Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
His legacy wasn't made by the groves fights. He over achieved and that's about it. He was a good fighter but not great.
How can somebody over achieve in Boxing? I don't get that at all.
I dont agree with @
powerpuncher at all by the way
but im thinking, can you over achieve in boxing? berto fought mayweather this weekend, the biggest fight around, even though he lost is just being in there an over achievement?
I actually think with Berto, the fact that him sharing the ring with Floyd caused outrage only shows you how much Berto has under achieved throughout his career. 5 years ago we were looking at him the same way we are looking at the likes of Keith Thurman now. He looked to have a lot going for him. I actually think he gives a lot of the top guys problems still at 147. I think he would match up well against Brook or Khan (although that obviously can't happen).
I do take your point, and based on his recent resume, he over achieved in terms of him not really deserving a fight with Mayweather. But that's an over-achievement with regards to something that has happened outside of the ring - Mayweather retiring and seemingly wanting a more straightforward opponent to bow out against.
Froch's supposed over-achievements stem from the perception that he isn't technically gifted enough to beat the fighters he has beaten. I think people forget that technical ability isn't everything - hence why guys like Berto and Broner have never been as dominant as their talents should have let them be.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
The so called lucky punch was one that grove predicted did he not?
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
I doubt it harms it. Froch can almost take credit for ruining the guy in those back to back fights.
Groves really does stick his chin out. He carries his face almost in front of his feet.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Froch legacy has not dramatically changed, it would have enhanced if Groves won but it has not gone down just because Groves lost. Froch dealt with Groves convincingly. Froch has fought the top fighters in his time and avoided no one. Froch can be proud of that.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
His legacy wasn't made by the groves fights. He over achieved and that's about it. He was a good fighter but not great.
How can somebody over achieve in Boxing? I don't get that at all.
Easy. It's the same way you can over achieved in anything. You aren't the most talented or skilled fighter but you work hard and push through adversity and beat those that are more talented and skilled than yourself.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
His legacy wasn't made by the groves fights. He over achieved and that's about it. He was a good fighter but not great.
How can somebody over achieve in Boxing? I don't get that at all.
Easy. It's the same way you can over achieved in anything. You aren't the most talented or skilled fighter but you work hard and push through adversity and beat those that are more talented and skilled than yourself.
I was thinking Vaughan Bean getting a world title shot by having the right connection.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
So George Groves has lost another World title fight, this time he was expected to win. I like Groves, but I'm not one of these guys that is blind to the facts (Ross);D
But the point of this thread is about Froch. He's built this legacy thing on the Bute & Kessler win and the Groves fights.
Well Bute has done nothing since to prove he was anything, Kessler has done nothing to prove he wasn't finished, and now Groves has so far only proved he is European level.
Of course, Froch and his fans will say that they've all Been "Cobra'd", but personally I don't buy that .
IMO, Froch's legacy is that he was a decent World Champion without ever being the no.1 in the division, he had a granite chin , which he needed as his skiilset wasn't good enough, and as Gary Player would say he worked hard and earned himself a lot of luck.
Good but not great ! I'm sure some people will see it differently. ;)
Problem is no-one has said that Froch was the greatest or even an all time great. So there is no throne to knock him off. Even Froch himself says that he was not the most talented of fighters.
As for Groves loss to Jack ? I think it's more that people under-rated Jack, than over-rated Groves.
Groves is still decent fighter but of course 3 world title shots in two years, all losses, means he has to go the very back of cue and he has some serious rebuilding to do.
But there are still good fights for him. The winner of the Rocky Fielding Vs Callum Smith would be a good one for starts and even a return with Degale would be good (I thought Degale won the first) but it was very close.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Froch was a very limited fighter, but had a granite chin and an outstanding attitude and work ethic. He was also involved in some entertaining fights. That's how I will remember him.
Got lucky a few times in his career and was completely outclassed by the only really elite fighter he ever fought who was at the top of his game.
Groves fought Froch towards the end of his career when there weren't really many meaningful fights out here for him. Sure, he dropped Froch and gave him all kinds of trouble in the first fight, but then he ran out of gas and totally choked in the rematch. It's not really a fight that defines Froch's career, but it does reiterate what we already knew: Froch wasn't pretty, but he came to fight and, most of the time, he found a way to win. How does he compare to the all time great middleweights? To be honest, he doesn't really compare at all, but he did unbelievably well for a guy with such limited skills.
As for Groves, well, he's an OK fighter and the first Froch fight was a classic, but he won't live long in the memory.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
denilson200
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
So George Groves has lost another World title fight, this time he was expected to win. I like Groves, but I'm not one of these guys that is blind to the facts (Ross);D
But the point of this thread is about Froch. He's built this legacy thing on the Bute & Kessler win and the Groves fights.
Well Bute has done nothing since to prove he was anything, Kessler has done nothing to prove he wasn't finished, and now Groves has so far only proved he is European level.
Of course, Froch and his fans will say that they've all Been "Cobra'd", but personally I don't buy that .
IMO, Froch's legacy is that he was a decent World Champion without ever being the no.1 in the division, he had a granite chin , which he needed as his skiilset wasn't good enough, and as Gary Player would say he worked hard and earned himself a lot of luck.
Good but not great ! I'm sure some people will see it differently. ;)
Problem is no-one has said that Froch was the greatest or even an all time great. So there is no throne to knock him off. Even Froch himself says that he was not the most talented of fighters.
As for Groves loss to Jack ? I think it's more that people under-rated Jack, than over-rated Groves.
Groves is still decent fighter but of course 3 world title shots in two years, all losses, means he has to go the very back of cue and he has some serious rebuilding to do.
But there are still good fights for him. The winner of the Rocky Fielding Vs Callum Smith would be a good one for starts and even a return with Degale would be good (I thought Degale won the first) but it was very close.
Jack is underrated because he's black
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
I don't think it changes Froch's legacy one jot.
Carl's resume is one of the best of the last decade & anything Groves does from now on will not change that.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Froch didn't take Groves seriously in their first fight.... and if I can recall, he got rid of him quicker than he did in the first fight than he did in the second.
Goes to show you that in the second fight, when both men had a chance to really get into each other's gameplan, Froch just upped more than Groves ever could at Groves's stage.
Groves was just rushed and should not have been in the ring with Froch. In fact, if it was the Froch pre-Kessler #2, then Groves would have gone in the first round.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
denilson200
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
So George Groves has lost another World title fight, this time he was expected to win. I like Groves, but I'm not one of these guys that is blind to the facts (Ross);D
But the point of this thread is about Froch. He's built this legacy thing on the Bute & Kessler win and the Groves fights.
Well Bute has done nothing since to prove he was anything, Kessler has done nothing to prove he wasn't finished, and now Groves has so far only proved he is European level.
Of course, Froch and his fans will say that they've all Been "Cobra'd", but personally I don't buy that .
IMO, Froch's legacy is that he was a decent World Champion without ever being the no.1 in the division, he had a granite chin , which he needed as his skiilset wasn't good enough, and as Gary Player would say he worked hard and earned himself a lot of luck.
Good but not great ! I'm sure some people will see it differently. ;)
Problem is no-one has said that Froch was the greatest or even an all time great. So there is no throne to knock him off. Even Froch himself says that he was not the most talented of fighters.
As for Groves loss to Jack ? I think it's more that people under-rated Jack, than over-rated Groves.
Groves is still decent fighter but of course 3 world title shots in two years, all losses, means he has to go the very back of cue and he has some serious rebuilding to do.
But there are still good fights for him. The winner of the Rocky Fielding Vs Callum Smith would be a good one for starts and even a return with Degale would be good (I thought Degale won the first) but it was very close.
Jack is underrated because he's black
And Groves over-rated because he white? Yes ?
You brought up race. Not me. I did not mention anything to do with race. You brought it up.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
His legacy wasn't made by the groves fights. He over achieved and that's about it. He was a good fighter but not great.
How can somebody over achieve in Boxing? I don't get that at all.
Easy. It's the same way you can over achieved in anything. You aren't the most talented or skilled fighter but you work hard and push through adversity and beat those that are more talented and skilled than yourself.
But talent and skill are only small components of what makes the fighter. There are several other intangibles that go towards making a fighter 'great' - Heart, Determination, Fitness, Durability, Mental Strength, Desire. Froch has all of those in abundance.
If Boxing was purely based on skill and talent, Adrien Broner would be on everyone's pound 4 pound list. The fact that he isn't anywhere near doesn't mean he is under-achieving. It just means he is exactly as good as his resume suggests - because he lacks the other vital components required to be an elite fighter.
Like i say, you can't over-achieve in Boxing. If you consistently share the ring with and beat World Champions, then at the very minimum you are world class, regardless of how limited your 'talent' appears to be.
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
His legacy wasn't made by the groves fights. He over achieved and that's about it. He was a good fighter but not great.
How can somebody over achieve in Boxing? I don't get that at all.
Easy. It's the same way you can over achieved in anything. You aren't the most talented or skilled fighter but you work hard and push through adversity and beat those that are more talented and skilled than yourself.
But talent and skill are only small components of what makes the fighter. There are several other intangibles that go towards making a fighter 'great' - Heart, Determination, Fitness, Durability, Mental Strength, Desire. Froch has all of those in abundance.
If Boxing was purely based on skill and talent, Adrien Broner would be on everyone's pound 4 pound list. The fact that he isn't anywhere near doesn't mean he is under-achieving. It just means he is exactly as good as his resume suggests - because he lacks the other vital components required to be an elite fighter.
Like i say, you can't over-achieve in Boxing. If you consistently share the ring with and beat World Champions, then at the very minimum you are world class, regardless of how limited your 'talent' appears to be.
Broner is a terrible example. He has tons of talent but little skill. He just tries to use his athleticism and talent to get to the top but it can only take him so far which is why he got beat by maidana and Porter who he should have beaten with his talent level.
Froch doesn't have much skill but his toughness and heart helped him win fights he should have lost (like the first groves fight).
Re: Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?
Froch's legacy is built around fighting pretty much everyone while showing great courage, not beating everyone and showing great skill - So Grove's losses do nothing to his legacy.
Also, it'd be worth giving Jack a bit more respect than that.
