BoxRec

Hatton for me ,

Hatton lost to 2 p4p no.1's

Imagine Froch in with a prime Roy Jones and James Toney

Andypittcov wrote:If this question was asked 3 years ago I wonder if Froch would have got the most votes???

I suspect he wouldn't have got one vote,it's his calibre of opponents and how that's created very competitive fights rather than his style that's swaying people I imagine.

It is difficult for a boxer to be exciting on their own. In order for a bout to really excite me, the presence of frequent two way exchanges is a mandatory criterion, so the quality of both competitors vis-à-vis one another is relevant. How many great fights have been one-sided beat downs? None. In the context of this discussion has Froch benefitted from fighting a high-caliber opposition that has really pushed him to the limit? Yes, and that has played a big role in making him one of the most exciting world-class British fighters since 2000.

As for his style, Froch fights in a way that is conducive to action. He doesn't hold excessively, he doesn't run, and he doesn't capitulate when he is under heavy pressure. For the most part, he looks to engage with his opponents and he really lets his hands go, and he has shown impressive durability, stamina, and recovery powers; all of which have played a role in making him great to watch, at least for me. I can easily see why so many are picking Hatton though.

Most exciting has to be Hatton for me... as previously mentioned he's fought Mayweather arguably p4p number 1, and arguably the best boxer to lace up a pair of gloves in Manny Pacquaio....

Isn't the question who is the "Most exciting world-class British fighter since 2000?"

Having the ability to compete on a higher level than another fighter doesn't mean you are more exciting than them. I can certainly understand that there are legit reasons for ranking Hatton above Froch in terms of how much excitement they have provided, but I don't see how the fact that Hatton fought Pac/PBF is relevant to this particular topic. I'm sure everyone would agree that Floyd Mayweather is a much better boxer than Arturo Gatti ever was, and that he has fought better opposition, but Gatti was by far more exciting to watch.

Andypittcov wrote:Hatton lost to 2 p4p no.1's

Imagine Froch in with a prime Roy Jones and James Toney

Aye, and IMO in terms of talent both FMJ and PAC are better P4P than even a prime Roy Jones.

Froch was fantastic in his last fight, but I would just rather if horses were held until he shows that type of display on a more regular basis. His form coming in consisted of a controvesial win and a defeat.

I think Ward will give us alot of answers - I give Froch a chance against Andre. I think people are overating the 2011 version of Johnson based on the Green fight (and maybe Andre Ward also). What has Green done at world level to warrant such high praise and Green was winning the fight people forget. Johnson looked old losing the rematch to Dawson and to Cloud.

Froch, who you fight doesn't make you more exciting so anyone picking Hatton or anyone else for that matter just because he's fought better fighters is a bit cuckoo.

crusader wrote:Isn't the question who is the "Most exciting world-class British fighter since 2000?"

Having the ability to compete on a higher level than another fighter doesn't mean you are more exciting than them. I can certainly understand that there are legit reasons for ranking Hatton above Froch in terms of how much excitement they have provided, but I don't see how the fact that Hatton fought Pac/PBF is relevant to this particular topic. I'm sure everyone would agree that Floyd Mayweather is a much better boxer than Arturo Gatti ever was, and that he has fought better opposition, but Gatti was by far more exciting to watch.

All true, but then there is also the flip side to how buzzed and excited people were ahead of the fights - there is that type of excitement, you know the butterflies in the build up, the countdown etc - gets us glued to the screen, or we want to be there.

Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Froch vs Abraham turned out to be dull in their different ways.... Hopkins vs Calzaghe most predicted would be dull - however, most still got "hyped" up about it and excited.

Plus in their own way, I actually think Hatton vs Floyd and Pacquiao were two exciting fights. Hatton was always "in there" against Floyd and I think Floyd was at his very best and needed to be and Hatton well, went out on his sheild in the most dramatic fashion vs Pacquiao - and for a moment there, in the 6 minutes he definately hurt the great man.

You said 3 of Froch's fights at world class are FOTY canditates..... Pascal, Kessler - granted and accept.... the third one? Taylor, Dirrel or Abraham??? Seriously?

King Geedorah wrote:Hatton as he brought it inside and outside the ring. Froch also due to the level of opposition. Calzaghe? Behave yourselves.

Yeah - completely agree. Joe Calzaghe did have some really good scraps that have been swept under the carpet. I think his fight with Brewer does get a bit criminally overlooked and the Mitchell fight..... oh.... actually that's it really in the 00's.

stujones wrote:

crusader wrote:Isn't the question who is the "Most exciting world-class British fighter since 2000?"

Having the ability to compete on a higher level than another fighter doesn't mean you are more exciting than them. I can certainly understand that there are legit reasons for ranking Hatton above Froch in terms of how much excitement they have provided, but I don't see how the fact that Hatton fought Pac/PBF is relevant to this particular topic. I'm sure everyone would agree that Floyd Mayweather is a much better boxer than Arturo Gatti ever was, and that he has fought better opposition, but Gatti was by far more exciting to watch.

All true, but then there is also the flip side to how buzzed and excited people were ahead of the fights - there is that type of excitement, you know the butterflies in the build up, the countdown etc - gets us glued to the screen, or we want to be there.

Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Froch vs Abraham turned out to be dull in their different ways.... Hopkins vs Calzaghe most predicted would be dull - however, most still got "hyped" up about it and excited.

Plus in their own way, I actually think Hatton vs Floyd and Pacquiao were two exciting fights. Hatton was always "in there" against Floyd and I think Floyd was at his very best and needed to be and Hatton well, went out on his sheild in the most dramatic fashion vs Pacquiao - and for a moment there, in the 6 minutes he definately hurt the great man.

You said 3 of Froch's fights at world class are FOTY canditates..... Pascal, Kessler - granted and accept.... the third one? Taylor, Dirrel or Abraham??? Seriously?

You can see that Froch-Taylor got several mentions in FOTY discussions, although admittedly usually as an "honorable mention" (I believe The Ring also listed it as such). Of course it is all subjective, and it seems the majority of people who saw the bout thought it was more exciting than you did. While the last round was obviously the most dramatic, there was good, competitive action throughout.

http://sports.yahoo.com/box/news?slug=ki-boxfoy122309

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... =#p2090669

http://queensberry-rules.com/2009-artic ... minees.html

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/sho ... 296&page=2

well I agree with your assessment of it on the boxrec thread you linked to it. I might have gone OTT when I called it dull, but it wasn't great viewing aside from the last minute. It was just one fight just being that little bit better than the other, and Froch not really fighting with anything like enough intensity. I don't think knowing the result before watching swayed my judgement too much - cause I might have switched it off before the last round watching it live in the middle of the night.

All subjective though.

Ortiz Maidana, Diaz Marquez and Dunne Cordoba much more exciting contests.

Really hard to pick out of those 2 but i'm going to plump for Hatton on the basis of the excitement that he generated in the casual fan & even those who didn't follow the sport. When Hatton fought it was an occasion and so was the build up.

When you have that kind of anticipation for a fight, everyone is on the edge of their seats. Froch delivers in the ring but Hatton delivered outside and inside

freddydoesdallas wrote:Really hard to pick out of those 2 but i'm going to plump for Hatton on the basis of the excitement that he generated in the casual fan & even those who didn't follow the sport. When Hatton fought it was an occasion and so was the build up.

that was what i was i getting at!!!

the pacquaio fight wasn't all that great, but the whole build up was exiciting in itself!!!

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

stujones wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Lets put in perspective EXCITING to me means hatton with his all out attacks and ferocious pace where he can sometimes make it harder than it needs to be (bar the clinching)

BEST on the other hand HAS TO BE FROCH, yes i sa BEST cus he can box, move, slip and brawl with the world class. So he is right up there now with joe and lewis etc. (better than hatton)

Just not as exciting for every day (i dont normally watch boxing) fan

Hatton proved he could do it also, I agree not all the time and should have done it more often - but he slipped alot of Malignaggi's punches and beat him to the punch and also against Urango. Froch has only done it the once also.

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

mickey1975 wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

stujones wrote: Hatton proved he could do it also, I agree not all the time and should have done it more often - but he slipped alot of Malignaggi's punches and beat him to the punch and also against Urango. Froch has only done it the once also.

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

Going to extremes just undermines your argument. No-one is claiming Froch is suddenly FMJ, while clueless hardly accurately summarises the Dirrell fight.... getting your head boxed off for 12 rounds and losing 120-108 is clueless, winning a contentious verdict is not.

Deserter wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

Going to extremes just undermines your argument. No-one is claiming Froch is suddenly FMJ, while clueless hardly accurately summarises the Dirrell fight.... getting your head boxed off for 12 rounds and losing 120-108 is clueless, winning a contentious verdict is not.

Fair enough,maybe i was a bit harsh.I just think using the AA fight to call Froch the best is being a bit kind to him.To me he did look clueless against Dirrell and the fight wasnt even contentious.Hatton has put on more boxing clinics than Froch in my opinion,he gets criminally underated on here by many.

Nobody created the storm and excitement Hatton did from 2000 until now....

mickey1975 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

mickey1975 wrote: Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

Going to extremes just undermines your argument. No-one is claiming Froch is suddenly FMJ, while clueless hardly accurately summarises the Dirrell fight.... getting your head boxed off for 12 rounds and losing 120-108 is clueless, winning a contentious verdict is not.

Fair enough,maybe i was a bit harsh.I just think using the AA fight to call Froch the best is being a bit kind to him.To me he did look clueless against Dirrell and the fight wasnt even contentious.Hatton has put on more boxing clinics than Froch in my opinion,he gets criminally underated on here by many.

Yep, I hear what you're saying, especially in regards to Hatton

Well its been mentiond above, its all subjective. Froch is the better well rounded fighter in the last 10 years from the uk at world level.

Hes proved it in emphatic style in comparrison to other uk fighters and been more consistant IMO

Though hatton will always remain the most exciting brit for me and Naz being m ALL TIME FAV BRIT fighter.

mickey1975 wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

stujones wrote: Hatton proved he could do it also, I agree not all the time and should have done it more often - but he slipped alot of Malignaggi's punches and beat him to the punch and also against Urango. Froch has only done it the once also.

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

He didn't look clueless at all. It was a very close fight, and froch won on agression. Clueless? Where you coming from?

Dan Dares wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

He didn't look clueless at all. It was a very close fight, and froch won on agression. Clueless? Where you coming from?

He did a bit, doing the same thing round after round marching forwards in straight lines and never really getting close to trapping Dirrell.

Froch actually started to look like he'd had enough towards the end, out of frustration not punishment obviously.

Easy.....Carl Froch.

I'd have to go for Froch. I like Hatton but when he stepped up to world level his fights became boring clinch fests instead of the all action brawler/boxer he was at British/European level.

mickey1975 wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

stujones wrote: Hatton proved he could do it also, I agree not all the time and should have done it more often - but he slipped alot of Malignaggi's punches and beat him to the punch and also against Urango. Froch has only done it the once also.

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

after reading this mickey1975 i will take what you say in future with a pinch of salt

Dan Dares wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

maxwelljr927 wrote:Yeh but the better boxer looks to be froch. Not shared the ring with him tho have done about 150 rds or more with rick. He is ok at boxing but not at frochs level looking at what he did to arthur(50 rds).

Froch looked clueless when faced with an excellent boxer in Dirrell.Outboxing AA does not make you FMJ!

He didn't look clueless at all. It was a very close fight, and froch won on agression. Clueless? Where you coming from?

Him basically not having a clue to do other than walk forward hoping he caught Dirrell.I truly believe if Dirrell had believed in himself that night he would have shut him out.He just did not do enough,although i believe he clearly won the fight.