BoxRec

caldo2025 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:I've been critical of Froch lately with the whole GGG tweet and though I don't think Froch is half as good as the British People do on this site, I can't deny that he belongs in the HOF. The Boxing HOF is not exactly a vault in a Swiss Bank. If Sylvester Stallone can get in for pretending to be a boxer, Froch should be a first ballot.

I don't think anyone in Britain is under any illusions about how good Froch is, but what we admire (speaking if I may for my countrymen) is his sheer grit, determination and space-hopper like cojones - he's taken on every challenge, won most, and lost a couple, and for me personally, he's got everything mentality-wise I want to see in a fighter.

That is worth admiration.

I've never watched a Froch fight hoping he would lose so I would call myself a Froch fan as well but some Brit's on this site really have a distorted view of Froch's career. Some have him in the all time best boxers in the world list and that's not something I could do. Grit, determination and "cajones", i'm right there with you. Froch's attitutde and heart will be missed because you don't see many boxers with those tools.

Well, on that it appears we are in agreement. The assertion he is an ATG would be silly, to allow admiration for a fighter's qualities to cloud the vision when seeing their flaws is foolish.

Froch is a very good boxer (compared to the overall boxing population) - and a great fighter (by which I mean, he has a great fighting heart) - more than that, is delusional.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, on that it appears we are in agreement. The assertion he is an ATG would be silly, to allow admiration for a fighter's qualities to cloud the vision when seeing their flaws is foolish.

Froch is a very good boxer (compared to the overall boxing population) - and a great fighter (by which I mean, he has a great fighting heart) - more than that, is delusional.

Froch is an ATG.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well, on that it appears we are in agreement. The assertion he is an ATG would be silly, to allow admiration for a fighter's qualities to cloud the vision when seeing their flaws is foolish.

Froch is a very good boxer (compared to the overall boxing population) - and a great fighter (by which I mean, he has a great fighting heart) - more than that, is delusional.

Froch is an ATG.

I presume you're being facetious.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I presume you're being facetious.

Nope.

What does "all time great" even mean? How many all time greats are there allowed to be?

Froch is certainly a British ATG.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I presume you're being facetious.

Nope.

What does "all time great" even mean? How many all time greats are there allowed to be?

Froch is certainly a British ATG.

Well yes, that is a fair point. How great do you have to be to be an ATG?

He's deffo a British ATG.

He's also one of the greats of the SMW division for sure.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I presume you're being facetious.

Nope.

What does "all time great" even mean? How many all time greats are there allowed to be?

Froch is certainly a British ATG.

Well yes, that is a fair point. How great do you have to be to be an ATG?

He's deffo a British ATG.

He's also one of the greats of the SMW division for sure.

Of course he is. He might not have the skills of ward or floyd, but he fought the best out there, and did amazing with what he had. Stamina, balls, heart, chin etc. The way he ended bute was just crazy. Hes done more for boxing and deserves way more credit than the guys initialy mentioned in this post, imo.

It's not the Hall Of Strictly The Very Best Boxers Ever - it's the Hall Of FAME.
Add the resume and entertainment to "80 thousand @ Wembley" and he's IN 100%.

100% in, Froch to be knocking over young hungry fighters when most top boxers his age are retired proves his worth to be in the BHOF along with the list of difficult fights he has been in the last few years coming through most of them as a champ.

Back in the 1980s Bernard Taylor was in KO magazines P4P top 10 or top 12 (one or the other) after his draw with Pedroza and stayed there for some time. Many US reporters thought he deserved the nod in the draw with Pedroza.

McGuigan's win over Taylor is often overlooked. If Taylor was around today he'd be a multiple title holder at multiple weights.

skanksta wrote:It's not the Hall Of Strictly The Very Best Boxers Ever - it's the Hall Of FAME.
Add the resume and entertainment to "80 thousand @ Wembley" and he's IN 100%.

Which again then goes back to my previous suggestion - Henry Maske? The man was an ICON in Germany. Sure he didn't fill a Wembley size, but neither did Naz - would Naz vs Barrera filled Wembley - yes easy. Maske would have also, the guy was MASSIVE.

Michaelswecki is still got a god like status in Poland.

Or is it Hall of Fame in countries that have been considered the founders of Boxing - e.g. THe UK and US that only count?

stujones wrote:

skanksta wrote:It's not the Hall Of Strictly The Very Best Boxers Ever - it's the Hall Of FAME.
Add the resume and entertainment to "80 thousand @ Wembley" and he's IN 100%.

Which again then goes back to my previous suggestion - Henry Maske? The man was an ICON in Germany. Sure he didn't fill a Wembley size, but neither did Naz - would Naz vs Barrera filled Wembley - yes easy. Maske would have also, the guy was MASSIVE.

Michaelswecki is still got a god like status in Poland.

Or is it Hall of Fame in countries that have been considered the founders of Boxing - e.g. THe UK and US that only count?

It's my opinion that The Tiger and Maske should both be in.

Abso freekin lootely

Is this a trick question?

Of course he gets in.

Easily.

Ezzard wrote:Back in the 1980s Bernard Taylor was in KO magazines P4P top 10 or top 12 (one or the other) after his draw with Pedroza and stayed there for some time. Many US reporters thought he deserved the nod in the draw with Pedroza.

McGuigan's win over Taylor is often overlooked. If Taylor was around today he'd be a multiple title holder at multiple weights.

Taylor was very slick but his amateur career was too long, he had hundreds of bouts against very tough competition, he was a better am than pro.

Froch is not the smartest boxer i'v ever seen but he achieved GREAT thing's in the toughest game in the world
is he a HOF of course he is He would beat some that are already their.........and please no one ask me to name them
its a gut feeling that i'm going on and i'm pretty sure is correct

No.

If he pays his $15, he should be admitted. Same as you and me.

I am a fan of Froch. Great viewing. He's had some good wins, but no great ones. Was handled easily by Ward. I thought he lost to Dirrell. And it's a mark against him that he had a loss and a difficult win with Kessler. Looked fantastic against Bute, but Bute it turns out was built of smoke and mirrors. Sorry to see him retire, but I don't think he should be in and I don't think he will be in.

Essentially, he'll be compared to folks like Hopkins, Mosely, Vitali Klitschko, Jones Jr., Toney, Sergio Martinez and possibly Mayweather. All these people will be on the ballot around the same time as him. The only one who I'd put in after Froch would be Toney and I'd have to do some more research on that because I wasn't watching a lot of boxing during Toney's heyday.

WadeGwynn wrote:If he pays his $15, he should be admitted. Same as you and me.

I am a fan of Froch. Great viewing. He's had some good wins, but no great ones. Was handled easily by Ward. I thought he lost to Dirrell. And it's a mark against him that he had a loss and a difficult win with Kessler. Looked fantastic against Bute, but Bute it turns out was built of smoke and mirrors. Sorry to see him retire, but I don't think he should be in and I don't think he will be in.

Essentially, he'll be compared to folks like Hopkins, Mosely, Vitali Klitschko, Jones Jr., Toney, Sergio Martinez and possibly Mayweather. All these people will be on the ballot around the same time as him. The only one who I'd put in after Froch would be Toney and I'd have to do some more research on that because I wasn't watching a lot of boxing during Toney's heyday.

Toney will be in like a shot. Definitely rate him above Froch - he was a murderer at 160, but unfortunately was killing himself to make weight, and ran into RJJ. His career was patchy, but on his day, he was an unbelievable fighter. Shame he didn't have a bit more discipline.

Why not? It is a Hall of Fame not Achievement. He has been one of the best known boxers for years now. Has fought against the best around for him and won most of those. That's enough for a building based on fame not record.

He belongs in.

WadeGwynn wrote:If he pays his $15, he should be admitted. Same as you and me.

I am a fan of Froch. Great viewing. He's had some good wins, but no great ones. Was handled easily by Ward. I thought he lost to Dirrell. And it's a mark against him that he had a loss and a difficult win with Kessler. Looked fantastic against Bute, but Bute it turns out was built of smoke and mirrors. Sorry to see him retire, but I don't think he should be in and I don't think he will be in.

Essentially, he'll be compared to folks like Hopkins, Mosely, Vitali Klitschko, Jones Jr., Toney, Sergio Martinez and possibly Mayweather. All these people will be on the ballot around the same time as him. The only one who I'd put in after Froch would be Toney and I'd have to do some more research on that because I wasn't watching a lot of boxing during Toney's heyday.

I'd definitely put Toney in above Froch.
Toney will be straight in first year ballot.