Skinner and Lenny Henry being the exceptions that prove the rule.

[mickey1975]

I think if I went to the average man in the street who watches the "big fights" and knows about Pacquiao and Mayweather (maybe not Marquez) and asked them "who is Carl Froch" - most wouldn't know. In Wales some might have heard the name as someone who thinks he can beat Joe Calzaghe, but if I showed them a picture of Froch they wouldn't know.

Now back on Sky and given Eddie's exclusive contract perhaps that will change. I've notice that Sky's boxing coverage is going very much like their darts coverage with the animations and the "lets get ready to meet your hero" - most people will recognise Phil Taylor and I think Sky hope Froch can become the Phil Taylor of boxing.

Not sure why it is - I don't want to blame Hennessy, most boxers would give their right arm to have a world title fight showcased live on Saturday on a terrestial TV channel. Froch was on ITV, BBC and Sky in the early days - but is certainly not got the advertising attention that he has now from the TV companies. Now all Sky show is Brook, Froch, Khan and Bellew really (Frampton, Rees and Barker not quite up there yet). Might be controvesial but I think in the early days he didn't have a style that is that attractive to watch - he wasn't the most authordox of fighters. He wasn't a fan friendly 200 killer punches a round of a prime Ricky Hatton, there was nothing about Froch's early career that you could go "wow - he is the best at this". He isn't super fast, he wasn't always throwing as many punches as he should. Even though his fights has been exiting, his unauthordox style wasn't necessarily eye catching - although this could be changing. I'm finding it difficult to explain, but hope you get what I mean.

Whilst he was never a Junior Witter, awkward unauthordox fighters are often hard to sell. You can be a backfoot fighter with fantastic grace and be appreciated, you can be a Tyson esque fighter and become a fans favourite - but if you had to describe Froch's style in a term it would be quite hard to explain.... Naz was a different kettle fish, while clearly unauthordox he has natural talent that was amongst the best this country has ever produced - he was pure excitement. Froch has been hit and miss (lots of great fights, but some boring ones also).

Dont normally do this, but as you kept repeating it, i had to. Unorthodox. Sorry

[Wales]

At a push Chisora could be called a "gatekeeper" but I'm content to use "journeyman" until he actually beats someone who isn't another journeyman.

massive difference between Journeyman and gatekeeper, no?

There is a crossover point between the two and I think Chisora is probably in that grey area. I lean towards the journeyman tag when I'm using him as a tool to make a broader point. D

See I always class a journeyman as someone who travels the length and bredth of the country punching for pay. there invariably to last the distance giving a home fighter rounds, taking fights at short notice, and as many fights as they can - your peter buckleys of the world.

I have gatekeepers as a fighter who stands between boxer and title shot. british heavyweight gatekeeper would be someone like Big John Mcdermott. World Welterweight gatekeeper Lovemore N'dou. That sort.

In football league terms Journeyman would be the conference, gatekeeper the championship.

[Wrists]

Well for a start I don't think you can call Chisora a journeyman, he's a former British champ who has challenged for the European and World title in his last few fights. And losing to Klitchsko is hardly poor form.

As for Froch, you could easily put your Haye spin on it and say he lost to Kessler, got 'picked apart' by Ward, fought 2 journeymen in Johnson and Mack and Abraham wasn't all that anyway.

It's easy to discredit someone, both these guys have achieved a lot, just because you dislike David Haye it's not fair to look at his achievements with different eyes to Froch's.

Look at their respective achievements with the same eyes...surely Froch's far outweighs Haye's? The only shame is the reverse is true of their bank balances, one suspects.

Oh come on Ian - you're surely not going down the working class hero bullshit line are you?

I think anyone will agree that Froch's achievements are immense, however its very easy to dismiss Haye on the back of a piss poor effort in the Wlad fight. Other than that his career has been a success, 2 weight world champ, beat everyone at Cruiser and has had a decent stab at being a heavyweight.

[earsjohn]

Well for a start I don't think you can call Chisora a journeyman, he's a former British champ who has challenged for the European and World title in his last few fights. And losing to Klitchsko is hardly poor form.

As for Froch, you could easily put your Haye spin on it and say he lost to Kessler, got 'picked apart' by Ward, fought 2 journeymen in Johnson and Mack and Abraham wasn't all that anyway.

It's easy to discredit someone, both these guys have achieved a lot, just because you dislike David Haye it's not fair to look at his achievements with different eyes to Froch's.

Look at their respective achievements with the same eyes...surely Froch's far outweighs Haye's? The only shame is the reverse is true of their bank balances, one suspects.

Achievements? I don't think they are that far apart.

Haye was the widely considered No 1 in his weight class (Froch never has been)
Haye unified world titles by beating the belt holders (Froch has never unified)
Haye has twice won world titles in his opponents back yard. Twice. (Froch twice faltered when entering the lions den.)
Haye is a former 2-weight world champion (Froch is but a two-time world champ)
Haye was a World Championship Silver medalist as an amateur. (Froch was a Bronze medalist.)

I'm a big fan of both guys and while you can't compare the run of fights they have had, in terms of "achievements", i'd happily argue that Haye slightly trumps Carl.

Froch wins the show us yer balls contest, but Haye takes the show us yer medals contest on points.

[Final round]

Well for a start I don't think you can call Chisora a journeyman, he's a former British champ who has challenged for the European and World title in his last few fights. And losing to Klitchsko is hardly poor form.

As for Froch, you could easily put your Haye spin on it and say he lost to Kessler, got 'picked apart' by Ward, fought 2 journeymen in Johnson and Mack and Abraham wasn't all that anyway.

It's easy to discredit someone, both these guys have achieved a lot, just because you dislike David Haye it's not fair to look at his achievements with different eyes to Froch's.

I don't dislike David Haye. Quite the opposite. His career has frustrated me but that's by the by.

Chisora hasn't ever beaten a fighter who would be regarded as anything above a clubfighter or a hasbeen in the States and he's lost numerous times. He's a journeyman.

I don't agree at lcalling Dereck a journeyman, that would suggest he is content to turn up lose and pick up his money. No worries onto the next fight. He went the 12 with Vitali and did his best to win, was in a cracker against Helenius which on most people's card he won. Tried hard against Haye ended up going out on his shield and was gutted. Was poor against Fury, he took him lightly and payed for it.
Regarding Froch if we are being negative you could pick some holes there, he got a gift against Dirrell, he struggled at times with a past it Johnson , fought a useless Yusef Mack nice little money earner ,whooped a career MW in Abraham and got utterly outclassed by the best in the division..
Who in the HW division could Haye have fought to get a comparable record in your opinion?

[mullenman]

like all the fighters and hopefully they wil all be world champs at end of the end and that would be a great year for british boxing,,,,

calling del boy a journey man is totally unfair as he is a very good boxer,,

a gate keeper for to be a world champion in the heavy weight devision maybe

journey man,, no way

[Boxingcutsman]

I liked it, I thought all came across well, especially Froch & Ogogo. It was one of the best things the Sky Sports Boxing team/Ringside have done for a long time. I would like to see a similar thing done with lads from around the country that have got no big promoter behind them, work 10 hour shifts trying to support and provide for there family's while still trying to fit training twice a day in aswell to achieve there dreams. Think that would be a great insight for the fans and more so for the fickle few who occasionally attend shows and sit next there mate saying how crap some of these lads are. Maybe they would feel different if they saw there desire and dedication while juggling family/work life with there dreams.

[Yes We Can]

Well for a start I don't think you can call Chisora a journeyman, he's a former British champ who has challenged for the European and World title in his last few fights. And losing to Klitchsko is hardly poor form.

As for Froch, you could easily put your Haye spin on it and say he lost to Kessler, got 'picked apart' by Ward, fought 2 journeymen in Johnson and Mack and Abraham wasn't all that anyway.

It's easy to discredit someone, both these guys have achieved a lot, just because you dislike David Haye it's not fair to look at his achievements with different eyes to Froch's.

I don't dislike David Haye. Quite the opposite. His career has frustrated me but that's by the by.

Chisora hasn't ever beaten a fighter who would be regarded as anything above a clubfighter or a hasbeen in the States and he's lost numerous times. He's a journeyman.

I don't agree at lcalling Dereck a journeyman, that would suggest he is content to turn up lose and pick up his money. No worries onto the next fight. He went the 12 with Vitali and did his best to win, was in a cracker against Helenius which on most people's card he won. Tried hard against Haye ended up going out on his shield and was gutted. Was poor against Fury, he took him lightly and payed for it.
Regarding Froch if we are being negative you could pick some holes there, he got a gift against Dirrell, he struggled at times with a past it Johnson , fought a useless Yusef Mack nice little money earner ,whooped a career MW in Abraham and got utterly outclassed by the best in the division..
Who in the HW division could Haye have fought to get a comparable record in your opinion?

tried to match up as closely as i think you can when comparing lower weights to heavies, more in terms of reputation than styles, but obviously it doesn't account for fighters moving up or down like Froch's record will.

Pascal - Arreola (tough fight against somebody not yet proven against the top guys, but definitely in the contender regions)
Taylor - Adamek (somebody arguably past peak, fighting at a heavier weight than they would have in prime...
Direll - Solis (a big talent that had not yet proven himself amongst the best at the weight).
Kessler - Valuev (former titleist, past peak... obviously kessler is superior)
Abraham - Huck (a very good fighter from the class below moving slightly out of there comfort zone lacking a bit of the impact they had down below)
Johnson - Tony Thompson? past prime by far but will still be a difficult old sod to beat. loses to the better regons of the division
Ward - Wlad (best in the division)
Bute - Povetkin (next tiltleholder, never fully tested against the elite but a good record)
Mack - Chisora (never likely to beat the big boys)

Not entirely accurate, but even if Haye had beaten all these people would declare the HW a dead division so Carl would still get more acclaim from the hardcore fans.

[dbf]

Thought it wasn't bad but a little safe. A bit of a love in. Was expecting more insight into their life outside of boxing. We all know Froch rents out properties, Amir like watches etc. Good idea, could be improved. Although I do appreciate it was aimed at the mainstream sports fan and not nerds like me.

Thing I like when HBO or Showtime do stuff like this;

a) the boxers don't hold back. God forbid they might swear
b) the person holding the debate, Kellerman, Grey, Kenny etc go in with the questions

Froch dominated. I thought he was sonning Ogogo at one point by continuing to butt in. I wanted to hear the end of the top shop story. Although Froch shopping at poundland was a revelation. It was the Carl Froch show.

Nelson should have been a guest too, as I got the impression he was eager to discuss his career and experiences in boxing. So maybe a neutral like Ed Robinson or Andy Scott would work better.

Haye basically wasn't happy the with the pay so didn't bother. Joking. Just a chilled guy I guess.

Seemed to me that Sky are just trying to find another way to build interest in the sport, which you can't blame, and at the same time vindicate some of their stars (Haye, Khan) for some of things they have said/done in the past.

[dbf]

Haye is a former 2-weight world champion (Froch is but a two-time world champ)

Froch is a three-time world champion.

Yeah but both the WBC wins were for a vacant title, and the Abraham one shouldn't count as Kessler was really the champ.

[dbf]

[/quote]

So in your eyes he's a one time world champion?

It isn't his fault Kessler pulled of the event, and he fought the number one challenger for the WBC first time round.[/quote]

No, in my eyes he's a two time world champion. Pascal was a genuine fight and definitely Bute. I only mentioned that he fought twice for vacant belts to compare to Haye. Who, at cruiser, beat THE man and at Heavy beat a champ.

[leforge]

Anyone else think Khan will continue to be on sky! Also if Sky PPV be back Hay v Vitali on it!

[Final round]

tried to match up as closely as i think you can when comparing lower weights to heavies, more in terms of reputation than styles, but obviously it doesn't account for fighters moving up or down like Froch's record will.

Pascal - Arreola (tough fight against somebody not yet proven against the top guys, but definitely in the contender regions)
Taylor - Adamek (somebody arguably past peak, fighting at a heavier weight than they would have in prime...
Direll - Solis (a big talent that had not yet proven himself amongst the best at the weight).
Kessler - Valuev (former titleist, past peak... obviously kessler is superior)
Abraham - Huck (a very good fighter from the class below moving slightly out of there comfort zone lacking a bit of the impact they had down below)
Johnson - Tony Thompson? past prime by far but will still be a difficult old sod to beat. loses to the better regons of the division
Ward - Wlad (best in the division)
Bute - Povetkin (next tiltleholder, never fully tested against the elite but a good record)
Mack - Chisora (never likely to beat the big boys)

Not entirely accurate, but even if Haye had beaten all these people would declare the HW a dead division so Carl would still get more acclaim from the hardcore fans.

Cheers for that some good comparisons there although I would have gone with the 2012 Mormeck/Mack
When the opposition is stacked up against each other it's plain to see the best thing Haye could've done was boil down to SMW! ;;-)

[Bricks]

I thought it was excellent, got a lot of respect for them all, but especially Froch. He's a proper bloke who doesn't seem to have let his fame, success and money go to his head.

They made a good point about most fans only seeing the boxers for a few minutes before the fight, during the fight and for a passion-fuelled post fight interview. It's good for them/us to see the man behind the boxer IMO, with shows such as last nights and the 24/7 & 360 shows. I hope they make a regular thing of getting them all (and others) round the table again.

yeah thats all we need another "Blokes around a table" talking about boxing show on SKY. right now ringside makes up more of the boxing coverage than actual fights. They need to start showing fights and now! Were any of these men a myster for ffs. Smith did an interview with haye in Miami last year and we know all there is to know about haye,froch, and khan since they have done countless interviews on skys either on ringside or otherwise and they are hardly "mystery men" outside the ring. As for OGogo he had plenty of coverage during the olympics hardly a "mystery man".....Smith is such a clown

[Ezzard]

If Eddie Hearn had his own TV channel and dumped SKY then I could cancel SKY and save money.

allegedly (brilliant)…a channel called Hearn-Nation (would also be brilliant)…and C5 would have it sewn up.

[jimcook]

I thought it was excellent, got a lot of respect for them all, but especially Froch. He's a proper bloke who doesn't seem to have let his fame, success and money go to his head.

They made a good point about most fans only seeing the boxers for a few minutes before the fight, during the fight and for a passion-fuelled post fight interview. It's good for them/us to see the man behind the boxer IMO, with shows such as last nights and the 24/7 & 360 shows. I hope they make a regular thing of getting them all (and others) round the table again.

yeah thats all we need another "Blokes around a table" talking about boxing show on SKY. right now ringside makes up more of the boxing coverage than actual fights. They need to start showing fights and now! Were any of these men a myster for ffs. Smith did an interview with haye in Miami last year and we know all there is to know about haye,froch, and khan since they have done countless interviews on skys either on ringside or otherwise and they are hardly "mystery men" outside the ring. As for OGogo he had plenty of coverage during the olympics hardly a "mystery man".....Smith is such a clown

for once i agree with you.....these guys have got their cash,and their fame , and we really do know all about them. sky should be showing fights with the money it cost to make this programme, giving opportunities to other young fighters. evenly matched and exciting fights will attract punters more than prospect vs no hoper, or as you say , bores around the table.
i thought the only funny anecdote was nelsons....black guy in a lime green tracksuit climbing trees one....excellent.

[JLP]

yeah thats all we need another "Blokes around a table" talking about boxing show on SKY. right now ringside makes up more of the boxing coverage than actual fights. They need to start showing fights and now! Were any of these men a myster for ffs. Smith did an interview with haye in Miami last year and we know all there is to know about haye,froch, and khan since they have done countless interviews on skys either on ringside or otherwise and they are hardly "mystery men" outside the ring. As for OGogo he had plenty of coverage during the olympics hardly a "mystery man".....Smith is such a clown

I agree with you 100%. I'd not be bothered if I never saw a second of build-up and hype. BUT...

...A number of people, lots of people actually, are more interested in the build-up, background noise, hype and bluster than they are in the actual boxing. That includes some people on this forum who'd class themselves as "hardcore boxing fans".

[jessi]

I thought froch butted in alot ! But all in all it was ok

[whiskey]

I thought froch butted in alot ! But all in all it was ok

i wanted to hear Ogogo's white t-shirt purchase in Next story, but Froch admitted his poundland fetish and the conversation then changed to something else.

[SteveDow]

At a push Chisora could be called a "gatekeeper" but I'm content to use "journeyman" until he actually beats someone who isn't another journeyman.

massive difference between Journeyman and gatekeeper, no?

There is a crossover point between the two and I think Chisora is probably in that grey area. I lean towards the journeyman tag when I'm using him as a tool to make a broader point. D

On Froch's popularity (or lack of it): I think people over-analyse why Froch hasn't 'crossed-over'. The reason is simple. A lot of people are prejudiced against people with a Midland's accent. For whatever reason, it is linked with dullness, dreariness, and boredom. Frank Skinner and Lenny Henry being the exceptions that prove the rule.

No way is Chisora a journeyman and I'm not a fan of his particularly. The guy has challenged for a World title and put up a competitive display and arguably beat the European champion. A journeyman is a guy who is brought in to make the numbers up and to feed to prospects who need ring experience.