BoxRec

Who do we think each man should look to fight next?

The obvious options for Froch are Ward, Degale, Chavez Jr, Bika, Abraham, Dirrell?
Froch will want his day in vegas and I really can't see why Ward wouldn't meet him there, he'd still be home fighter.
Not sure Froch would be too interested in Degale, although it would sell. (although not as well as the suggestion on another thread that it would fill wembley again).
Chavez probably makes most sense, was in Carls targets previously, good payday, day in vegas and a bloody good battle between two guys with good beards.
Bika and Abraham both have titles and are winnable
Direll isn't going to happen, but it would answer some questions.

For Groves, I'd like to see Degale, but Degale is going to be aiming higher than Groves now, you'd think.
Many have suggested Arthur Abraham and it would make sense with the Sauerland connection now.
Or does Groves need to be looking at a rebuilding fight now, before jumping back into the title mix again? Kenny Anderson anyone?

I don't think Froch will rematch Groves. He has done what he wanted to do. I think it's pretty likely he will fight Chavez Jr in Vegas.

I wonder how Groves will get up for his next fight. 80,000 at Wembley to a re-building mission is gonna be a hell of a comedown.

I think it will either be Chavez Jr or Degale. Both these fights will make Froch the most money. Furthermore, a fight against Chavez Jr will allow him to accomplish his dream of fighting in Vegas. Chavez Jr has a huge Mexican following and is a PPV fighter. In contrast Ward does not have a huge fanbase. So why should Froch take a tougher fight (against Ward) for much less money than winnable fights (against Chavez/Degale)?

DMA1987 wrote:I don't think Froch will rematch Groves. He has done what he wanted to do. I think it's pretty likely he will fight Chavez Jr in Vegas.

Froch should be after Ward. Ward is the main man, Froch is the next best. If I were in that position I'd be wanting the Ward fight. Win that and retire top of the tree. Lose it, and at least you did everything you could.

There is little to be gained in Froch fighting anyone else IMO.

Groves will likely end up having a confidence builder then going after Abraham. I think Froch will side step Degale for now and go after Chavez or Bika. I think the Groves Degale rematch will happen sometimes in the next year or so too, they might both have belts when it does too.

GGG and another fight with Kessler are also options for Froch ... both of which he is unlikely to accept.

Ward will beat Froch 10 times out of 10, so why take that fight for less money than fighting Chavez Jr or Degale? ....

The Law wrote:GGG and another fight with Kessler are also options for Froch ... both of which he is unlikely to accept.

Ward will beat Froch 10 times out of 10, so why take that fight for less money than fighting Chavez Jr or Degale? ....

Ward is human. If a boxer gets in the ring with that attitude he's beaten before he starts. Who said Buster Douglas would've beaten Tyson?

Froch made about 8 million last night, he's not desperate for a few quid.

A lot of people are thinking a huge Vegas fight but I saw pound signs in Eddie Hearn's eyes today when he discussed a potential fight against Degale! Plus Froch is not the kind of person who vacates belts, he has said that before. He has too much pride. So Froch v Degale might just happen .......

Comparing Douglas v Tyson is nothing like comparing Froch v Ward. A closer comparison would be Guerrero v Mayweather or Margarito v Pacquaio. Both fights would have had the same result 10 times out of 10. Froch is too one dimensional and slow to ever beat Ward.

The Law wrote:A lot of people are thinking a huge Vegas fight but I saw pound signs in Eddie Hearn's eyes today when he discussed a potential fight against Degale! Plus Froch is not the kind of person who vacates belts, he has said that before. He has too much pride. So Froch v Degale might just happen .......

He isn't as a rule, but what if this is the last fight he plans to have?

DMA1987 wrote:

The Law wrote:A lot of people are thinking a huge Vegas fight but I saw pound signs in Eddie Hearn's eyes today when he discussed a potential fight against Degale! Plus Froch is not the kind of person who vacates belts, he has said that before. He has too much pride. So Froch v Degale might just happen .......

He isn't as a rule, but what if this is the last fight he plans to have?

If it's his last ever fight then it will be Ward. Froch is all about pride and legacy .... but that's a BIG 'if'.

The Law wrote:Comparing Douglas v Tyson is nothing like comparing Froch v Ward. A closer comparison would be Guerrero v Mayweather or Margarito v Pacquaio. Both fights would have had the same result 10 times out of 10. Froch is too one dimensional and slow to ever beat Ward.

You can't say that. Mathematically that would mean one fighter has a 100% chance i.e. approx. 1-1000 and the other 0% approx. 1000/1. Are you seriously trying to tell me Froch would be 1000/1 to beat Ward.

The Law wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

The Law wrote:A lot of people are thinking a huge Vegas fight but I saw pound signs in Eddie Hearn's eyes today when he discussed a potential fight against Degale! Plus Froch is not the kind of person who vacates belts, he has said that before. He has too much pride. So Froch v Degale might just happen .......

He isn't as a rule, but what if this is the last fight he plans to have?

If it's his last ever fight then it will be Ward. Froch is all about pride and legacy .... but that's a BIG 'if'.

Do you not get the impression he is comfortable with Ward being better?

I don't know, but putting myself in his shoes tonight was huge for his legacy, and now it might just be about fulfilling his Vegas ambition against a fighter he feels he probably beats.

Any number of options for Carl Froch. I'd be excited for any of these in the following order.

1. GGG
2. Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.
3. James Degale
4. Andre Ward
5. Mikkel Kessler III

for George Groves there are plenty of interesting options too.

1. Arthur Abraham (someone mentioned this as an option for him, I like it)
2. Degale

....hell what about George Groves vs Brian Vera? I think that could be interesting.

Robert Stieglitz likely wouldn't leave Germany to fight Groves, and I doubt Groves would go there, but Brian Vera would go to England to fight Groves I'd be willing to bet. He's a credible opponent most definitely I'd say.

So is someone like a Marco Antonio Periban.

To be honest I don't really want to see Groves v DeGale 3 or Froch v Kessler 3.

It's all been done before, Groves has beaten DeGale twice, how many times does he need to do it, and Kessler isn't the fighter he was a few years ago.

Ian1973 wrote:

The Law wrote:Comparing Douglas v Tyson is nothing like comparing Froch v Ward. A closer comparison would be Guerrero v Mayweather or Margarito v Pacquaio. Both fights would have had the same result 10 times out of 10. Froch is too one dimensional and slow to ever beat Ward.

You can't say that. Mathematically that would mean one fighter has a 100% chance i.e. approx. 1-1000 and the other 0% approx. 1000/1. Are you seriously trying to tell me Froch would be 1000/1 to beat Ward.

You are taking the comment literally and putting silly maths to it. Everyone knows what someone means when someone says one fighter would beat another fighter 10 times out of 10 due to a clash of styles. So tell me do you think Guerrero would beat Mayweather at all if they fought 10 times? The same goes for Margarito versus Pacquaio. I'm not talking maths or odds, I'm talking simple boxing analysis.

Ian1973 wrote:To be honest I don't really want to see Groves v DeGale 3 or Froch v Kessler 3.

It's all been done before, Groves has beaten DeGale twice, how many times does he need to do it, and Kessler isn't the fighter he was a few years ago.

I didn't even know Groves had fought Degale twice already.

gilgamesh wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:To be honest I don't really want to see Groves v DeGale 3 or Froch v Kessler 3.

It's all been done before, Groves has beaten DeGale twice, how many times does he need to do it, and Kessler isn't the fighter he was a few years ago.

I didn't even know Groves had fought Degale twice already.

I don't really wanna see Froch/Kessler 3 either which is why I had it at the bottom of that least of potential matchups for Froch, but it would still be an option if all other options failed for some reason.

Froch vs Sakio Bika would be pretty interesting too. Sakio Bika is a good opponent that a lot of people sleep on a lot.

The Law wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

The Law wrote:Comparing Douglas v Tyson is nothing like comparing Froch v Ward. A closer comparison would be Guerrero v Mayweather or Margarito v Pacquaio. Both fights would have had the same result 10 times out of 10. Froch is too one dimensional and slow to ever beat Ward.

You can't say that. Mathematically that would mean one fighter has a 100% chance i.e. approx. 1-1000 and the other 0% approx. 1000/1. Are you seriously trying to tell me Froch would be 1000/1 to beat Ward.

You are taking the comment literally and putting silly maths to it. Everyone knows what someone means when someone says one fighter would beat another fighter 10 times out of 10 due to a clash of styles. So tell me do you think Guerrero would beat Mayweather at all if they fought 10 times? The same goes for Margarito versus Pacquaio. I'm not talking maths or odds, I'm talking simple boxing analysis.

My friend you were the one talking about 10 out of 10's. If you don't mean it don't say it.

In answer to your question I would give Mayweather a 97% chance of winning that fight = 1/33 and Guererro 3% 1/33. It might not seem like much of a difference to you but in terms of mathematical probability and betting the difference can be significant. It is impossible for one person to have a full 100% chance over another. What if one has a heart attack during the fight? Highly unlikely, obviously, but the point is nothing is ever certain.

gilgamesh wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:To be honest I don't really want to see Groves v DeGale 3 or Froch v Kessler 3.

It's all been done before, Groves has beaten DeGale twice, how many times does he need to do it, and Kessler isn't the fighter he was a few years ago.

I didn't even know Groves had fought Degale twice already.

Once in the amateurs

gilgamesh wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:To be honest I don't really want to see Groves v DeGale 3 or Froch v Kessler 3.

It's all been done before, Groves has beaten DeGale twice, how many times does he need to do it, and Kessler isn't the fighter he was a few years ago.

I didn't even know Groves had fought Degale twice already.

Once as an amateur, once as a pro.

The Law wrote:Comparing Douglas v Tyson is nothing like comparing Froch v Ward. A closer comparison would be Guerrero v Mayweather or Margarito v Pacquaio. Both fights would have had the same result 10 times out of 10. Froch is too one dimensional and slow to ever beat Ward.

I get what you are saying. And I agree. I believe Froch does too.

Ian1973 wrote:

The Law wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

You can't say that. Mathematically that would mean one fighter has a 100% chance i.e. approx. 1-1000 and the other 0% approx. 1000/1. Are you seriously trying to tell me Froch would be 1000/1 to beat Ward.

You are taking the comment literally and putting silly maths to it. Everyone knows what someone means when someone says one fighter would beat another fighter 10 times out of 10 due to a clash of styles. So tell me do you think Guerrero would beat Mayweather at all if they fought 10 times? The same goes for Margarito versus Pacquaio. I'm not talking maths or odds, I'm talking simple boxing analysis.

My friend you were the one talking about 10 out of 10's. If you don't mean it don't say it.

In answer to your question I would give Mayweather a 97% chance of winning that fight = 1/33 and Guererro 3% 1/33. It might not seem like much of a difference to you but in terms of mathematical probability and betting the difference can be significant. It is impossible for one person to have a full 100% chance over another. What if one has a heart attack during the fight? Highly unlikely, obviously, but the point is nothing is ever certain.

1/33? ... If you are going to argue using my 10/10 comment then stick to using tenths as a fraction. If you round off your 1/33 to the nearest tenth then you will have 10/10 .....

Now stop over-analysing a simple comment because two can play at that game. This is not a maths debate and you know full well what the phrase I used means in boxing talk ... i.e. that someone has pretty much no chance. It doesn't literally mean 0% chance as a percentage despite the 10 times out of 10 remark. It's just boxing talk and not maths ...

You can't say that. Mathematically that would mean one fighter has a 100% chance i.e. approx. 1-1000 and the other 0% approx. 1000/1. Are you seriously trying to tell me Froch would be 1000/1 to beat Ward. [/quote]

You are taking the comment literally and putting silly maths to it. Everyone knows what someone means when someone says one fighter would beat another fighter 10 times out of 10 due to a clash of styles. So tell me do you think Guerrero would beat Mayweather at all if they fought 10 times? The same goes for Margarito versus Pacquaio. I'm not talking maths or odds, I'm talking simple boxing analysis.[/quote]


My friend you were the one talking about 10 out of 10's. If you don't mean it don't say it.

In answer to your question I would give Mayweather a 97% chance of winning that fight = 1/33 and Guererro 3% 1/33. It might not seem like much of a difference to you but in terms of mathematical probability and betting the difference can be significant. It is impossible for one person to have a full 100% chance over another. What if one has a heart attack during the fight? Highly unlikely, obviously, but the point is nothing is ever certain.[/quote]

1/33? ... If you are going to argue using my 10/10 comment then stick to using tenths as a fraction. If you round off your 1/33 to the nearest tenth then you will have 10/10 .....

Now stop over-analysing a simple comment because two can play at that game. This is not a maths debate and you know full well what the phrase I used means in boxing talk ... i.e. that someone has pretty much no chance. It doesn't literally mean 0% chance as a percenteage despite the 10 times out of 10 remark. It's just boxing talk and not maths ...

It's all about percentage chance and therefore actual, accurate and realistic chance. If you were either a bookmaker or a professional punter you would understand exactly where I'm coming from. If you were either of those and you didn't understand the principal you'd go bust within a month or two.

How many x 10? Would Mayweather beat Guerrero 100 times out of 100? Even if Guerrero wins just one of the 100 bouts that makes the 100% certainty of a Mayweather win flawed and inaccurate.