BoxRec

DavidPayne wrote:Put Froch in with:

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit (x2), Manfredo et al and see what would happen. Yep, a long unbeaten record.

Though Bika may have beaten him.

I admire Froch for putting it on the line. When you do, you lose some. For fans on here who bemoan the over-protected unbeaten records to chastise him for losing against one of the top 3 fighters in the division on points away from home should have HYPOCRIT stamped on their head and take a vow of silence.

Yes, but to be fair to Calzaghe and his bloated record, he did beat a younger, fresher and less injury prone Kessler with something to spare.

Froch is very good, but he's never been great. His deficiencies have been shown up at world level, mainly that he is ponderous and too easy to hit. He has always relied on his chin and power to get him out of jail, but against a consistent fighter like Kessler, or a slick defensive guy like Dirrell, Froch looks ordinary.

He may have a chance against Abraham, as Abraham doesn't throw that many shots, but I suspect he's going to get blasted out of there after absorbing a hell of a beating.

Froch has faced a good level of competition in a relatively short career, but I have to say, that I think Calzaghe had the beating of everyone Froch has fought - but sadly Joe never had the desire to prove it unequivocally. I prefer Froch's attitude by far, but I prefer Calzaghe's skills.

DavidPayne, Excellent post...practically word perfect!

There are some fighters, like Ian Napa who always have to rely on getting a points win as they dont have the KO punch. Froch by contrast has relied mainly on the KO or the stoppage to get his wins. Having reached the top level he is now fighting people who can get their wins either way, and they can take the big punches Froch throws. I think its going to be pretty hard for him from now on, in fact I see him getting beaten by Abrahams and calling it a day. Fair play to Froch for wanting to fight the best but I feel he has reached his level which is just below true World class.

For me one of the great things about the Super 6 is how it brings boxing back to the essence of what it should be - the best fighting the best. Too often nowadays fighters are built on undefeated records that we all know mean little. Eilte sport at its best is about evenly matched competitors giving their all. When this happens you'll win some and lose some, the key is who will be on top when all is said and done. So far this is proving to be the case with the Super 6.

Too often one defeat results in a year off, much soul-searching, followed by a 'comeback'. It hacks me off that nowadays every fight following a loss is a 'comeback' - SRL against Hagler after 1 poor fight in 5 years - that's a comeback. Sport is about winning and losing and, it's a cliche, but losing is often where we learn the most and is the platform from which the truly exceptional really prove their mettle. Nowadays it leads to all sorts of shite about how somebody was never any good in the first place.

The facts as I see them - Froch lost a close decision against a top fighter, in a bout that it was well within his capabilities to win if he had fought a different fight i.e. pressed his advantages, in his opponent's backyard. He will now fight another elite boxer in only a few months time in a bout tha he is more than capble of winning. This is what boxing should be all about and I commend Froch, and his fellow competitors in this tournament, for putting it on the line.

For me, World class is someone who can compete at the top on the International stage. In boxing, I'd say most World titlists are World class. I'd call Katsidis World class, but not Mitchell. Of course, it is subjective, but I think only having 3 World class boxers is a very limiting view point. Like you say, I'd call them elite.

Surely a world class fighter is one who can fight at the top level in his division and give a good account of himself. This means he is able to perform well against the best fighters in the world within a given weight class.

Katsidis is a world class fighter in my opinion as he fights at world title level and performs well there.

WildWaylon wrote:There are some fighters, like Ian Napa who always have to rely on getting a points win as they dont have the KO punch. Froch by contrast has relied mainly on the KO or the stoppage to get his wins. Having reached the top level he is now fighting people who can get their wins either way, and they can take the big punches Froch throws. I think its going to be pretty hard for him from now on, in fact I see him getting beaten by Abrahams and calling it a day. Fair play to Froch for wanting to fight the best but I feel he has reached his level which is just below true World class.

I think a big part of Froch's problem, is his unwillingness to develop or alter his style - he's basically fought the same way from day one of his career, and believed that it would keep on producing wins.

At top level, you have to keep on developing when the competition gets stiffer.

sg1985 wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Surely a world class fighter is one who can fight at the top level in his division and give a good account of himself. This means he is able to perform well against the best fighters in the world within a given weight class.

Katsidis is a world class fighter in my opinion as he fights at world title level and performs well there.

He has never won a world title.

But he operates at world level.His defeats were reasonably close affairs,and only "world class" boxers floor the likes of Casamayor.Compare this with Kevin Mitchell,who was hammered when he stepped up to "world class"
The genuine top 15 in each divison have to be called world class.If not,what are they?

sg1985 wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Surely a world class fighter is one who can fight at the top level in his division and give a good account of himself. This means he is able to perform well against the best fighters in the world within a given weight class.

Katsidis is a world class fighter in my opinion as he fights at world title level and performs well there.

He has never won a world title.

That isn't my definition of 'world class' world class to me, means you can operate at world level without being blown away, and are competitive at that level on a consistent basis.

As Katsidis had Casamayor in trouble, and went to war with Diaz, I'd say that makes him world class.

Also the way he summarily dismissed Mitchel, also suggests he is a world class operator.

There are loads of contenders out there that have never won a world title but are world class....Herol Graham being a good example. Come up short every time he boxed for a world title, but he could certainly compete with them. In theory, If you're a top ten contender you should be world class.

DavidPayne wrote:Put Froch in with:

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit (x2), Manfredo et al and see what would happen. Yep, a long unbeaten record.

Though Bika may have beaten him.

I admire Froch for putting it on the line. When you do, you lose some. For fans on here who bemoan the over-protected unbeaten records to chastise him for losing against one of the top 3 fighters in the division on points away from home should have HYPOCRIT stamped on their head and take a vow of silence.

Yea he'd beat those but what about, Prime Kessler, Woodhall, Prime Reid, Eubanks, Mitchell, Brewer, Prime Lacy (Joe ruined him). He'd beat a few of them, but certainly not all, either way he isn't in Calzaghes class, even if Joe wasted much of his prime

I wouldn't critisize Froch too much for losing, its good he stepped up, I just don't like his arrogance/hypocracy/dishonesty

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Put Froch in with:

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit (x2), Manfredo et al and see what would happen. Yep, a long unbeaten record.

Though Bika may have beaten him.

I admire Froch for putting it on the line. When you do, you lose some. For fans on here who bemoan the over-protected unbeaten records to chastise him for losing against one of the top 3 fighters in the division on points away from home should have HYPOCRIT stamped on their head and take a vow of silence.

Yea he'd beat those but what about, Prime Kessler, Woodhall, Prime Reid, Eubanks, Mitchell, Brewer, Prime Lacy (Joe ruined him). He'd beat a few of them, but certainly not all, either way he isn't in Calzaghes class, even if Joe wasted much of his prime

I wouldn't critisize Froch too much for losing, its good he stepped up, I just don't like his arrogance/hypocracy/dishonesty

He's bitter. Bitter in a Joe Frazier sort of way which makes him say some ill-advised things.

Calzaghe was a class above, not disputing that. He did however fail too meet the best guys at his weight year after year. I notice the word Prime is used sparingly on your list which is telling too.

froch has had a memorable little run including 3 tremendous fights.

i reckon he thought he was invincible, a problem exacerbated by this last seconds win over taylor and narrow points win over dirrell. instead of looking at the warning signs, i think he's done what naz did and just carried on trying to fight the same way.

let's hope froch can come back with more character and ambition than naz did.

DavidPayne wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Put Froch in with:

Pudwill, Jimenez, Veit (x2), Manfredo et al and see what would happen. Yep, a long unbeaten record.

Though Bika may have beaten him.

I admire Froch for putting it on the line. When you do, you lose some. For fans on here who bemoan the over-protected unbeaten records to chastise him for losing against one of the top 3 fighters in the division on points away from home should have HYPOCRIT stamped on their head and take a vow of silence.

Yea he'd beat those but what about, Prime Kessler, Woodhall, Prime Reid, Eubanks, Mitchell, Brewer, Prime Lacy (Joe ruined him). He'd beat a few of them, but certainly not all, either way he isn't in Calzaghes class, even if Joe wasted much of his prime

I wouldn't critisize Froch too much for losing, its good he stepped up, I just don't like his arrogance/hypocracy/dishonesty

He's bitter. Bitter in a Joe Frazier sort of way which makes him say some ill-advised things.

Calzaghe was a class above, not disputing that. He did however fail too meet the best guys at his weight year after year. I notice the word Prime is used sparingly on your list which is telling too.

Precisely, Brewer, Mitchell and Eubank certainly weren't prime.

Or Woodhall. Woodhall knew he was never going to win that one.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

WildWaylon wrote:There are some fighters, like Ian Napa who always have to rely on getting a points win as they dont have the KO punch. Froch by contrast has relied mainly on the KO or the stoppage to get his wins. Having reached the top level he is now fighting people who can get their wins either way, and they can take the big punches Froch throws. I think its going to be pretty hard for him from now on, in fact I see him getting beaten by Abrahams and calling it a day. Fair play to Froch for wanting to fight the best but I feel he has reached his level which is just below true World class.

I think a big part of Froch's problem, is his unwillingness to develop or alter his style - he's basically fought the same way from day one of his career, and believed that it would keep on producing wins.

At top level, you have to keep on developing when the competition gets stiffer.

Agreed and good point. He can't get by just by being a 'proud warrior' and fit and strong, his complete disregard of his defence is staggering especially at the level his at now.

I think him and McCraken are too close, because Carl doesn't seem to take on board any of his advice and Rob seems to nice to pressure Carl into making the necessary adjustments.