BoxRec

If George Groves is successful in winning World Boxing Super Series super-middleweight tournament:

• He would undoubtedly be regarded as the top-dog of 168lbs weight division
• The RING’s Super Middleweight champion
• The WBA Super World Super Middleweight champion
• Engaged in seven world title fights
• Faced twelve world-class opponents (where they had previously competed for a world title at some point or other)
• Engaged in bouts against five former world champions (James DeGale, Fedor Chudinov, Glen Johnson, Carl Froch & Badou Jack)

If George Groves is somehow able to overcome his injury problems and is fit enough to defeat Callum Smith to win the WBSS 168lbs final, does this significantly enhance Carl Froch’s legacy?

I would say no. George has created his own legacy by sheer hard work and perseverance.
He is one if those examples of how a loss makes you stronger.
How every dog has his day...

I guess, many will already favour Froch against anyone of the current era. So some people can assume, that Groves just wasn't able to win really tough competitor, but was lucky to have this tough era at its end. Maybe it's a wrong logic, considering the fact, that Groves gave Froch some troubles. On the other hand, Froch was aging then and retired afterwards. We'll see...

I would say yes but it needs to be kept in perspective.
The best opponent he has faced since Froch is Jack and he lost that fight too.
Groves hasn't went on a rampage wiping out everyone but Froch.

Not much. Beating a 25-year-old future good fighter doesn't mean you beat him in his prime. I'll refer you to Wlad's pre-prime defeats, Hopkins's pre-prime defeats, Pacquiao's pre-prime defeats, Antonio Margarito's pre-prime defeats, Carlos Baldomir's pre-prime defeats, JMM's pre-prime defeats, and so on. Groves could've learned 27 different tricks after fighting Froch. Froch fought the version he fought, which is not the version that exists today.

KiwiRider wrote: ↑13 Aug 2018, 05:52 I would say no. George has created his own legacy by sheer hard work and perseverance.
He is one if those examples of how a loss makes you stronger.
How every dog has his day...

Yes, it was great to see Groves overcome his 'nearly man' mantle. You could see he had talent by the way he was boxing Carl Froch's head off in their first fight, but he just didn't seem as comfortable in the ring as others did.

Whatever Groves does in the future has little impact on Froch's legacy, although Grove's subsequent success certainly won't hurt.

Froch was a modestly skilled boxer with enormous reserves of will power, stamina and determination. Under the no nonsense guidance of Rob McCracken he achieved all he could have wished for. Most boxers are somewhere between 40% and 60% going into the last round, Froch like Marciano and Mayweather, seemed to be somewhere between 60% to 80%.

As far as impact on his legacy goes, a fight with Joe Calzaghe would have been far more telling. Alas, it was not to be.

No for me. Froch fight was a few years ago and things have moved on, Froch is irrelevant now. It would enhance Groves' legacy a wee bit though.

Not really, Froch was good enough to win it and all. Froch doesn’t define Grovesy any more. Groves used to be - the geezer who fought Froch. Not any more.

I’d argue that many people assumed that the reason for the highly-competitive nature of Froch’s two bouts against Groves was due to their belief that Carl was already past-his-prime during that period of time, whilst also underrating George’s ability.

I feel that George Groves has been underrated for the last few years and hasn’t actually improved that much since he faced Carl Froch.

I’m not detracting from George Groves’ accomplishments, but perhaps Froch’s victory over the current 168lbs top-dog is looking far more impressive today than it did four years or so ago.

It doesn't hurt. Any time you beat a guy, and he later goes on to big wins, and greater notoriety it can only boost the significance of your victory over him.

No, not really imo. It does some, but I think it's more devastating on the division as a whole. It's extremely weak at the moment. Good for Groves, but in a stronger division, he wouldn't be the top guy.

I mean Jack, who was arguably the number 1 guy, moves up and does nothing against an old Stevenson. Chudinov got beat by one of the weaker fighters at LHW. Hell, Truax was in the top 10 at one point. Just not a very good division.

Groves' wins over Chudinov, Cox, Murray, and Eubank Jr. will not hold up well or are not holding up well at all.