BoxRec

Unfrotunately Froch is very limited and his fight with Taylor exposed many weaknesses. He's a very good fighter who achieved something great in winning a world belt, but he was outboxed by Taylor and pretty much mocked for most of the fight. Yes, it was great that he won the fight, but he was several levels below Taylor. As for Froch wanting big fights, well he will certainly find it easier to get them than the likes of Calzaghe because of the percieved risk / reward ratio - he has looked beatable in last two fights, plus Taylor had nothing to lose in gunning for him in that he was an ex-champion on the way down with losses on his record, challanging an undefeated young strong fighter.

I really do hope he does well, but Calzaghe was a much better fighter and I doubt Froch could ever get close to Joe's achievements.

p.s. Someone on here tried to compare Froch's propensity to defend with his head with Calzaghe - which I think is laughable - when Joe was on form he'd make opponents miss over and over then unload lethal ultra fast combos on them. Froch is miles and miles from that type of ability. Ultimately he is just too slow. The performance against Froch was pretty much dire for the majority of the fight.

Froch also outboxed Pascal. Pascal boxed and fought brilliantly against Adrian Diaconu. Froch can make his strength, persistence and reach count. Despite a nervous start, he was not far behind v Taylor. The finish was spectacular, an avalanche of shots that toppled a guy who had been on pound for pound lists.

Froch can look ropey, but you can't always look a million dollars in life and death fights, v worthy opponents. I think we have gotten far too used to seeing Fighter A batter No Hoper B. Froch has that winning quality, that slicker or more polishied looking guys just don't have. Mac flopping v Afolabi, Cook just...flopping v that Puerto Rican...Khan crumpling v Prescott...those boys are lacking something.

Bottom line: Carl Froch fights through adversity and doesn't need wrapping in cotton wool. I believe he can make technical improvements. But when you're going for the hardest fights you can't always look comfortable and polished. Benn didn't always look too polished but look at some of the stuff he did.

Unfortunately talent - or lac of - is confused with fast shoeshine shots and glossed by mismatches...Froch is giving us fights. That is better entertainment than a 20 defence padded so called legend. Would we seriously wait 8 years for Carl Froch to step up?

Autobarn wrote:Froch also outboxed Pascal. Pascal boxed and fought brilliantly against Adrian Diaconu. Froch can make his strength, persistence and reach count. Despite a nervous start, he was not far behind v Taylor. The finish was spectacular, an avalanche of shots that toppled a guy who had been on pound for pound lists.

Froch can look ropey, but you can't always look a million dollars in life and death fights, v worthy opponents. I think we have gotten far too used to seeing Fighter A batter No Hoper B. Froch has that winning quality, that slicker or more polishied looking guys just don't have. Mac flopping v Afolabi, Cook just...flopping v that Puerto Rican...Khan crumpling v Prescott...those boys are lacking something.

Bottom line: Carl Froch fights through adversity and doesn't need wrapping in cotton wool. I believe he can make technical improvements. But when you're going for the hardest fights you can't always look comfortable and polished. Benn didn't always look too polished but look at some of the stuff he did.

Unfortunately talent - or lac of - is confused with fast shoeshine shots and glossed by mismatches...Froch is giving us fights. That is better entertainment than a 20 defence padded so called legend. Would we seriously wait 8 years for Carl Froch to step up?

Hmm not convinced. Without that KO he would have been soundly beaten and out boxed. Of course I see the value in the acheivement of finding the KO after being dominated for a lot of the fight, but IMO it demonstrated that he is not the best at his weight. Hopkins (who I dislike as a fighter) would dismantle him, as would Kessler. If Froch actually does go for the "hardest" fights I think he will lose, hope he wont but I think that is what will happen.

Your last comment about confusing talent really is a stupid comment - anyone who knows anything about boxing can see how hugely talented Cazalghe was, repeating the same old bollox won't convince people. The most respected boxers ex and current acknowledge Calzaghes achievements and abilities, yet you get the odd prat on here who is very bitter and tries to convince the world that the likes of Froch is anyway near as good.

In fact its not fair to Froch to make comparisons. Let him be his own fighter. Clearly he not as talented and will almost certainly be beaten by the very top fighters, but he has done well thus far.

Froch is a special talent , by far the UK's most sellable fighter .
He can beat anyone and has a bright future.

HBO love him
Showtime lovw him
Boxing fans love him

Froch's biggest wins...

Taylor: had lost two of his previous three, won against a completely ruined Jeff Lacy by fighting scared after a flash KD, looked awful against a Jr Middleweight who was boxing circles round him, and hadn't looked capable since Hopkins beat him around the ring in the 10th of their first fight. He lost against Pavlik clearly both times.

Pascal: looked so poor that he lost the chance to fight Edison Miranda, then had a meltdown tactically against Froch. Has beaten Diaconu who had done precisely what? Who else had Pascal faced at world class before facing Froch who hadn't faced anyone at world class himself.

Admittedly, he beat Taylor but he was lucky. He had been owned for 11 rounds.

Calzaghe would beat Froch, I have no doubt about that, he just has too much speed and the ability to adapt during a fight. So much is being said about Froch/Taylor that just doesnt add up. He was about 4 rounds down going into the 12th, surely he didnt plan to KO him in the final round. As we all know he did and full credit to him, but until he found the target he was looking at his first defeat and losing his title. Risky fight to take and I dont think Froch realised beforehand how difficult the fight would be. Yes he is good and I agree he has proved he is World class but having got to the top he will have to take on some stiff challenges, such as Kessler in particular. If he did last the distance against Kessler he would definately lose on a points decision. Froch is taking some heavy punches in the big league and I believe it is taking its toll. Pascal and Taylor landed heavily and Taylor had him on his arse for the first time, as you know. I dont believe his style will help him to be a great champion and I can see him getting his first loss in a couple of fights time. I just hope he doesnt suffer permanent damage because of his poor defence.

Hardcase wrote:Froch is a special talent , by far the UK's most sellable fighter .
He can beat anyone and has a bright future.

HBO love him
Showtime lovw him
Boxing fans love him

HBO love him? and they have demonstrated this by, so far, having none of his fights on......

re calzaghe defending with his face. i watched the kessler fight yet again last night. one thing that struck me was, in the 10th round after JC had dominated the last 6 minutes of action, kessler made a brief attempt to take the play back, throwing some heavy shots.

JC made him miss about 10 consecutive shots with head and body movement

This has been done to death but why not add my 2 pence worth.

Calzaghe would own Froch I don't think there is any doubt he would walk a UD.

Froch - I like him, he is taking a path of risky fights which he should be applauded for.

My gripe is that JC somehow is viewed as a pariah for the simple reason is that why don't like winners.

The facts are that Froch is so popular because its likely he will lose soon (because he is actually not that good) and by losing he becomes 'one of us'.

The constant criticism of Calzaghe, and even Hatton and Khan on here is pathetic.

Its interesting that we love their equivalents, Froch, Witter and Murray yet all three are nowhere near as good.

Its a british disease which people should be ashamed of.

Its called Tim Henman syndrome - I bet you now people are willing Murray to get beat this afternoon.

Pricks

fluxstuff wrote:Froch's biggest wins...

Taylor: had lost two of his previous three, won against a completely ruined Jeff Lacy by fighting scared after a flash KD, looked awful against a Jr Middleweight who was boxing circles round him, and hadn't looked capable since Hopkins beat him around the ring in the 10th of their first fight. He lost against Pavlik clearly both times.

Pascal: looked so poor that he lost the chance to fight Edison Miranda, then had a meltdown tactically against Froch. Has beaten Diaconu who had done precisely what? Who else had Pascal faced at world class before facing Froch who hadn't faced anyone at world class himself.

Admittedly, he beat Taylor but he was lucky. He had been owned for 11 rounds.

Lucky my arse, he broke his heart and then knocked him bandy. How the hell is that lucky. Pascal looked brilliant in his last fight by all accounts, you cannot discredit the guy because he had one poor night.

Ludicrous reasoning.

Nobody is saying Froch is a megatalent, but christ, give the man some damned credit, what he lacks in finesse, he makes up for with heart, balls, a great chin, tremendous fitness, and a kick like a mule.

well said jimmy mac

i didn't even need to respond to that comment from bumfluff

Autobarn wrote:well said jimmy mac

i didn't even need to respond to that comment from bumfluff

You get me ragga?

Wrists wrote:This has been done to death but why not add my 2 pence worth.

Calzaghe would own Froch I don't think there is any doubt he would walk a UD.

Froch - I like him, he is taking a path of risky fights which he should be applauded for.

My gripe is that JC somehow is viewed as a pariah for the simple reason is that why don't like winners.

The facts are that Froch is so popular because its likely he will lose soon (because he is actually not that good) and by losing he becomes 'one of us'.

The constant criticism of Calzaghe, and even Hatton and Khan on here is pathetic.

Its interesting that we love their equivalents, Froch, Witter and Murray yet all three are nowhere near as good.

Its a british disease which people should be ashamed of.

Its called Tim Henman syndrome - I bet you now people are willing Murray to get beat this afternoon.

Pricks

andy murray, like calzaghe, did once say, "i hope england lose". sy why not hope they lose

carl froch is a winner - does it in the face of PROPER ADVERSITY. wild slugging match with pascal is a bit of a benn-eubank 1 - 2 guys putting on a brilliant scrap, both coming up to world class, in a fight that no one will forget. vs taylor - a fighter of proven pedigree who was reinventing himself at a new weight where he wouldn't be drained - he went over there, put himself under massive pressure and pulled out a sensational finish when it looked like "kiss goodbye to your title."

the winners you talk about are guys that have been matched with utmost care, and possibly never shown/will show their full potential. if winning relies such a large degree on sympathetic matchmaking, maybe we should take these winners with a small pinch of salt. hatton had some 40 fights before reaching world class. joe was a joke until defence #16. khan got dropped even vs imond - the right kind of opponent i.e. up from 130 and light puncher.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Autobarn wrote:well said jimmy mac

i didn't even need to respond to that comment from bumfluff

You get me ragga?

certainly do.

imagine what this guy would be saying if calzaghe had beaten taylor and pascal.

they'd be among joe's (brittle) handful of best wins

It seems Froch is never gona be a purest's fighter, partly because of how much he's had to run his mouth to make a name for himself. I see him as a victim of circumstance in that respect as he didn't have a big powerful promoter getting him easy title shots so he had to shout from the rooftops for people to take notice of him.

Ability wise Froch isn't as good as Calzaghe no way, but entertainment wise and possibly power-wise he beats Calzaghe. Prime for prime Calzaghe would do him on points and Im Froch's biggest fan. I just don't see why people can't respect what Froch has done so far, he has got the heart and chin of a lion and hurts his opponents badly enough to beat them, be it points vs Pascal or a KO vs Taylor.

TheCobra wrote:It seems Froch is never gona be a purest's fighter, partly because of how much he's had to run his mouth to make a name for himself. I see him as a victim of circumstance in that respect as he didn't have a big powerful promoter getting him easy title shots so he had to shout from the rooftops for people to take notice of him.

Ability wise Froch isn't as good as Calzaghe no way, but entertainment wise and possibly power-wise he beats Calzaghe. Prime for prime Calzaghe would do him on points and Im Froch's biggest fan. I just don't see why people can't respect what Froch has done so far, he has got the heart and chin of a lion and hurts his opponents badly enough to beat them, be it points vs Pascal or a KO vs Taylor.

I do actually respect Froch for his acheivments and his willingness to fight anyone, although some of my posts about him dont always come over in that way. Of late he has shown a more humble side and that I like. It was all the self praise and arrogance that I didnt appreciate. I agree he is exciting to watch because he does have power. He also has the heart of a lion as you say, so fair play to the man he does give value for money. His style is for me the big problem, especially now he is fighting the best.

RE Froch - Kessler

i was always of the opinion that Kessler would comfortably beat Froch. thinking about it though, Froch's stamina may give him a good chance.

the way Kessler's workrate dipped in the last 4 rounds vs SuperJoe would be alarming for his fans if he was in with a puncher like Froch. and despite Joe's bad hands and slappy hitting style, Kessler didn't seem in a hurry to try and walk through those shots.

to an extent it has to be said that Kessler was befuddled by Joe's style as much as out-done for stamina, but nonetheless against someone like Froch, with a proven recent track record of finishing very strongly at world level, if Froch made it to round 9 and beyond in some kind of shape i am sure he would make those rounds interesting.

Re Froch as limited - wen eed to consider he was taking pretty much 50-50 fights. And consider the style - Taylor the fastest middleweight of his time, which made him pretty elusive up at 168. Hard to pin down. And Pascal is now one of the very slickest light heavyweights around.

Joe didn't like counter punchers either. Now if you like at 2 fights where he was countered, the pathetic fight with Starie and the narrow, narrow win over Reid who nailed him with counter rights all night - ppl might conclude that "Joe was limited." Throwing inside the glove shots that land on sides, shoulders, sort of rubbing's the opponent's face, and sticking out your chin.

Re Kessler - I think Kessler's straight shots and controlled boxing would trouble Froch. But I reckon Froch could take him in deep waters, lay on some pain late on, win a close decision. Most top fighters hurt Joe; none ever sustain an attack. Reckon Froch would.

Eubank I recall had more natural ability than Benn. However in their rematch they were very even. If a fighter is more flashy does that make him necessarily better?

Autobarn wrote:
Joe didn't like counter punchers either. Now if you like at 2 fights where he was countered, the pathetic fight with Starie and the narrow, narrow win over Reid who nailed him with counter rights all night - ppl might conclude that "Joe was limited." Throwing inside the glove shots that land on sides, shoulders, sort of rubbing's the opponent's face, and sticking out your chin.

Re Kessler - I think Kessler's straight shots and controlled boxing would trouble Froch. But I reckon Froch could take him in deep waters, lay on some pain late on, win a close decision. Most top fighters hurt Joe; none ever sustain an attack. Reckon Froch would.

Eubank I recall had more natural ability than Benn. However in their rematch they were very even. If a fighter is more flashy does that make him necessarily better?

careful mate you are in danger of being balanced on the subject of Calzaghe/Froch, don't change the habit of a lifetime please

just joking. my qualifier to what you say there is that Froch isn't really a counterpuncher and he'd have to come to Calzaghe more which 'we all know a fighter coming straight at him is perfect for calzaghe etc etc etc'. i don't think froch has the patience or skillset to counter a moving Joe coming in at angles(you can tell i'm a fanboy can't you, i call him Joe )

but i am adjusting to the idea Froch could give Kessler a heck of a fight.

Taylor doesn't tell us much about how Froch would do vs Kessler. Kessler doubtless hits harder than Taylor but isn't as fast and athletic at reacting to chances offered by Froch's openness. the straight right hand 'down the pipe' copywright rawlings, would be something to Froch watch out for, but to an extent it would be the only thing Froch did have to watch out for from Kessler. both Taylor's and indeed Froch's offensive output are somewhat less predictable than that of the Dane.

one thing for sure, the first time either man lands his heavy artillery, and what happens afterwards, would be very interesting indeed.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

fluxstuff wrote:Froch's biggest wins...

Taylor: had lost two of his previous three, won against a completely ruined Jeff Lacy by fighting scared after a flash KD, looked awful against a Jr Middleweight who was boxing circles round him, and hadn't looked capable since Hopkins beat him around the ring in the 10th of their first fight. He lost against Pavlik clearly both times.

Pascal: looked so poor that he lost the chance to fight Edison Miranda, then had a meltdown tactically against Froch. Has beaten Diaconu who had done precisely what? Who else had Pascal faced at world class before facing Froch who hadn't faced anyone at world class himself.

Admittedly, he beat Taylor but he was lucky. He had been owned for 11 rounds.

Lucky my arse, he broke his heart and then knocked him bandy. How the hell is that lucky. Pascal looked brilliant in his last fight by all accounts, you cannot discredit the guy because he had one poor night.

Ludicrous reasoning.

Nobody is saying Froch is a megatalent, but christ, give the man some damned credit, what he lacks in finesse, he makes up for with heart, balls, a great chin, tremendous fitness, and a kick like a mule.

How anyone prefers Calzaghe to Froch is beyond me.

x2

Wrists wrote:This has been done to death but why not add my 2 pence worth.

Calzaghe would own Froch I don't think there is any doubt he would walk a UD.

Froch - I like him, he is taking a path of risky fights which he should be applauded for.

My gripe is that JC somehow is viewed as a pariah for the simple reason is that why don't like winners.

The facts are that Froch is so popular because its likely he will lose soon (because he is actually not that good) and by losing he becomes 'one of us'.

The constant criticism of Calzaghe, and even Hatton and Khan on here is pathetic.

Its interesting that we love their equivalents, Froch, Witter and Murray yet all three are nowhere near as good.

Its a british disease which people should be ashamed of.

Its called Tim Henman syndrome - I bet you now people are willing Murray to get beat this afternoon.

Pricks

coghaugen11 wrote:"I think, that Joe thinks, he (Froch) couldn't hold a candle to him. That's what I think... that Joe thinks. Joe himself doesn't see it as a challenge, has no points to prove, (and) doesn't need money."

"Me, personally, I'd love to see it. I know David Haye will obliterate Wladimir Klitschko if he gets him. I don't know if Carl Froch can do Joe Calzaghe.

"Put it this way: I wouldn't want millions of people seeing egg on my face. That alone would make me dangerous! That alone would give me the fortitude to take the punches if need be, you know?

"Though I always used integrity, because with integrity, you can't go wrong."


Eubank thinks he himself over-achieved as a boxer... "I grossly over-achieved, hideously. I was never spotted as a particularly good talent as a youngster in America.

"But we're looking at 47 wins, knocking out Nigel Benn and knocking out the man who knocked out Nigel Benn.

"Champion from 1990 to '95. I maximized myself, in audience, viewers, in earnings - one maximized oneself.

"I couldn't have achieved anymore... But I came back and achieved more! No other former champions have come back and gone out on losses they were close to winning, taking beatings without quitting and on that level."


He didn't go back to America, because, "The reason couldn't be simpler - I didn't have the offers."

Does anyone else think that Eubank's regular comments, while often a whole load of bullsh1t, are also great? I mean, so many people sit on the fence, but he just says "I'm great, and here's what I think of the boxers of today." He never pulls any punches.

Anyway, no way would Froch have beaten a peak Calzaghe, or, likely, even the Calzaghe who fought Hopkins and Kessler.

Froch is good, but he's heading for a fall soon.

You can't fault his power or his heart or his toughness, but his defence is beyond awful, and now his chin has been cracked, we'll see how he goes if he continues in world class waters.

How anyone can think Froch would stand a chance against Joe is beyond me. It'll be such a dominant points victory it would be unreal. If Froch doesn't put Joe down early doors like Hopkins and RJJ, then it'll be a 10 point margin. If he does then Joe still gets up and wins by a wide margin. Froch keeps his guard down and throws big on the back foot, but he won't have a clue how to deal with the amount of punches coming his way. It won't happen but i'd love Joe to take this fight, it won't be 3 rounds as Joe predicts but it'll be an easy night. But then if it did happen, Joe will massacre him, then maybe Froch will take on Kessler, Kessler will soundly beat him and we'll be back to square one with no one giving Calzaghe credit- saying Froch was just overhyped etc! I really hope Froch fights Kessler, because there's so many people on Boxrec who don't seem to rate Kessler, but he'll beat Froch pretty soundly imo. If its not Kessler then let the talk of a fight with Hopkins be true, as Hopkins vs Froch will pretty much be a re-run of Hopkins vs Kessler.

Carbo wrote:
You can't fault his power or his heart or his toughness, but his defence is beyond awful, and now his chin has been cracked, we'll see how he goes if he continues in world class waters.

Froch's chin hasn't been cracked. He went down from a shot high on the head.

NONE of Froch's wins are debatable.

Calzaghe... the guy fought PETER MANFREDO only 4 fights ago and followed it up with a loss in many's eyes to Hopkins before giving us the cherry, by fighting a 40-year old guy he ridiculed for being knocked out over 5 years ago when he was still a relatively sprightly 35 year old...

....and then he failed to stop him and was dropped himself in the opening minute.

He ducked Robin Reid and Hopkins for a rematch - yet rematched a guy he beat in a single round??

He beat up a hype job in Lacy, fell lucky that Kessler came in with a broken hand and he won that bauble on the undercard of an undercard against a 2 week notice weight drained shell of Chris Eubank.

Froch got himself into the mandatory spot for the WBC title on the monday and by the close of play that day, Calzaghe vacated rather than go to purse bids.

It not even about who'd win or lose - it's about who's got the biggest balls and the boxing fan's respect.

Froch is backing his mouth up , wheras Joe.... he makes my shit itch.

Usually when a fighter turns it in, they release a DVD but given the fact that his last 10 fights have been dull 12 rounds affairs (except for the Manfredo farce) you'd need a 6-disc set to get the last 10 on.

Wheras Froch's last 10 have been KO's except for Pascal and that was FOTY.

Not only are Brian Magee, Tony Dodson, Robin Reid, Sergey Tatevosyan and Jermain Taylor much better opponents than Kabary Salem, Evans Ashira, Sakio Bika Peter Manfredo etc... but also that Froch knocked them all out wheras Joe laboured to points win in practically every fight of the last 6 years. He got decked by Salem, looked like the elephant man after the Bika fight which was a shocker, blamed his hand on Ashira to get out the Lacy fight first time (even making sure the cams were there to film his squeals as glove come off...pleeeease ).

I just cannot understand why anyone would enjoy the cuffing, slapping, whinging, ducking, dull 12 round fighter that he is.

His bum wiggling, gurning, stupid showboating is just naff.

He is completely and utterly cringe worthy - from his hypocritical comments to his actual fights.

"Boxing is dead, im glad to be getting out of it now" and then becomes a promoter. FFS.

The-Artist wrote:How anyone can think Froch would stand a chance against Joe is beyond me. It'll be such a dominant points victory it would be unreal. If Froch doesn't put Joe down early doors like Hopkins and RJJ, then it'll be a 10 point margin. If he does then Joe still gets up and wins by a wide margin. Froch keeps his guard down and throws big on the back foot, but he won't have a clue how to deal with the amount of punches coming his way. It won't happen but i'd love Joe to take this fight, it won't be 3 rounds as Joe predicts but it'll be an easy night. But then if it did happen, Joe will massacre him, then maybe Froch will take on Kessler, Kessler will soundly beat him and we'll be back to square one with no one giving Calzaghe credit- saying Froch was just overhyped etc! I really hope Froch fights Kessler, because there's so many people on Boxrec who don't seem to rate Kessler, but he'll beat Froch pretty soundly imo. If its not Kessler then let the talk of a fight with Hopkins be true, as Hopkins vs Froch will pretty much be a re-run of Hopkins vs Kessler.

blimey, who has Joe massacred?

Joe was in manufactured fights and you could even see it in the masterclasses.

the opponents usually had "clipped wings" coming into the fight & still he got jolted with big shots from brewer, woodhall, reid. joe doesn't have great stamina and skill when the opponent goes for it. at the end of the jones fight, final min, jones lands a body shot, joe on the run, showboating as false bravado to cover up that he has little gas left. a good accurate shot and he's on the run: he comes across as a sneaky guy always avoiidng the big questions.

joe was having his head snapped back by reid and woodhall. what do you think an unbeaten in his prime froch would do?

froch v pascal was an absolute test of strength, 2 unbeaten guys with something to prove, coming up to world class, a head first clash kind of like lewis-vitali (another fight where both looked tired quite early). it's better and more honest than most of joe's world class fights. froch-as-limited kind of makes me laugh, when he's ground down 2 of the slickest fighters between middle and light heavy. 2 styles that joe was kept well away from.