BoxRec

Thought it was interesting to consider that two boxers who started their careers (and boxed most of them) under the guise that they'd fight anyone, anytime, and would not duck anyone, would end up with slightly tarnished conclusions to their careers.

I'm talking about Carl Froch and David Haye.

Obviously Carl can reverse his recent criticism by beating George Groves (if he can), but it looks like Haye is most likely gone for good.

Both Carl and David started their pro careers by claiming they'd fight anyone. And in fairness they did, and I think people really respected them for it. Carl was desperate not to end up with the doubts Calzaghe had on his record (not fighting the best/not fighting people before they were shot), and David's attitude was similarly confident and he beat everyone in front of him (bar his early slip up against Thompson).

Obviously the wheels fell off a bit for David once he reached heavyweight. I just don't think he was physically big enough to ever stand a chance of beating the Klitschkos, but minus some tasteless trolling of them (severed head t-shirts and crass comments), he still largely gave it a go. But a lot of people by that later stage in his career had lost patience with him and he'd gone from the cocky guy willing to fight anyone, to a guy with far too much talk, who continually danced away from actually giving people what they wanted.

With Carl, wow, here's a guy that a nation loved, who nearly smashed it all to pieces by being on the wrong end of a dodgy decision and then being so cautious/negative in the post fight chat. He must have felt pig sick being booed by all those British fans.

So, I wander, did all the early confidence and bravado that these two fighters displayed end up having a detrimental effect on their latter careers?

Joe Calzaghe ducked people for sure, but he never got booed by his own crowd. People on forums such as this one would bemoan his opposition choices, but you never saw him get the vitriol that David Haye has received in the last few years from some people.

Both David Haye and Carl Froch have achieved a lot in this sport. Neither are going to go down as legends of the sport (in my mind), but they're certainly two of the best British boxers that have fought in the past 10 years.

Was David a victim of his own mouth? Was Carl just unfortunate to be the 'other' guy in a fight where the young underdog performed out of his skin and got robbed by the ref?

David can slink away now and that's that, but for Carl, I fear if he loses to George it will heavily tarnish his legacy in the sport.

What do people think?

good thread. it does show how fickle the public are - espesh the boxing public - thing is though, john conteh never bad mouthed his opponents, most british fighters kept more or less quiet before the fight and the public respected that back then. today, and for quite a few years, the fight is talked up by bad mouthing. publicity is not just king, it is a raging swearing howling monster and fighters like froch and most of the big names get huge paydays for kissing its arse.
but a side result is that the fighter is booed if the level of bullshit is not reached in reality. in turn he quickly slips into oblivion and his excellent achievements are forgotten by the bloke in the street in a fairly short time.
naseem hamed is a victim of this - a really top fighter who blustered and bragged through his career until he was schooled by man he might well have beaten had he been more focused. your example Haye is another.
I believe a legacy is more likely to be remembered if it is not accompanied by the memory of what a big mouthed asshole the fighter was. in short, let your boxing do the talking.

Naseem Hamed didn't even give the fans a chance to boo his shortcomings by simply disappearing after the Barrera loss (minus one comeback fight). Now people either look back at Nas and think he couldn't cut it at the very top, or they revere him for his skills and character.

Perhaps the excitement factor is to blame. The glitz and the drama. At least Nas was an exciting, skilful fighter. Both Froch and Haye are heavy hitters, but I doubt you'll ever hear someone refer back to one of their fights (in years to come) the way in which people do today for Hamed. People remember the flashy fighters with the most ease!

Obviously boxing connoisseurs look (and remember) a bit deeper. Froch will always be known for having a granite chin, for example.

If he beats Groves, I see him going for one last pay day in Vegas. If he loses, I cant imagine any other course than retirement (depending probably on the manner in which he loses). Was the first Groves fight a bad day at the office, was he just out-skilled, or is he past it?

As for Haye, I hear murmurs of a comeback if his recovery goes well. But is there really any point? What's out there for him? Another loss against Wlad? Beating up Tyson Fury?

Haye and Froch would be icons if the internet did not exist. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Yeah that's a very good point. I was wondering earlier on today what it would have been like if Twitter had been around during Nigel Benn's prime! At first I just couldn't imagine using it, but it would have been the norm, so he probably would've.

haye could have taken klitscho but he didn't take any risks,he tried to potshot as he did with valuev,it didn't work because the younger brother is 50 times the fighter than the statue like Russian,he might have got knocked out but it`s better to get ko`d going for a win than a painful 12 rounds being mauled and outjabbed by a bigger guy

Yeah, and as much as Haye had the tools to knock Wlad out, the risks in attempting it were huge. I'm not making excuses for him, but as much as Haye did want to win that fight (and in style), he also didn't want his head taken off his shoulders. A solid jab could have sent Haye to sleep from Wlad. Unfortunately it meant a pretty frustrating fight for the fans to watch.