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

[ono]

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.