BoxRec

Autobarn wrote: in spite of his gruelling run of big fights (3 of which are maybe the best super middleweight fights ever), i don't think he'd live it down, and without a title i can't see what opportunities he'd get.

nobby_nobbins wrote:Why on earth are some people saying Froch was "exposed"? He lost a close, hard-fought contest against a highly-touted former champion who enjoyed fantastic home support. Froch isn't one of those fighters who's terrified of losing. He has consistently taken risks in an age of pampered, risk-averse "celebrity" sportsmen.

overhand_right wrote:

Autobarn wrote: in spite of his gruelling run of big fights (3 of which are maybe the best super middleweight fights ever), i don't think he'd live it down, and without a title i can't see what opportunities he'd get.

Froch's opposition has been top notch but 'best smw fights ever'?

Remember Benn/McClellan? Eubank/Watson II? These clashes were freaking epic, despite their horrible outcomes.

overhand_right wrote:

nobby_nobbins wrote:Why on earth are some people saying Froch was "exposed"? He lost a close, hard-fought contest against a highly-touted former champion who enjoyed fantastic home support. Froch isn't one of those fighters who's terrified of losing. He has consistently taken risks in an age of pampered, risk-averse "celebrity" sportsmen.

Exactly Nobby. the only other British boxer in recent times who would engage in a risky tourney like this would be Lennox Lewis.

Naseem Hamed, Joe Calzaghe, Amir Khan, Ricky Hatton? No way.

superpunchout wrote:

overhand_right wrote:

nobby_nobbins wrote:Why on earth are some people saying Froch was "exposed"? He lost a close, hard-fought contest against a highly-touted former champion who enjoyed fantastic home support. Froch isn't one of those fighters who's terrified of losing. He has consistently taken risks in an age of pampered, risk-averse "celebrity" sportsmen.

Exactly Nobby. the only other British boxer in recent times who would engage in a risky tourney like this would be Lennox Lewis.

Naseem Hamed, Joe Calzaghe, Amir Khan, Ricky Hatton? No way.

I think that's an unfair assumption to make as none of the above were ever granted the oppertunity to participate in a super six style event.

Deserter wrote:

Finch wrote:

Deserter wrote:But it was the one out of 10 and the knockout did come so Froch didn't lose on points. Why can't you just accept you're wrong instead of trying to justify your position which has already been completely discredited. All you're doing here is making yourself look foolish by talking in hypotheticals - the number of fight results we could 'reinvent' if we adopted that position highlights quite how ridiculous your stance is.

We'll see how far his luck stretches........ Oh!

And here's another idiot post to match the last one. At the end of the day, when Froch retires he'll have a KO victory over a former world middleweight king and a close points loss to a three-time world champ regarding as one of the best super-middles ever. What shame is there in that?
This board does my head in at times. In Froch we've got a world-class fighter who's been willing to walk the walk in a way few fighters do - he went to war and convincingly beat a current world light-heavy belt holder; for his first defence he didn't take a soft touch, he went into Taylor's back yard and knocked him out. Most recently, he went into Kessler's backyard and gave an honorable account of himself. Yet people on here still want to ridicule the guy and try to downplay his attitude and achievements. Sad.

overhand_right wrote:It's not unfair at all, you only have to look at their careers to see how much they favour stay at home, easy tomato can defences. Eubank was the same.

Lewis and Froch seem like exceptions to the usual British approach, grab a paper title and drag it out as long as possible.

mickey1975 wrote:Hamed and Hatton faced the best,home and abroad.I know there is a few notable exceptions,but thats the case with everyone.Even the winner of this wont have beaten Bute,and then whoever else comes along in the next couple of years.Its the nature of the sport

nobby_nobbins wrote:Why on earth are some people saying Froch was "exposed"? He lost a close, hard-fought contest against a highly-touted former champion who enjoyed fantastic home support. Froch isn't one of those fighters who's terrified of losing. He has consistently taken risks in an age of pampered, risk-averse "celebrity" sportsmen.

overhand_right wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Hamed and Hatton faced the best,home and abroad.I know there is a few notable exceptions,but thats the case with everyone.Even the winner of this wont have beaten Bute,and then whoever else comes along in the next couple of years.Its the nature of the sport

How come Hamed wouldn't box Juan Manuel Marquez who was WBO mandatory for 2 years? Have you seen who he did fight in this period?

How long did Hatton's WBU bum of the month club drag on?

overhand_right wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Hamed and Hatton faced the best,home and abroad.I know there is a few notable exceptions,but thats the case with everyone.Even the winner of this wont have beaten Bute,and then whoever else comes along in the next couple of years.Its the nature of the sport

How come Hamed wouldn't box Juan Manuel Marquez who was WBO mandatory for 2 years? Have you seen who he did fight in this period?

How long did Hatton's WBU bum of the month club drag on?

Finch wrote:

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote: 9 out of 10 fights the knockout wouldnt have come and froch would have lost on points.

But it was the one out of 10 and the knockout did come so Froch didn't lose on points.
Why can't you just accept you're wrong instead of trying to justify your position which has already been completely discredited. All you're doing here is making yourself look foolish by talking in hypotheticals - the number of fight results we could 'reinvent' if we adopted that position highlights quite how ridiculous your stance is.

We'll see how far his luck stretches........ Oh!

kingfinn wrote:

Finch wrote:

Deserter wrote: But it was the one out of 10 and the knockout did come so Froch didn't lose on points.
Why can't you just accept you're wrong instead of trying to justify your position which has already been completely discredited. All you're doing here is making yourself look foolish by talking in hypotheticals - the number of fight results we could 'reinvent' if we adopted that position highlights quite how ridiculous your stance is.

We'll see how far his luck stretches........ Oh!

Have you mistaken me for someone else since this is the first comment ive made about it on the thread?
Credit to froch for winning it showed heart and power but it wasnt exactly a virtuoso performance.

Finch wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Finch wrote:
We'll see how far his luck stretches........ Oh!

And here's another idiot post to match the last one. At the end of the day, when Froch retires he'll have a KO victory over a former world middleweight king and a close points loss to a three-time world champ regarding as one of the best super-middles ever. What shame is there in that?
This board does my head in at times. In Froch we've got a world-class fighter who's been willing to walk the walk in a way few fighters do - he went to war and convincingly beat a current world light-heavy belt holder; for his first defence he didn't take a soft touch, he went into Taylor's back yard and knocked him out. Most recently, he went into Kessler's backyard and gave an honorable account of himself. Yet people on here still want to ridicule the guy and try to downplay his attitude and achievements. Sad.

Oh, sorry, i forgot Froch had been slagging Joe off for years.

G0mez wrote:Let's talk about Joe's 1st defence shall we ?

Branco Sobot.

mickey1975 wrote:

G0mez wrote:Let's talk about Joe's 1st defence shall we ?

Branco Sobot.

Yes,i remember,live on Sky Sports 1 on a saturday night in Cardiff wasnt it?A stoppage win if i remember correctly

G0mez wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

G0mez wrote:Let's talk about Joe's 1st defence shall we ?

Branco Sobot.

Yes,i remember,live on Sky Sports 1 on a saturday night in Cardiff wasnt it?A stoppage win if i remember correctly

Tremendous fight for his first defence. Who'd have guessed after that defeat to Joe he'd rack up an impressive record of 19-11.

It was only topped by his second defence against a touching-40year old Gimenez who had lost every round for the same title 7 years earlier against Chris Eubank. A man who took a fight with a big fat Duran in..1987.

yiddo14 wrote:Thats a myth I'm afraid.

Spanking - What Joe Calzaghe did to Jeff Lacy.

Losing a fight by 4 rounds - What happened to Naz against Barrera.