Should Carl Froch be admitted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame?

[Freedom2013]

What do you think?

Has he done enough in his career to be worthy of the IBHOF?

[palooka]

I think so, he's been a top league operator for years, has been iinvolved in some great bouts and has come back from adversity to win - Ward will be a shoo in for inclusion as the very best of this era and out of Froch and Kessler I think Froch is the 2nd best. Anyone who can hold their nerve in front of 80,000 screaming fans should be in the HOF.

[Baby Face Finster]

I think the criteria should be tougher than what it currently is, but because it isn't, I see no reason why he shouldn't be admitted. Seeing as Barry McGuigan, Carlos Palomino and some other questionable inductees are in there is no way Froch doesn't deserve the same accolade.

[jockpunk]

I don't think he should, but overall, i think it is way to easy to get into the boxing HOF. Froch is a good fighter, but to me the hof (in any sport) shoud be for the true greats. Froch was never even the best fighter in his own weight class, never won titles in mutiple classes, and while he was in several very entertaining fights, he was never in any true classics.

Good fighter, hot wife, not HOF worthy.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Well, if Barry McGuigan is in there, then Froch should be.

You don't have to win fights in multiple weight classes to get in the HOF, what's the relevance of that?

[jockpunk]

Well, if Barry McGuigan is in there, then Froch should be.

You don't have to win fights in multiple weight classes to get in the HOF, what's the relevance of that?

It generally attests to a fighters "lb for lb" ability which most would consider a factor when assessing a fighters greatness. While there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of the "greats" (at least of modern times) moved between and won titles in a few weight classes. As I indicated, I believe that the HOF should be reserved for the greats.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Well, if Barry McGuigan is in there, then Froch should be.

You don't have to win fights in multiple weight classes to get in the HOF, what's the relevance of that?

It generally attests to a fighters "lb for lb" ability which most would consider a factor when assessing a fighters greatness. While there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of the "greats" (at least of modern times) moved between and won titles in a few weight classes. As I indicated, I believe that the HOF should be reserved for the greats.

That's partly because ever since Ray Leonard, champion fighters campaigning below 175, tend to hop up the weights, to make more money, and chase big money fights.

You don't have to do that to get in however.

[jockpunk]

I agree but if you don't, I think you should dominate at a given weight class for a long time. Examples would be hopkins at 160, hagler, kosta tszyu, ivan calderon, ect. Froch was very good but never a dominant smw.

[Horse]

Yes.

[Fuzzy Warbles]

NO

[Nightmare Roy]

Yes, just for having the balls to face the best, a rarity in the modern era!

[samwbr]

Yes, just for having the balls to face the best, a rarity in the modern era!

Agreed, never ducked a challenge, actively sought the best in the division and didn't need home advantage to take a fight.

[hurricanemitch14]

Id say no but hell they let Kostya in so they lowered the bar. Froch did a whole lot more than Kostya so..........

[Cent0089]

I think YES. He was fighting at super middleweight when this division was at PEAK. Man, he brings 80 thousand people to a boxing match . He faced best fighters, defeated many of them, and what is important, in very entertaining fights. Schooling Abraham and Bute when he was underdog and practicaly ruin career of this two. Scores come from behind KO´s in Taylor and Groves fight. Very, very good brawls with Pascal, Kessler and Johnson. Unlike many british fighters he fought outside UK many times. Lowlight of his career is last year, multiple BS about returning/retiring/oponents. But still, this man deserve to be in HoF

[world ranked]

Gatti in, so to me Froch deserves to aswell.

[expe]

Well, if Barry McGuigan is in there, then Froch should be.

You don't have to win fights in multiple weight classes to get in the HOF, what's the relevance of that?

McGuigan shouldn't be in there if we're talking purely in terms of boxing. I don't think the standard to get into the hall of fame should be, is he better than the worst fighter in there? I don't have an issue with McGuigan being in the hall of fame, purely because of the influence he had and the way he united people in the middle of the Troubles. In some cases you have to look beyond purely ability and achievements and McGuigan is one of those. Gatti's another that gets brought up in debates like these, if Gatti's in then so and so has to make it in, but again, Gatti shouldn't be in there in many ways, but those three fights with Ward mean he fully deserves his place IMO and Ward should be in there alongside him.

It proves that the fighter isn't just relying on size and strength to win fights and having the ability to beat a naturally bigger man is a clear sign of class IMO. A lot of great fighters in the past have done it and generally winning world titles in more than one weight is an indication that the fighter has beaten a number of quality fighters, sticking to one weight means that there's only so many to beat. It shouldn't be absolutely necessary to make it in, but it's the sort of thing that should definitely be looked upon favourably when considering a fighter for induction.

As for the question posed by the OP, in my opinion Froch shouldn't be admitted. I just don't see a big enough case for his inclusion, he was never the best in his division, there's no win on his record against a fighter that should make the hall of fame, no amazing fight that will be talked about for decades to come and he didn't transcend the sport in a way that in all fairness, very few fighters have done. He did fight a run of very good opposition and he has the KO of Groves at Wembley in front of 80,000 people, which is what he will likely be remembered for most, but a run of good opponents and a KO in a big fight doesn't make him a hall of famer for me.

[Horse]

As for the question posed by the OP, in my opinion Froch shouldn't be admitted. I just don't see a big enough case for his inclusion, he was never the best in his division, there's no win on his record against a fighter that should make the hall of fame, no amazing fight that will be talked about for decades to come and he didn't transcend the sport in a way that in all fairness, very few fighters have done. He did fight a run of very good opposition and he has the KO of Groves at Wembley in front of 80,000 people, which is what he will likely be remembered for most, but a run of good opponents and a KO in a big fight doesn't make him a hall of famer for me.

You are wrong.

He was a top 10 P4P fighter for years and that alone is good enough for the Hall of Fame.

You are setting standards far above that which the HoF does.

[Ricky_]

Gatti's in so why not?

[expe]

As for the question posed by the OP, in my opinion Froch shouldn't be admitted. I just don't see a big enough case for his inclusion, he was never the best in his division, there's no win on his record against a fighter that should make the hall of fame, no amazing fight that will be talked about for decades to come and he didn't transcend the sport in a way that in all fairness, very few fighters have done. He did fight a run of very good opposition and he has the KO of Groves at Wembley in front of 80,000 people, which is what he will likely be remembered for most, but a run of good opponents and a KO in a big fight doesn't make him a hall of famer for me.

You are wrong.

He was a top 10 P4P fighter for years and that alone is good enough for the Hall of Fame.

You are setting standards far above that which the HoF does.

He never reached that level IMO, possibly briefly after the second Kessler fight I could see a case but I would never have had him close to making it in to the top 10, especially after he was completely outclassed by Ward and he certainly wasn't top 10 for years.

The Hall's standards are too low IMO, because they induct three fighters each year some fighters make it in that shouldn't really be in there just to make up the numbers in some years. Considering that it took nearly a decade for Naz to be inducted, I don't see why Froch would be guaranteed of a place.

[Horse]

He never reached that level IMO, possibly briefly after the second Kessler fight I could see a case but I would never have had him close to making it in to the top 10, especially after he was completely outclassed by Ward and he certainly wasn't top 10 for years.

The Hall's standards are too low IMO, because they induct three fighters each year some fighters make it in that shouldn't really be in there just to make up the numbers in some years. Considering that it took nearly a decade for Naz to be inducted, I don't see why Froch would be guaranteed of a place.

Froch was a consensus top 10 P4P fighter for years.

You seem like a typical pretentious British boxing fan who thinks that he's clever by undermining the best British fighters.

Froch is fully deserving of a place in the Hall of Fame. Anyone who thinks otherwise can go to hell.

[sucracristo]

it's not the hall of talent or the hall of abc titles. it's the hall of fame.
was he a star in the sport? if yes, then he's in. i would argue for froch
over chris john or more accomplished boxers on paper, because of the
stage froch peformed on. if you think of the top names in boxing during
this era, not the best technically or the most paper titles or the most boastful,
but the names that carry the sport, froch is undoubtedly one of the top names
in this era anyone would think of. for the same reason, tyson goes in before
lewis, de la hoya goes in before mosley and trinidad, paq before marquez, etc.
it all depends who else is on the ballot in a given year, but at some point froch
should make it in.

[punchoutsb]

Yes

[dickbelden]

yes--- the 1st yr he is eligible.

[PredatorHayds]

No. I don't understand how someone who was never the best in his division can be included in the IBHOF.
But like has already been mentioned. It doesn't seem to be that hard to get in so I fully expect to see him being a first year inductee.

[Deadendgeneration]

As others have said, at current standards he's a shoe in. Should the standards be higher? Well that's a matter of preference. Does anyone actually go to the hall of fame? How many fighters are in it? Is it like a museum? Can you do it justice in a day?