the 12th round against jermaine taylor was one of the most exciting rounds of boxing i’ve seen
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 29 Jun 2022, 17:24
by Ruthless-RKO
I used to felt bad for him cus he never got the Calzaghe fight but then he did the same thing to DeGale.
At least DeGale was mandatory.
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 29 Jun 2022, 17:25
by Ruthless-RKO
He’s lucky he wasn’t DQ’d against Bute.
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 29 Jun 2022, 18:16
by margaret thatcher
eddie wasn't officially part of the corner though, i dont know if you could dq froch in that situation......if that's what you mean. can you imagine if that happened
brings to mind carlos molina being dq'd vs kirkland because his corner man entered like 1 second before the bell, f@ck me that was harsh
coneye wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 11:08
Beating Calagazie ,,, Errr hard one he had the desire tenacity and chin ,, but i think slappy would off slapped to victory i don't think either would of stopped the other both had good chins , but slappy perhaps a bit to quick for Carl ,, good fight though , but slappy prevails
At the time I was convinced Froch could get the better of Joe …. perhaps it was my stubbornness influencing me.
I certainly would'nt of had a big bet against either off them , fiver maybee , but knowing me , i'd off had a fiver on both of them , part of me says Joe would of been too quick and mobile and slapped him to defeat ,, then i think hang on Froch was'nt that slow and he made up in his distancing and ability to cut the ring down , plus he hit hard , Joes slaps would'nt of bothered him ,, more i think less i would bet ,,, probably gone down too 2 quid a bet one on each
Then again if it would off ever happenned , the end result would be if Froch won Joes supporters would say Aargh but Froch left it till he was old , Joe won , it would of been aaargh but Froch was'nt fully developed , at least this way we get to ponder for years to come
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 00:44
by margaret thatcher
id be confident in calzaghe, all wrong for frochy. had incredible stamina himself as well and wouldnt be suseptible to fading and getting stopped while ahead like taylor and groves
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 02:19
by Coco
Id be confident of JC winning, and as Jeff Lacy said, he slaps damn hard!
Going back to Froch, while as a personality he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, as a fighter what's not to like?
Left it all in the ring, fought them all and was always in exciting fights. Granite chin, big engine, good puncher, won a bronze in the world champs before funding.
Glad he made proper money.
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 03:14
by Nightmare Roy
hard bastard
fought a who's who of killers
bit of a div
Joe C would have won by a wide margin
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 03:19
by maverick23
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 03:52
by Dioufy
daz74 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 17:24
the 12th round against jermaine taylor was one of the most exciting rounds of boxing i’ve seen
It wasn’t live in UK tv right? I seem to remember having to avoid the result so I could watch the next day.
That 12th round!
“Punches in bunches”
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 04:13
by tonyevs
margaret thatcher has pretty much covered all the typical comments about Froch
I'll just add that he was one of the best value British boxers of the last 25yrs.
Froch appears to have an ASD-like awkwardness and lack of awareness about him; I guess that could explain his 100% focus and determination.
Bit of a shame he drew Calzaghe into his own profile. I'm sure if he hadn't then his legend and actual ability would have been regarded higher.
It wasn’t live in UK tv right? I seem to remember having to avoid the result so I could watch the next day.
it was on 'premier sport' or something like that I thought
Think I watched it the next day on ITV.
Might be wrong though but it was deffo daylight in the UK when I watched it.
It was one of those weird PPVs which was only available online. Think it might have been one of the first Primetime PPVs actually? I definitely watched it on my tiny laptop in the early hours, was jumping around like crazy in the last round, nearly knocked it over
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 08:44
by Spud
Another point on Carl Froch, is he kept his original trainer Robert McCracken for the entirety of his professional career.
Loyalty is a rare commodity in boxing
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 09:25
by Ruthless-RKO
Spud wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 08:44
Another point on Carl Froch, is he kept his original trainer Robert McCracken for the entirety of his professional career.
Loyalty is a rare commodity in boxing
Excluding those that have their dad as their trainer or brother/uncle, it is quite rare.
coneye wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 21:07
Then again if it would off ever happenned , the end result would be if Froch won Joes supporters would say Aargh but Froch left it till he was old ,
I'm not so sure on that. Froch wanted the fight and it appeared it was Calzaghe who didn't, and the only time it could reasonably have happened was 2008. Both were all-time great British fighters, and I've no bias towards one or the other. But they took very different approaches as champions:
1997: Calzaghe got his title shot when he was supposed to face Steve Collins for the WBO title. Collins vacated and Chris Eubank stepped in a short notice. Eubank had no qualms about facing Calzaghe, even though he could have turned it down. At that time, Eubank was 33, Calzaghe 25.
2007: would Calzaghe do the same as Eubank when the situation was reversed, i.e. once Calzaghe was in his mid-30s and faced with a British challenger who wanted the fight?
No. At the very end of 2007, Froch was number 1 contender for the WBC title. Calzaghe was 34, Froch 30. Calzaghe had won the WBC belt against Kessler that November. At that time, I listened to Froch say he wanted to face Calzaghe for the title - he was sincere and unambiguous about it. Instead, Calzaghe vacated, overcame his reluctance to fly (to face another unwilling traveller, Hopkins, who appeared to mislay his passport for around 16 years after his 1994 draw in Ecuador against Segundo Mercado). That was for a couple of fights for good money in a country where he was pretty much unknown. It transpired the fear of flying was specifically related only to small planes - see https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... es-1650337 from just before the Hopkins fight.
Calzaghe could have fought Froch in before summer 2008. It could have made him good money - Calzaghe himself had become a big draw at that point, and it would have been a natural sell in Wales. Instead, Froch was left to fight Pascal for the vacant title a year later.
2013: would Froch do the same as Eubank when Froch was in his mid-30s when faced with a British challenger who wanted the fight?
Yes. Groves wanted a shot at him, and Froch agreed. That first fight was not a big fight crowd-wise, and Froch could have looked elsewhere. Froch was 36 at the time, Groves 25. All very similar to the Eubank-Calzaghe situation 16 years earlier.
I know that doesn't sort out who would have won the fight. But I don't see any evidence of Froch trying to leave it until Calzaghe was old.
As I said, both great, great fighters, just a different approach to choosing their fights.
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 14:04
by bripez
Good post - some interesting points
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 14:11
by Spud
Froch unlike some boxers retired at the right time, he can now concentrate on the houses/buildings he owns in and around Nottingham. His business has made him a wealthy man.
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 14:29
by mickey1975
Spud wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 14:11
Froch unlike some boxers retired at the right time, he can now concentrate on the houses/buildings he owns in and around Nottingham. His business has made him a wealthy man.
Boxing made him a wealthy man. Like most fighters, he invested in property...
Re: Carl Froch
Posted: 30 Jun 2022, 14:37
by olij999
bripez wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 14:04
Good post - some interesting points
coneye wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 21:07
Then again if it would off ever happenned , the end result would be if Froch won Joes supporters would say Aargh but Froch left it till he was old ,
I'm not so sure on that. Froch wanted the fight and it appeared it was Calzaghe who didn't, and the only time it could reasonably have happened was 2008. Both were all-time great British fighters, and I've no bias towards one or the other. But they took very different approaches as champions:
1997: Calzaghe got his title shot when he was supposed to face Steve Collins for the WBO title. Collins vacated and Chris Eubank stepped in a short notice. Eubank had no qualms about facing Calzaghe, even though he could have turned it down. At that time, Eubank was 33, Calzaghe 25.
2007: would Calzaghe do the same as Eubank when the situation was reversed, i.e. once Calzaghe was in his mid-30s and faced with a British challenger who wanted the fight?
No. At the very end of 2007, Froch was number 1 contender for the WBC title. Calzaghe was 34, Froch 30. Calzaghe had won the WBC belt against Kessler that November. At that time, I listened to Froch say he wanted to face Calzaghe for the title - he was sincere and unambiguous about it. Instead, Calzaghe vacated, overcame his reluctance to fly (to face another unwilling traveller, Hopkins, who appeared to mislay his passport for around 16 years after his 1994 draw in Ecuador against Segundo Mercado). That was for a couple of fights for good money in a country where he was pretty much unknown. It transpired the fear of flying was specifically related only to small planes - see https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... es-1650337 from just before the Hopkins fight.
Calzaghe could have fought Froch in before summer 2008. It could have made him good money - Calzaghe himself had become a big draw at that point, and it would have been a natural sell in Wales. Instead, Froch was left to fight Pascal for the vacant title a year later.
2013: would Froch do the same as Eubank when Froch was in his mid-30s when faced with a British challenger who wanted the fight?
Yes. Groves wanted a shot at him, and Froch agreed. That first fight was not a big fight crowd-wise, and Froch could have looked elsewhere. Froch was 36 at the time, Groves 25. All very similar to the Eubank-Calzaghe situation 16 years earlier.
I know that doesn't sort out who would have won the fight. But I don't see any evidence of Froch trying to leave it until Calzaghe was old.
As I said, both great, great fighters, just a different approach to choosing their fights.
Well said id distintly remember Froch wanting the fight joe would,n
coneye wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 21:07
Then again if it would off ever happenned , the end result would be if Froch won Joes supporters would say Aargh but Froch left it till he was old ,
I'm not so sure on that. Froch wanted the fight and it appeared it was Calzaghe who didn't, and the only time it could reasonably have happened was 2008. Both were all-time great British fighters, and I've no bias towards one or the other. But they took very different approaches as champions:
1997: Calzaghe got his title shot when he was supposed to face Steve Collins for the WBO title. Collins vacated and Chris Eubank stepped in a short notice. Eubank had no qualms about facing Calzaghe, even though he could have turned it down. At that time, Eubank was 33, Calzaghe 25.
2007: would Calzaghe do the same as Eubank when the situation was reversed, i.e. once Calzaghe was in his mid-30s and faced with a British challenger who wanted the fight?
No. At the very end of 2007, Froch was number 1 contender for the WBC title. Calzaghe was 34, Froch 30. Calzaghe had won the WBC belt against Kessler that November. At that time, I listened to Froch say he wanted to face Calzaghe for the title - he was sincere and unambiguous about it. Instead, Calzaghe vacated, overcame his reluctance to fly (to face another unwilling traveller, Hopkins, who appeared to mislay his passport for around 16 years after his 1994 draw in Ecuador against Segundo Mercado). That was for a couple of fights for good money in a country where he was pretty much unknown. It transpired the fear of flying was specifically related only to small planes - see https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... es-1650337 from just before the Hopkins fight.
Calzaghe could have fought Froch in before summer 2008. It could have made him good money - Calzaghe himself had become a big draw at that point, and it would have been a natural sell in Wales. Instead, Froch was left to fight Pascal for the vacant title a year later.
2013: would Froch do the same as Eubank when Froch was in his mid-30s when faced with a British challenger who wanted the fight?
Yes. Groves wanted a shot at him, and Froch agreed. That first fight was not a big fight crowd-wise, and Froch could have looked elsewhere. Froch was 36 at the time, Groves 25. All very similar to the Eubank-Calzaghe situation 16 years earlier.
I know that doesn't sort out who would have won the fight. But I don't see any evidence of Froch trying to leave it until Calzaghe was old.
As I said, both great, great fighters, just a different approach to choosing their fights.
Spot on......both are respected, healthy and doing well after.
