BoxRec

Coco wrote:I'm gutted, I really wanted the GGG fight and I think we would have won

we?

Bruise Brubaker wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:He did credit Ward, but always added he couldn't sell tickets and he was boring!

He spoke some nonsense but that's a fair comment to be fair...

Not really, Ward sells better in Oakland than Froch did for 90% of his career. And I like watching Ward. Think he's brilliant.

stevedoc wrote:

stujones wrote:

Naz was champion from 1995-2001.

Espinosa was champion from 1995-1999. That is MOST of Hamed's reign, beating guys like McKinney, Gonzalez, Medina (a few times), Ramirez in the process.

He never fought Tony Pep - you've got the wrong Luis Espinosa - Doh

Shall we also not forget the likes of Junior Jones, Kennedy McKinney, Johnny Tapia, Erik freaking well Morales (yes, Erik was a featherweight immediately post Barrera 1 and won a version of the world title BEFORE Hamed's defense vs Sanchez).

No Hamed did not fight ALL the contenders.

OK wrong Espinosa but that lou still wasn't that great

There is always going to someone you can argue for anyone. I immediately said Hatton fought everyone, but then I forgot a certain Mr J Witter (amongst others). Similarly with Froch even, there could be a case the he should have fought someone like Steiglitz who has been a belt holder and a mainstay in the top 6/7 in the division for most of Froch's reign. You could pick holes in most people's resume - even fighters like Ali.

However, I think a WBC belt holder, who was ranked #1 by most Magazine's before Hamed (unranked at Feather) beat the #6 (most magazine's) ranked fighter and WBO champion - and then Hamed gets #1 and held the #2 ranking for 4 of Hamed's six year reign is a pretty big omission.

It doesn't really matter if Espinosa was any good (he was obviously pretty good) or had no chance against Hamed it is the biggest ommision. It would have been better had he fought Espinosa than 3/4 of his title defence (infact as the #2 ranked fighter - more important he fought Espinosa than ANY of his title defences). Same with Calzaghe, we might as well say he fought everyone and dismiss Ottke because he wasn't that great either.

stujones wrote:Groves 2 was a pretty dull contest in the main. Highlight reel KO - but like Hearns vs Hagler has probably gone into the realm of legend based on the over hype by the Sky guys post fight.

Hearns vs Hagler US commentary (not Al Bernstein but the main play by play) was hillarious - basically suggested Hagler was close to being KO'd - let alone the cuts drama.

After the KO vs Groves, Sky seemingly forgot about the previous 8 or so rounds which was nowhere near the first contest. Now, every slightly dull Sky fight - Nick Hawling always says "its hardly Froch/Groves at Wembley is it?"... mmm....

But anyway, don't want to take away anything from Froch - this post was more a response to handsofstone

If Froch missed with that right hand, their heads clashed and one got a cut that ended the fight all of the casuals that bought tickets and PPVs would have been crying that they'd been ripped off and that boxings shit, similar to the aftermath of Mayweather-Pacquaio. Then one punch changed everything and that fight and Froch himself will be remembered for that one moment by most people.

expe wrote:

stujones wrote:Groves 2 was a pretty dull contest in the main. Highlight reel KO - but like Hearns vs Hagler has probably gone into the realm of legend based on the over hype by the Sky guys post fight.

Hearns vs Hagler US commentary (not Al Bernstein but the main play by play) was hillarious - basically suggested Hagler was close to being KO'd - let alone the cuts drama.

After the KO vs Groves, Sky seemingly forgot about the previous 8 or so rounds which was nowhere near the first contest. Now, every slightly dull Sky fight - Nick Hawling always says "its hardly Froch/Groves at Wembley is it?"... mmm....

But anyway, don't want to take away anything from Froch - this post was more a response to handsofstone

If Froch missed with that right hand, their heads clashed and one got a cut that ended the fight all of the casuals that bought tickets and PPVs would have been crying that they'd been ripped off and that boxings poo, similar to the aftermath of Mayweather-Pacquaio. Then one punch changed everything and that fight and Froch himself will be remembered for that one moment by most people.

Really true, particularly the bit I've highlighted - but the KO does not make it a fight of the year contender, unlike most of the others on Handsofstone list (although noticed he also had Bute in there - tremendous display, but the others were tremendous fights).

My gripe is really with Sky since which seem to think it is now one of the fights of our history - and not just as an "event" or the highlight reel KO, but the preceeding 8 or so rounds.

On a slightly similar note, the first 4/5 rounds of Kessler vs Froch 1 didn't get going - although the last 3rd of that fight is up there with anything I've seen and worthy of a fight of the year claim based on those last 4 rounds.... but it does bug me when endings/outcomes seem to over ride the actual contest. We are now getting it the DeGale vs Groves was actually compelling - no it was a dull sparring session.

For me the Bute fight is what I'll remember Froch for - an amazing atmosphere and a super charged performance.

stujones wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

stujones wrote:

Naz was champion from 1995-2001.

Espinosa was champion from 1995-1999. That is MOST of Hamed's reign, beating guys like McKinney, Gonzalez, Medina (a few times), Ramirez in the process.

He never fought Tony Pep - you've got the wrong Luis Espinosa - Doh

Shall we also not forget the likes of Junior Jones, Kennedy McKinney, Johnny Tapia, Erik freaking well Morales (yes, Erik was a featherweight immediately post Barrera 1 and won a version of the world title BEFORE Hamed's defense vs Sanchez).

No Hamed did not fight ALL the contenders.

OK wrong Espinosa but that lou still wasn't that great

There is always going to someone you can argue for anyone. I immediately said Hatton fought everyone, but then I forgot a certain Mr J Witter (amongst others). Similarly with Froch even, there could be a case the he should have fought someone like Steiglitz who has been a belt holder and a mainstay in the top 6/7 in the division for most of Froch's reign. You could pick holes in most people's resume - even fighters like Ali.

However, I think a WBC belt holder, who was ranked #1 by most Magazine's before Hamed (unranked at Feather) beat the #6 (most magazine's) ranked fighter and WBO champion - and then Hamed gets #1 and held the #2 ranking for 4 of Hamed's six year reign is a pretty big omission.

It doesn't really matter if Espinosa was any good (he was obviously pretty good) or had no chance against Hamed it is the biggest ommision. It would have been better had he fought Espinosa than 3/4 of his title defence (infact as the #2 ranked fighter - more important he fought Espinosa than ANY of his title defences). Same with Calzaghe, we might as well say he fought everyone and dismiss Ottke because he wasn't that great either.

Hamed unified with Soto after Soto beat Espinoza.

It's not possible to fight everyone though is it? None of the 'Fabulous Four' went near Mike McCallum but it doesn't take anything away from their achievements, there was probably somebody out there who Sugar Ray Robinson never fought despite having a 200 fight career. It happens, that's the way it goes and always has done.

orbtastic wrote: Hamed unified with Soto after Soto beat Espinoza.

Espinoza beat Soto much more clearly when not shot (which was also during Hamed's reign).

banjo wrote:It's not possible to fight everyone though is it? None of the 'Fabulous Four' went near Mike McCallum but it doesn't take anything away from their achievements, there was probably somebody out there who Sugar Ray Robinson never fought despite having a 200 fight career. It happens, that's the way it goes and always has done.

x20000

Absolutely, as I said there is always someone - BUT, not fighting the universally considered #2 in the division for 4 of your 6 years as champion is a lot worse than Froch who missed out on a few fighters in the lower reaches of the top ten (e.g. Steiglitz, Bika etc).

stujones wrote:

orbtastic wrote: Hamed unified with Soto after Soto beat Espinoza.

Espinoza beat Soto much more clearly when not shot (which was also during Hamed's reign).

So by your logic, Espinoza ducked Hamed as he was world champion first?

It's the same as when Haye moved up to heavyweight, all of a sudden he was ducking all the IBF holders etc.

You can't fight everyone - boxing politics, TV, promoters. boxers overestimating their worth etc.

Norwood was a real threat but nobody wanted to fight him and he wanted more money than he was actually worth. There's an article about him written by his promoter I posted on another thread.

mickey1975 wrote:We're gonna miss him now he's gone.

Of that there is no doubt - whether people like him or not - he provided some great drama in the ring - a real warrior, who carried the torch for English boxing, blowing away lots of myths about our guys being hometown fighters.

Nah, I'm simply saying you cannot say a fighter fought "everyone" in the division when he did not fight the #2 in the division for four years of his 5 and a bit year reign.... and as I said Hamed became #1 by Boxing Monthly after beating the divisions #6 guy in his first fight at the weight - so possibly his #1 ranking was a bit dubious until he fought the likes of Johnson in 1997. That's a pretty clearing omission. Especially when there were PLENTY of fighters not worthy of world title fights who got their chance with Naz.

As we are all saying you cannot fight everyone - I mentioned Froch not fighting Steiglitz.... seriously not supposed to be a dig at Froch - there was really no need for him to fight Steiglitz - likewise Haye - there was no need for him to fight the IBF champion.... although in Haye's case I don't think anyone can say with confidence he "cleaned out" the division (he only stepped into to world class about 3 times). For me also, there was no need for Hatton to fight Witter.

However, Joe Calzaghe NEEDED Otkke and Hamed NEEDED Espinoza. Whilst they might not have been considered fashionable or even a threat - both Ottke and Espinoza were the natural rivals with a legitimate argument for being the #1 in the division for much (not all) of Joe and Naz's reign as a belt holder. These were not merely decent world level belt holders like the likes of Stieglitz, Witter and the IBF cruiser titlists - both Ottke and Espinoza had beaten (legitimately or not in Ottke's case) quite a few world champions and world level fighters in their long reigns.

Obviously works both ways - Ottke needed Joe to solidify his own legacy and Espinoza needed Naz.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:We're gonna miss him now he's gone.

Of that there is no doubt - whether people like him or not - he provided some great drama in the ring - a real warrior, who carried the torch for English boxing, blowing away lots of myths about our guys being hometown fighters.

I do hope you got the pun!

mickey1975 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:We're gonna miss him now he's gone.

Of that there is no doubt - whether people like him or not - he provided some great drama in the ring - a real warrior, who carried the torch for English boxing, blowing away lots of myths about our guys being hometown fighters.

I do hope you got the pun!

It sailed over my head Mickey - what have I missed?

They were both HBO (once Hamed broke with the Kelly fight) so the fight could have happened at some point but you can't really blame him for unifying with the other holders (WBA politics aside) but depends whose ratings you give the most credence to in order bolster someone's standing.

Ring magazine consistently rated the other featherweight belt holders above him, they were basically waiting for his chin to fail him again. As soon as he lost they dropped him right down the rankings again.

It's the name of the smash hit song Enzo Calzaghe wrote when Joe retired... Joe was doing backing vocals with his uncle. It's great, I put it on in the car all the time.

Exoddus wrote:I knew he would. Not being respectful as I do admire him. He ended up like Calzaghe. Inflated self worth to the point where the thought of losing was truly terrifying, call it an ego I guess. Seeing what Froch became after the first Groves fight. It must have taken a hell of a lot to have stepped back into the ring against Groves again. I do admire him for that. When I read he was crying before the fight in the changing room I wasn't surprised at all.

He was never going to fight again. Great fighter and I hope he has a nice life away from boxing.

Crying in the changing room? What's all this? I read that he couldn't get motivated for Chelsea George so therefore he entered the ring not having trained thoroughly - which sounds just like a good excuse - but not when set against the outcome of the second fight.
Didn't hear anything about this crying though...

It's a good move, the right move. Was it the desired move though or did the Mexican just get himself too fat and stoned a couple of times too many?

mickey1975 wrote:It's the name of the smash hit song Enzo Calzaghe wrote when Joe retired... Joe was doing backing vocals with his uncle. It's great, I put it on in the car all the time.

You'r being ironic there I guess(hope)?

expe wrote:

stujones wrote:Groves 2 was a pretty dull contest in the main. Highlight reel KO - but like Hearns vs Hagler has probably gone into the realm of legend based on the over hype by the Sky guys post fight.

Hearns vs Hagler US commentary (not Al Bernstein but the main play by play) was hillarious - basically suggested Hagler was close to being KO'd - let alone the cuts drama.

After the KO vs Groves, Sky seemingly forgot about the previous 8 or so rounds which was nowhere near the first contest. Now, every slightly dull Sky fight - Nick Hawling always says "its hardly Froch/Groves at Wembley is it?"... mmm....

But anyway, don't want to take away anything from Froch - this post was more a response to handsofstone

If Froch missed with that right hand, their heads clashed and one got a cut that ended the fight all of the casuals that bought tickets and PPVs would have been crying that they'd been ripped off and that boxings poo, similar to the aftermath of Mayweather-Pacquaio. Then one punch changed everything and that fight and Froch himself will be remembered for that one moment by most people.

No he won't. Fight was on Sky for a start and PPV at that, wasn't it? And as for cuts that stop fights from clashes of heads....that's some imagination you've got..

stujones wrote:

expe wrote:

stujones wrote:Groves 2 was a pretty dull contest in the main. Highlight reel KO - but like Hearns vs Hagler has probably gone into the realm of legend based on the over hype by the Sky guys post fight.

Hearns vs Hagler US commentary (not Al Bernstein but the main play by play) was hillarious - basically suggested Hagler was close to being KO'd - let alone the cuts drama.

After the KO vs Groves, Sky seemingly forgot about the previous 8 or so rounds which was nowhere near the first contest. Now, every slightly dull Sky fight - Nick Hawling always says "its hardly Froch/Groves at Wembley is it?"... mmm....

But anyway, don't want to take away anything from Froch - this post was more a response to handsofstone

If Froch missed with that right hand, their heads clashed and one got a cut that ended the fight all of the casuals that bought tickets and PPVs would have been crying that they'd been ripped off and that boxings poo, similar to the aftermath of Mayweather-Pacquaio. Then one punch changed everything and that fight and Froch himself will be remembered for that one moment by most people.

Really true, particularly the bit I've highlighted - but the KO does not make it a fight of the year contender, unlike most of the others on Handsofstone list (although noticed he also had Bute in there - tremendous display, but the others were tremendous fights).

My gripe is really with Sky since which seem to think it is now one of the fights of our history - and not just as an "event" or the highlight reel KO, but the preceeding 8 or so rounds.

On a slightly similar note, the first 4/5 rounds of Kessler vs Froch 1 didn't get going - although the last 3rd of that fight is up there with anything I've seen and worthy of a fight of the year claim based on those last 4 rounds.... but it does bug me when endings/outcomes seem to over ride the actual contest. We are now getting it the DeGale vs Groves was actually compelling - no it was a dull sparring session.

For me the Bute fight is what I'll remember Froch for - an amazing atmosphere and a super charged performance.

Did Bute show up though? I'm at a loss to think of another occasion where an IBF champion, or otherwise, has climbed into a ring and done so little to hold on to his belt. It was staggering, as though he didn't even think it was possible to be going back home with it.
At least with Abraham you could tell that he was smaller and at a loss to come in past the jab. Bute just stayed on the ropes and got whacked.

magwitch wrote:
Did Bute show up though?

Bute just stayed on the ropes and got whacked.

Bute actually started on the front foot, and Froch relatively cagey and on the back foot. Bute tried landing his money punch, the left to the liver, he got the punch off pretty hard and you could see Froch eat it up and you could see Froch's face 'I took your best shot, now watch out' and he countered Bute back, hard. Bute got actively knocked onto the ropes from that point, he didn't start the fight passively at all.

orbtastic wrote:They were both HBO (once Hamed broke with the Kelly fight) so the fight could have happened at some point but you can't really blame him for unifying with the other holders (WBA politics aside) but depends whose ratings you give the most credence to in order bolster someone's standing.

Ring magazine consistently rated the other featherweight belt holders above him, they were basically waiting for his chin to fail him again. As soon as he lost they dropped him right down the rankings again.

Good points, but I do think if Hamed (and Calzaghe was the same) fought a who's who of the division but missed out on Espinoza (Ottke/Beyer) then yes I would agree. However, for both brits there were plenty of non-worthy challengers on their resume - and I'm not talking about the bulked up ex Bantam champion - there were fighters on Hamed's resume who had never fought at World class and never did again.

Personally, I always considered Espinoza a better fighter (at the time of Hamed's reign until his defeat) than Boom Boom Johnson who looked shop worn some time before hand and don't get me started on how lucky Vasquez was to be WBA champion at the time of the Hamed fight.

But yes, if Hamed's reign would have been full of the likes of Vasquez, Soto, Johnson, Kelley, McCullough, Medina and even Bungu and Ingle - then I wouldn't begrudge him missing Espinoza as much - but the likes of Caberra, Molina, Alicea, Lawal - some of these are comparable (almost) to some of the worst of Joe C's reign - and there were others in the same sort of line as Yusef Mack (e.g. Hardy, Augie Sanchez, Baddilo etc).

Counter-puncher wrote:

magwitch wrote:
Did Bute show up though?

Bute just stayed on the ropes and got whacked.

Bute actually started on the front foot, and Froch relatively cagey and on the back foot. Bute tried landing his money punch, the left to the liver, he got the punch off pretty hard and you could see Froch eat it up and you could see Froch's face 'I took your best shot, now watch out' and he countered Bute back, hard. Bute got actively knocked onto the ropes from that point, he didn't start the fight passively at all.

Fair enough, I've got to use the Wenger defence on that one in that I never saw the incident, not in full anyway. Glad he never just gave it over. Bute had a pretty respectable record and had not been 'manufactured'.

Personally, they performance that embodies or is most synonymous with Froch for me is his win against Damon Hague. I'm kidding, it's Jermain Taylor.
I believe that Taylor is currently doing time. Sounds like a bit of loose cannon.

magwitch wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

magwitch wrote:
Did Bute show up though?

Bute just stayed on the ropes and got whacked.

Bute actually started on the front foot, and Froch relatively cagey and on the back foot. Bute tried landing his money punch, the left to the liver, he got the punch off pretty hard and you could see Froch eat it up and you could see Froch's face 'I took your best shot, now watch out' and he countered Bute back, hard. Bute got actively knocked onto the ropes from that point, he didn't start the fight passively at all.

Fair enough, I've got to use the Wenger defence on that one in that I never saw the incident, not in full anyway. Glad he never just gave it over. Bute had a pretty respectable record and had not been 'manufactured'.

Hmmm, who had Bute actually beaten though? I'd say he got brutally exposed the first time he stepped up to genuine world level. Don't want to take anything away from Froch's performance, but Bute was nowhere near as good as touted.