Groves's Loss. What does it do to Froch's "Legacy"?

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. ;)

Nothing.

Groves- got a lucky punch in on Froch #1 = Got a gift decision on DeGale #1 = Got splattered in Froch #2 = and is now where he should have been at Froch #1, and that is a guy that was developing but rushed too quickly for his own good.

Groves had no business in the ring with Froch anyways. So, Froch is cool...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Nothing.

Groves- got a lucky punch in on Froch #1 = Got a gift decision on DeGale #1 = Got splattered in Froch #2 = and is now where he should have been at Froch #1, and that is a guy that was developing but rushed too quickly for his own good.

Groves had no business in the ring with Froch anyways. So, Froch is cool...

---

Bit harsh there on groves he must of been landing lucky punches all night then cause he beat him up for the first 6 or so rounds and he beat degale I remember watching it. Are you implying it was a robbery ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Nothing.

Groves- got a lucky punch in on Froch #1 = Got a gift decision on DeGale #1 = Got splattered in Froch #2 = and is now where he should have been at Froch #1, and that is a guy that was developing but rushed too quickly for his own good.

Groves had no business in the ring with Froch anyways. So, Froch is cool...

---

No business in the ring with Froch?
So how come it took so long for Froch to finish him off in both fights?
I ask you to rewatch the 6th round of the 1st fight and then tell me Groves landed a lucky punch?
So if Groves is so shit, why is it a big deal that Froch beat him?
See, this is exactly what I mean.
Maybe Froch ain't so "cool"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Nothing.

Groves- got a lucky punch in on Froch #1 = Got a gift decision on DeGale #1 = Got splattered in Froch #2 = and is now where he should have been at Froch #1, and that is a guy that was developing but rushed too quickly for his own good.

Groves had no business in the ring with Froch anyways. So, Froch is cool...

---

Lucky punches don't exist fella.

Groves is good but not there yet.

Froch was great but is exposed against guys like dirrel and Ward

Groves lost a close PTS decision to a prime fighter in his backyard. Froch decapitated him their rematch then retired. You could argue it highlights the superior class Froch was operating at.

You could argue that Froch took a lot out of Groves as well, and just had a bad night the first time, it kind of looks that way. He's a guy I never rooted for, but I think the early stoppage actually robbed him of a legitimate come from behind spanking honestly, and he probably couldn't have fought much worse that night.

Frochs legacy isn't about superiority. It's that he was a blood and guts warrior that searched out tough fights and made high drama in them.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Frochs legacy isn't about superiority. It's that he was a blood and guts warrior that searched out tough fights and made high drama in them.

---

1. That's not what Carl Froch would say.
2. That statement above was tarnished by the last 12 months of his career where he turned down fight after fight because all he wanted was Chavez jr. In Vegas.

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. ;)

---

It does nothing at all to it. I'm not sure what luck had to with any of it either. You can be great without ever being technically great. Froch has a lot of very good wins over very dominant fighers.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

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. ;)

---

It does nothing at all to it. I'm not sure what luck had to with any of it either. You can be great without ever being technically great. Froch has a lot of very good wins over very dominant fighers.

---

When I mentioned "Luck" , I alluded to the old Gary Player quote. "The harder I work, the luckier I get." Meaning Froch wasn't lucky, he made his own luck through the hard work and dedication he possessed.

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?

The so called lucky punch was one that grove predicted did he not?

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.

The so called lucky punch was one that grove predicted did he not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.