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

[stujones]

If he is in then a host of other fighters should be in also.

I agree with expe's post re Barry McGuigan - it is not just the boxing exploits he is in for, remember it is a Hall of Fame and at one stage he was amongst the most famous athletes in the UK - Froch never hit those heights. Plus he stayed in the sport and became an internationally renowned commentator. Sure, that doesn't mean the likes of Jim Watt and Sean O Grady should be considered but Barry was a top top fighter also for the short time his flame was alight.

Gatti - yes, I can really see the point here. This sounds horrible but if he was alive now I don't think he would be in. In saying that his Ward trilogy was something - and those fights alone put both guys on the map. People forget that around the time he beat Reulas he was in many top 10 P4P lists. He was very highly thought off and that's why his fight with Robinson was considered the upset of the year in 1998. He was a world champion off and on for 10 years, so he wasn't a terrible fighter either. I think though a huge part of the reason why he is inducted is because he has died.

Naz is another I have an issue with - some gapping holes in his resume and is 0-1 against the Mexican Trio who were around in his era. He did nothing in his career to suggest he would not have been 0-3. HOWEVER, I would again have in him a hall of fame above Froch because no doubt he transcended the sport and, like McGuigan, was a massive athlete in the UK - so I can see why he is in.

Froch hasn't really done enough in terms of his career or his stature to warrant a place, particularly first ballot. Also it is an international boxing hall of fame and not Hall of Fame of Britain, Ireland, Mexico and USA - why not consider someone like Ottke - despised though he is was a huge star in Germany, or Henry Maske - both of these transcended the sport in Germany like it or not.

For similar reasons, I think Kessler is more worthy than Froch and off course, Hatton.

[phillykid]

for todays standards, yes he should.

[Perseus]

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?

Justice in a day?
You can see every bit of that dump in less than an hour.
I would not recommend going out of your way to visit the IBHOF.
If you want to go there on induction weekend to meet the boxers that's great but there is no reason to go there any other time.
We stopped there after visiting a relative in New York a few years ago. It was tiny, over priced and didn't appear well maintained.

As for the thread: I wouldn't say a Froch induction is a given, not sure if I would vote for him or not. Obviously it depends on who else is on the ballot.

[banjo]

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?

Didn't McGuigan beat a genuinely great fighter to win his title though? I was only 1 at the time.

[dominik]

IMO the hall is too big. anyone who wins a handfull of title fights seems to get in. IMO the HOF should be for guys who dominated their Division for an Extended period or at least beat other all time greats if that was not possible.

but the way the HOF Standard is of course he is a HOFer.

[caldo2025]

I've been critical of Froch lately with the whole GGG tweet and though I don't think Froch is half as good as the British People do on this site, I can't deny that he belongs in the HOF. The Boxing HOF is not exactly a vault in a Swiss Bank. If Sylvester Stallone can get in for pretending to be a boxer, Froch should be a first ballot.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I've been critical of Froch lately with the whole GGG tweet and though I don't think Froch is half as good as the British People do on this site, I can't deny that he belongs in the HOF. The Boxing HOF is not exactly a vault in a Swiss Bank. If Sylvester Stallone can get in for pretending to be a boxer, Froch should be a first ballot.

I don't think anyone in Britain is under any illusions about how good Froch is, but what we admire (speaking if I may for my countrymen) is his sheer grit, determination and space-hopper like cojones - he's taken on every challenge, won most, and lost a couple, and for me personally, he's got everything mentality-wise I want to see in a fighter.

That is worth admiration.

[Horse]

The Hall of Fame has let in three modern boxers (post-1943) for the last 10 years, before that they let in 4 or 5 a year.

Is Froch a top 30 fighter from the last decade? Yes. Based on three a year then that's enough to qualify.


There are currently 124 boxers in the modern category. So 124 / 73 = 1.698 boxers per year.

Is Froch a top 17 fighter from the last decade? I'd say yes. Based on 1.7 entrants a year that is enough to qualify.


Is there a better British fighter than Froch who isn't in the Hall of Fame?

[danamba7]

Listing his CV has been done to death but for me it's HOF worthy. Since he first won a world title against Pascal in 08 he's fought 11 times in a tough division (5 times outside the UK) with just one Gimme against Mack. his route to the world title wasn't exactly the easiest either. In modern day boxing this is a breath of fresh air.

If HOF was strictly reserved for the absolute elite, I'd say no, but considering some of the other HOF fighters, I think Froch deserves it.

[Crease]

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

For me, he's a definite YES. He's had a list of opponents which any fighter would have been proud of, and coming out of all of it - he only lost 2 bouts... That's pretty impressive.

And that's even before you consider that he is a FOUR TIME World Champion, fighting the best opposition of his weight class, rather than hopping between the weights and handpicking opponents.

Carl fought all of 'em - well the ones who would actually step up to the plate and take the fight against him. He should be a role model for ever young aspiring boxer.

[johnswan1]

Is there a better British fighter than Froch who isn't in the Hall of Fame?

A case could be made for Benn and Eubank. Both Benn and Eubank won world titles in two weight divisions whereas Carl has only done it in one. I personally think Froch would have beaten both of them, his level of opposition was generally higher, and he challenged himself against the best in his division, but I'm not convinced any opponent Froch beat when he beat them was better than a prime Benn or prime Eubank.

[stujones]

I agree John Swann - I think there is a good case for both Benn and Eubank being higher ranked than Froch - although I personally would rank Froch higher in terms of achievement, but Eubank did have 19 world title wins under his belt - isn't that still a British record or did Calzaghe overtake it?

Plus Eubank especially was a lot more famous than Froch - he and Nigel did what Froch did 22 years before that (fight in a football stadium).

Yes, it's not all about the fame - there will be no room for Bruno, but all things considered I think there is a case for Eubank as strong as Froch's - and Benn for that matter....

And off course Ricky Hatton is not in there yet. I would rank Hatton higher than Froch.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Is there a better British fighter than Froch who isn't in the Hall of Fame?

A case could be made for Benn and Eubank. Both Benn and Eubank won world titles in two weight divisions whereas Carl has only done it in one. I personally think Froch would have beaten both of them, his level of opposition was generally higher, and he challenged himself against the best in his division, but I'm not convinced any opponent Froch beat when he beat them was better than a prime Benn or prime Eubank.

I agree, I have to admit, I assumed that both men were in there already. They surely should be.

The one knock is that neither of them ever faced the best men in the division, on RJJ and Toney, whilst Froch fought all the top boys.

[Horse]

And off course Ricky Hatton is not in there yet. I would rank Hatton higher than Froch.

Hatton isn't eligible yet. He'll be in there pretty soon after he's been inactive for 5 years.

[stujones]

Is there a better British fighter than Froch who isn't in the Hall of Fame?

A case could be made for Benn and Eubank. Both Benn and Eubank won world titles in two weight divisions whereas Carl has only done it in one. I personally think Froch would have beaten both of them, his level of opposition was generally higher, and he challenged himself against the best in his division, but I'm not convinced any opponent Froch beat when he beat them was better than a prime Benn or prime Eubank.

I agree, I have to admit, I assumed that both men were in there already. They surely should be.

The one knock is that neither of them ever faced the best men in the division, on RJJ and Toney, whilst Froch fought all the top boys.

Good point James, the issue I have with all three of them is that none of them have been ranked #1 in their division. Froch might have fought most of the top boys but he lost to the two at the very top and never got #1 in the division. Ricky Hatton might have lost to his two top boys but did beat the number #1 in the division. Even Arturo Gatti, possibly the most controversial of inductees was the #1 Super Feather for a time.

I think if they start considering fighters who were not #1 in the division, even briefly, then they need to re-consider the eligability rules. Do fighters like Bruno start being considered then? Do we start to seriously consider the likes of Henry Maske, Dariusz Michaelswecki then?

For me none of the three should be in, but if one of them does make it then the case could (and maybe should) be made for all three.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Nowhere does it state that to get in you have to have been the number one consensus champ in your division.

[stujones]

Nowhere does it state that to get in you have to have been the number one consensus champ in your division.

I know, but I do think they need to possibly review the eligibility - even if it makes the IBHOF once every two years.

If Eubank gets in then in terms of the world wide Super Middleweight scene it would encourage mediocrity - Eubank was never near #1 in the division. Who then, Steve Robinson? Will it just become anyone who has just held a version of the world title for a year.

[SNG]

It's about more than titles for me, Froch is a boxer that has helped define the last several years of boxing, for that he should be in IMO. He is also a four time world champion. I don't think comparisons with Maske and Michalczewski are fair, Froch has fought home and away against the best fighters in his division, win, lose or draw. And I'm not his biggest fan at all, but I don't see how he doesn't qualify personally.

[PredatorHayds]

What about Randy Turpin and John Conteh are they in?
Surely Conteh is in?

[Evander]

I'm not sure what the criteria is to make the hall of fame anymore so I'll reserve judgement.
But on a guess I would have thought there would be a spot in there somewhere for Carl Froch.
Carl took a lot of hard fights against boxers close to their prime and fought at home and on the road, as I see it Froch is a very highly respected boxer.

[Horse]

What about Randy Turpin and John Conteh are they in?
Surely Conteh is in?

Turpin is in, but Conteh isn't.

Honeyghan isn't in either.

[johnswan1]

Nowhere does it state that to get in you have to have been the number one consensus champ in your division.

I know, but I do think they need to possibly review the eligibility - even if it makes the IBHOF once every two years.

If Eubank gets in then in terms of the world wide Super Middleweight scene it would encourage mediocrity - Eubank was never near #1 in the division. Who then, Steve Robinson? Will it just become anyone who has just held a version of the world title for a year.

I don't agree with having a #1 ranking in the division as being a key criteria. Ward may just be the best Super Middleweight of all time, and is undoubtedly one of the best fighters of his generation, so to automatically rule out the #2 of the division would be unfair. Carl has been a near universal top 10 P4P player for a number of years, while #1 ranked fighters in lesser divisions have come and gone, without ever reaching similar levels of respect and P4P consideration.

You could argue that only P4P players should get in, but then you have the problem of P4P rankings often being controversial. Look to the Ring for example, the supposed bible of boxing gives the final say on its P4P rankings to a single man - Chuck Giampa, who had Adrien Broner as a top 10 player on alleged potential. A few fights later against mediocre opposition (in a P4P sense), he has struggled to beat Malignaggi and gets comfortably beaten by both Maidana and Porter.

And what about Cotto? He has never beaten the man of his division either, yet is a four weight champion. He never unified at Light Welter, at Welter he was bested by Margarito and Pacquiao, while at Light Middle he lost to Mayweather and Trout. His Middleweight reign is the weakest of all, especially given the catchweights, but he's still considered by many (not me) as a first ballot Hall of Famer and one of the best fighters of his generation.

There is no perfect criteria for the Hall of Fame, and for that reason the current ballot system is fine with me. Popular fighters such as Gatti and McGuigan have debatable merit if you are looking only at their record - who they beat and who they didn't beat. But it doesn't tell the full story of their impact on the sport or outside of the sport. These men will still be remembered long after the memory of more accomplished fighters have faded, and for that reason they deserve their induction IMO.

[stujones]

Nowhere does it state that to get in you have to have been the number one consensus champ in your division.

I know, but I do think they need to possibly review the eligibility - even if it makes the IBHOF once every two years.

If Eubank gets in then in terms of the world wide Super Middleweight scene it would encourage mediocrity - Eubank was never near #1 in the division. Who then, Steve Robinson? Will it just become anyone who has just held a version of the world title for a year.

I don't agree with having a #1 ranking in the division as being a key criteria. Ward may just be the best Super Middleweight of all time, and is undoubtedly one of the best fighters of his generation, so to automatically rule out the #2 of the division would be unfair. Carl has been a near universal top 10 P4P player for a number of years, while #1 ranked fighters in lesser divisions have come and gone, without ever reaching similar levels of respect and P4P consideration.

You could argue that only P4P players should get in, but then you have the problem of P4P rankings often being controversial. Look to the Ring for example, the supposed bible of boxing gives the final say on its P4P rankings to a single man - Chuck Giampa, who had Adrien Broner as a top 10 player on alleged potential. A few fights later against mediocre opposition (in a P4P sense), he has struggled to beat Malignaggi and gets comfortably beaten by both Maidana and Porter.

And what about Cotto? He has never beaten the man of his division either, yet is a four weight champion. He never unified at Light Welter, at Welter he was bested by Margarito and Pacquiao, while at Light Middle he lost to Mayweather and Trout. His Middleweight reign is the weakest of all, especially given the catchweights, but he's still considered by many (not me) as a first ballot Hall of Famer and one of the best fighters of his generation.

There is no perfect criteria for the Hall of Fame, and for that reason the current ballot system is fine with me. Popular fighters such as Gatti and McGuigan have debatable merit if you are looking only at their record - who they beat and who they didn't beat. But it doesn't tell the full story of their impact on the sport or outside of the sport. These men will still be remembered long after the memory of more accomplished fighters have faded, and for that reason they deserve their induction IMO.

Excellent post and I don't know what the answer should be. However, I am concerned that it might get a little too easy to get in. I think as with most hall of fames, if they are annual events then eventually the number of eligible 1st tier athletes will dimishing and the hall start picking from the 2nd tier.... and then 3rd tier etc.

You make very valid points re McGuigan and Gatti - personally, whilst Gatti would never have been forgotton by the boxing fraternity, I still think his death has played a huge part in the memory of the non-boxing fraternity. A tremendously popular fighter, but I would have in a similar bracket (on all things) as someone like Jose Luis Castillo - achievements, fairly similar - both could headline PPV cards and both involved in some wars that will be forever etched in the memory banks. However, I am not convinced Castillo is a first balloter - and is that because he ending his career in a sad and long winded manner.

McGuigan for me, in terms of popularity, for a brief period was a massive star. Not many Brits have headlined in Vegas - McGuigan did. A peak Thomas Hearns was on HIS undercard! He filled Football stadiums and also for a brief period was possibly considered the #1 in his division. He was so much more popular and well known than Froch. He wouldn't need to compete in reality TV shows with fame hungry wannabees - in 1985/1986 he was too well known.

Froch's claims for me benefit because he is a Brit. Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing his resume at all, but had he been American I think there would even be a conversation - as he would be not nearly as big a "star". Yes, in the UK he's filled Wembley and headlined some big selling PPV's attraction. In the states, I don't think he has even been the headline act of a PPV? He fought the best, but he lost his big one quite big and many Americans' (and brits for that matter) think he lost to Andre Dirrell. Yes, Hatton lost his big two big also - but he also beat the man in the division before stepping up for Floyd / Manny. There have been plenty of long reigning champion who fought the best but would not be considered (I don't think) hall of fame worthy because as they were Amercian their achievements are considered average. Had they been Brits, they would have been considered Icons - fighters like Kevin Kelley, Virgill Hill etc.

Which again leads me to the question, is the INTERNATIONAL hall of fame too bias for British and American ICONS and not considering world boxing. Why isn't Henry Maske being considered, the man was a german sporting icon, a longstanding champion - had some good defences and did try to fight the man in the division at the time (Virgil Hill) and lost pretty decisively, just as Froch did. The man was as big in Germany as Naz was in the UK.

Dare I say the words Sven Ottke again.... and also Dariusz Michaelsweski - during his prime amongst the most famous people in Poland.

[caldo2025]

I've been critical of Froch lately with the whole GGG tweet and though I don't think Froch is half as good as the British People do on this site, I can't deny that he belongs in the HOF. The Boxing HOF is not exactly a vault in a Swiss Bank. If Sylvester Stallone can get in for pretending to be a boxer, Froch should be a first ballot.

I don't think anyone in Britain is under any illusions about how good Froch is, but what we admire (speaking if I may for my countrymen) is his sheer grit, determination and space-hopper like cojones - he's taken on every challenge, won most, and lost a couple, and for me personally, he's got everything mentality-wise I want to see in a fighter.

That is worth admiration.

I've never watched a Froch fight hoping he would lose so I would call myself a Froch fan as well but some Brit's on this site really have a distorted view of Froch's career. Some have him in the all time best boxers in the world list and that's not something I could do. Grit, determination and "cajones", i'm right there with you. Froch's attitutde and heart will be missed because you don't see many boxers with those tools.

[stujones]

Good point Caldo.

I think it is very valid point you make, personally whilst I have had Froch as the #1 P4P in Britain pretty much since Calzaghe retired I have never had him in top 10 in the world. I find it hard to put a fighter in the top 10 P4P who lost so decisively in his natural weight division to another fighter - just a personal take. Yes, there have been instances (for example, I still think Manny Pacquiao is a p4p top 10 fighter comfortably) but these are in the minority and usually involve fighters with mightly impressive resume's before the loss (Mosleys loss vs Forrest in fight 1 is another example - but he was around the P4P #2 at the time of the loss and he stayed in my top 10).

However, many websites have had Froch well within the top 10 for many a year and most directly after the Bute fight. Why? Bute although considered quite a warm favourite was not considered a proven P4P fighter and Mikkel Kessler has never been ranked near the P4P top 10 - at the time of the Bute fight, Froch still hadn't avenge Kessler loss - but somehow got ranked way ahead of him on a global P4P scale.