BoxRec

Viktor Vaughn wrote:Chris Eubank had the same thing with the Watson fights. Anyone who judges Froch solely on the basis of these two fights is a complete arsehead anyway so their opinion won’t matter.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:

Viktor Vaughn wrote:Chris Eubank had the same thing with the Watson fights. Anyone who judges Froch solely on the basis of these two fights is a complete arsehead anyway so their opinion won’t matter.

Not sure of the comparison to be fair. Eubank did knock out Watson in the second fight.

If we want to talk about Eubank getting gift decisions I'm not sure I have enough space on the page. WBO needed a visible champ, and made sure they got it one way or another.

He won two fights against a superior fighter. Or at least a fighter who had proven himself to be better throughout the majority of both. The point is that Froch's career will be assessed in its totality. Plus people have over-egged the stoppage and performances in fight one and that will settle down over time.

thepocketrocket wrote:One thing that seems to be getting missed from last time is that the judges were well on the way to giving Froch a decision in a robbery Dick Turpin would have been proud of.

After all the controversy of the first fight, if Groves looks like he won and Froch's arm gets raised, will Froch go down as the guy who got help twice against a superior fighter?

I mean public perception of course, not on Boxrec

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:
Over egged? Nah. In general, that is the Froch fan club trying to spin it. But that has been done to death.

I'm just not sure that the general public or more mainstream fans will ever go back to his wins against Pascal and AA. Because of his late arrival in the mainstream, these fight will be the main things the majority think of.

Not saying it is fair, but legacy is created away from these boards and the die hards

I think it has. People have made it out to be the worst stoppage ever, it clearly isn't, and the demonisation of Howard Foster was the biggest pile of bollocks we've had to put up with this year, and there's been some right bollocks spouted. I could see the stoppage coming from the sixth, and told the people I was watching it with that Groves's tactics were wrong from the 4-5th onward. Everyone in the boxing universe knows how Howard operates, Groves should have taken a knee to get some breathing space.

According to your other paragraphs, the casuals will have forgotten about the fight almost as soon as it ends, so they won't be setting anyone's legacy. The legacy isn't created by this board, the piss heads on site or the PPV watchers, it's created by his work, and his body of work is fine.

The most interesting aspect, for me, is the way both fights have played out across social media. I see some people who go to shows and, if asked, would claim to be die hards talk complete and utter tripe online to the point where you wonder if they have any understanding of boxing whatsoever. There’s been some unbelievable nonsense flying about. It’s not only tedious, it’s ill-informed.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:One thing that seems to be getting missed from last time is that the judges were well on the way to giving Froch a decision in a robbery Dick Turpin would have been proud of.

After all the controversy of the first fight, if Groves looks like he won and Froch's arm gets raised, will Froch go down as the guy who got help twice against a superior fighter?

I mean public perception of course, not on Boxrec

Realistically I'd imagine that most of the people who watch the Froch vs Groves rematch will have only seen a handful of Froch's previous fights, so whatever happens on Saturday will be their lasting memory of him.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:
Over egged? Nah. In general, that is the Froch fan club trying to spin it. But that has been done to death.

I'm just not sure that the general public or more mainstream fans will ever go back to his wins against Pascal and AA. Because of his late arrival in the mainstream, these fight will be the main things the majority think of.

Not saying it is fair, but legacy is created away from these boards and the die hards

I think it has. People have made it out to be the worst stoppage ever, it clearly isn't, and the demonisation of Howard Foster was the biggest pile of bollocks we've had to put up with this year, and there's been some right bollocks spouted. I could see the stoppage coming from the sixth, and told the people I was watching it with that Groves's tactics were wrong from the 4-5th onward. Everyone in the boxing universe knows how Howard operates, Groves should have taken a knee to get some breathing space.

According to your other paragraphs, the casuals will have forgotten about the fight almost as soon as it ends, so they won't be setting anyone's legacy. The legacy isn't created by this board, the piss heads on site or the PPV watchers, it's created by his work, and his body of work is fine.

The most interesting aspect, for me, is the way both fights have played out across social media. I see some people who go to shows and, if asked, would claim to be die hards talk complete and utter tripe online to the point where you wonder if they have any understanding of boxing whatsoever. There’s been some unbelievable nonsense flying about. It’s not only tedious, it’s ill-informed.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:The fans dictate legacy. Public perception dictates legacy. Legacy is a subjective. Doesn't mean the legacy isn't flawed. We will all have a legacy when we leave the world, and it is how the rest of the world views our actions that dictate how positive it is. We can all do some great work, but if most of our people base that our genre rests in think it is average, then that is what our lasting legacy is.

No it doesn't. Some fighters didn't appear on TV or weren't heard of by the general public. Are they discounted in legacy terms? Does a fighter only have a legacy if the general public know who he is. In that case many great fighters no longer have a legacy. You're not 100% on the meaning of the word, clearly. His legacy will be based on what he did throughout his career, not just these fights.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:I think it has. People have made it out to be the worst stoppage ever, it clearly isn't, and the demonisation of Howard Foster was the biggest pile of bollocks we've had to put up with this year, and there's been some right bollocks spouted.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:Everyone in the boxing universe knows how Howard operates, Groves should have taken a knee to get some breathing space.

Parson Cross wrote:TD ignore horse poo because that's what his opinion is worth.
With you all the way.
When Groves has been soundly beaten - again - then matters of legacy etc will take care of themselves.

Wrists wrote:It was less than satisfactory stoppage nothing more nothing less.

It was controversial hence the rematch.

To call it one of the worst stoppages of all time is wrong or just simple trolling.

To comment on the general question in this thread I'm with Terence. If you judge froch on these 2 fights then you're clueless.

A mans legacy is surely defined over the whole period of his work?

Wrists wrote:It was less than satisfactory stoppage nothing more nothing less.

It was controversial hence the rematch.

To call it one of the worst stoppages of all time is wrong or just simple trolling.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

palooka wrote:
I agree with you but find 'the body of work' thing over wraught; the mans job is to punch other men not make faberge eggs.

Hagler disagrees, he often said he suffered for "his art".

I said 'often', I actually meant 'once', to Phil Berger, who found it interesting. Toney made a similar comparison when speaking to Don McCrae.