Froch vs Bute on April 14 in Canada, then a rematch on August 4 in Nottingham

[shza]

Froch should be commended for his grit and willingness to face all challenges. There has been no one Froch has avoided. However, we can't ignore that Froch has lost to the two best fighters he faced, Ward and Kessler (close fight notwithstanding).

He also lost to Dirrell, IMO. And would have lost to Taylor if not for the last-second KO.

On the other hand, Pascal is arguably better than Kessler.

But really, the point is that, while he has great heart and a great chin, Froch is not a great fighter, by a longshot. These jokers on here talking about HOF are full of it. Fighting the best is always admirable, but when you lose every time you step up, it means something. Does Rocky Juarez merit a HOF nod too?

I'm picking Bute by clear decision. Probably like 116-112. A KO wouldn't astound me but it would be pretty surprising, given Froch's beard.

[Rantcatrat]

Froch should be commended for his grit and willingness to face all challenges. There has been no one Froch has avoided. However, we can't ignore that Froch has lost to the two best fighters he faced, Ward and Kessler (close fight notwithstanding).

He also lost to Dirrell, IMO. And would have lost to Taylor if not for the last-second KO.

On the other hand, Pascal is arguably better than Kessler.

But really, the point is that, while he has great heart and a great chin, Froch is not a great fighter, by a longshot. These jokers on here talking about HOF are full of it. Fighting the best is always admirable, but when you lose every time you step up, it means something. Does Rocky Juarez merit a HOF nod too?

I'm picking Bute by clear decision. Probably like 116-112. A KO wouldn't astound me but it would be pretty surprising, given Froch's beard.

No offense at all, but I hate the "would have lost but a last second KO" argument because stamina is an integral component of a champship fight because the fight is 12 rounds, not 10. Moreover, it is part of what makes a champion. It's why Mike Alvarado beat Breides Prescott recently. A champion should know how to conserve energy for the full 12 rounds or at the least run the last few rounds. Stamina and grit are part of what won Froch that fight and that shouldn't take anything away from the victory. Indeed, it's impressive that he maintained the will to win when he was down on the cards.

Yes, Taylor as up on the cards going into the 12th, but perhaps Taylor would not have won as many of the earlier rounds if he had paced himself more throughout the fight. In that fight, I had Froch winning the 10th and 11th, and I can tell you in the arena that night, where I viewed it, for Taylor fans like myself, there was a sense of impending doom as the fight moved into the last stanza.

I hear your point, Froch can be outboxed by faster opponents, like Taylor and Dirrell, and Bute is a faster opponent. Even if it's admirable he is willing to fight everyone out there, Froch is no HOF. He hasn't lost every time he stepped up because he beat Taylor and Pascal without any controversy. However, that means only twice out of five times, did Froch win when he stepped up. Not a winning percentage.

[AdamGB]

People go on about the taylor fight like froch won 0.001% of the fight?

Fact is Taylor looked great for about 4 rounds and Froch looked tense and off... After the knockdown he shook it off and his superior conditioning and relentlessness wore taylor down as the fight went on.

To call it a fluke is plain retarded.

[erics44]

Froch should be commended for his grit and willingness to face all challenges. There has been no one Froch has avoided. However, we can't ignore that Froch has lost to the two best fighters he faced, Ward and Kessler (close fight notwithstanding).

He also lost to Dirrell, IMO. And would have lost to Taylor if not for the last-second KO.

On the other hand, Pascal is arguably better than Kessler.

But really, the point is that, while he has great heart and a great chin, Froch is not a great fighter, by a longshot. These jokers on here talking about HOF are full of it. Fighting the best is always admirable, but when you lose every time you step up, it means something. Does Rocky Juarez merit a HOF nod too?

I'm picking Bute by clear decision. Probably like 116-112. A KO wouldn't astound me but it would be pretty surprising, given Froch's beard.

you cant really add it to the argument because it is your opinion, if you always went off that there would be a lot of very different records around

In a lot of peoples opinion Mayweather wouldnt currently still be undefeated for example

IMO the dirrell v froch display was the most negative by any boxer I have ever seen by a long way and Froch more than deserved the win, also IMO if froch v Kessler would have been anywhere else other than Denmark then Froch would have won

so IMO froch has only lost one fight and also IMO if ward hadnt have had such a "home comfort" ride to the final, with so many "fights off", the outcome of the super six may have been very different

so in reality froch has lost 2 fights, i dont think its fair to put it the way rantcatrat has tho, as in implying that as those are froch's 2 best opponents he must come unstuck at the very top. Both fights were in his opponents home country right in the middle of a very very difficult run of fights, one of the most difficult that there has every been, very few boxers would have stayed undefeated

[shza]

Froch should be commended for his grit and willingness to face all challenges. There has been no one Froch has avoided. However, we can't ignore that Froch has lost to the two best fighters he faced, Ward and Kessler (close fight notwithstanding).

He also lost to Dirrell, IMO. And would have lost to Taylor if not for the last-second KO.

On the other hand, Pascal is arguably better than Kessler.

But really, the point is that, while he has great heart and a great chin, Froch is not a great fighter, by a longshot. These jokers on here talking about HOF are full of it. Fighting the best is always admirable, but when you lose every time you step up, it means something. Does Rocky Juarez merit a HOF nod too?

I'm picking Bute by clear decision. Probably like 116-112. A KO wouldn't astound me but it would be pretty surprising, given Froch's beard.

you cant really add it to the argument because it is your opinion, if you always went off that there would be a lot of very different records around

In a lot of peoples opinion Mayweather wouldnt currently still be undefeated for example

IMO the dirrell v froch display was the most negative by any boxer I have ever seen by a long way and Froch more than deserved the win, also IMO if froch v Kessler would have been anywhere else other than Denmark then Froch would have won

so IMO froch has only lost one fight and also IMO if ward hadnt have had such a "home comfort" ride to the final, with so many "fights off", the outcome of the super six may have been very different

so in reality froch has lost 2 fights, i dont think its fair to put it the way rantcatrat has tho, as in implying that as those are froch's 2 best opponents he must come unstuck at the very top. Both fights were in his opponents home country right in the middle of a very very difficult run of fights, one of the most difficult that there has every been, very few boxers would have stayed undefeated

So Froch has to lose a fight (on all three cards) in Nottingham before you'll concede that he's just not that great? What happened to just watching the guy and noticing all of his obvious flaws. He is very willful (that is a good thing, not a knock). But he is not a good technical boxer and doesn't have KO power (my mom could KO the post-Pavlik version of Taylor). And the results are as one would expect.

[erics44]

Shza

You missunderstood the point of my post

It is my opinion froch deserved the win against dirrell it is your opinion he didnt, what is most important is that the judges thought he didnt

[shza]

Shza

You missunderstood the point of my post

It is my opinion froch deserved the win against dirrell it is your opinion he didnt, what is most important is that the judges thought he didnt

Two of them. The other one thought Dirrell won.

But that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your suggestion that Froch wouldn't have lost to Kessler or Ward if those fights hadn't been "in his opponents' home country." Froch loses to Ward 100 out of 100 fights, sorry. There is a clear difference in class.

Versus Kessler, who knows. I think they are both B+ fighters.

The Super 6 really did wonders for overrating the hell out of the SMW division. It was a mediocre division before and remains one now, outside of Ward and potentially Bute (we will see).

[Dia bando]

There is a song , that go's I can see clearly now the rain has gone,may be it was raining when he lost them 2 fight's or where 1 or 2 of you on

[Althugz]

Jeez Eric you don't half talk some drivel! If they had different routes, we'd be looking at a different champion by now? What on earth are you on about??

You're that typical Brit that probably thought if Hatton fought Mayweather with a different referee (preferably Ray Hatton), fought him in his backyard, where Floyd wasn't allowed to keep punching Ricky in the face and the ring was the size of a matchbox...Hatton would have won.

Ward was easily the best fighter in that tournament, let's give him his props here.

Simple facts about Froch :

is he a good fighter? Yes
is he a great fighter? No
Does he have a great chin, heart and exciting style? Yes
Does he fight anyone put in front of him even if it meant fighting Vitali Klitchsko? Yes
Does he have a better record than Calzaghe did with only having had just over half the fights? Yes

Froch is to be respected and is good for boxing but somebody hit the nail on the head with the losing everytime he steps up comment. He's not as great as he thinks he is BUT he has beaten some good fighters due to his stamina and punching power. He is a very limited boxer though. Fun to watch.

He may be able to wear Bute down late if he doesn't keep getting caught throughout the fight (which I doubt). Although he has a wonderful chin, I'm not of the opinion that Froch is Un-knockoutable.

It's a good fight.

[Dropanuke]

That's right ward would rather fight nobodies whereas froch will keep headlining fight of the year matches and go down with sugar ray Leonard.

[shza]

That's right ward would rather fight nobodies whereas froch will keep headlining fight of the year matches and go down with sugar ray Leonard.

I don't know how I possibly missed it before, but now that you say it, it seems so obvious: Carl Froch is just like Sugar Ray Leonard.

I'm glad the Froch fans can be so objective. This has been a really constructive thread.

[erics44]

That's right ward would rather fight nobodies whereas froch will keep headlining fight of the year matches and go down with sugar ray Leonard.

I don't know how I possibly missed it before, but now that you say it, it seems so obvious: Carl Froch is just like Sugar Ray Leonard.

I'm glad the Froch fans can be so objective. This has been a really constructive thread.

Thing is man, we just had a discussion an i came out as the objective one and you as more biast so this statement doesnt really ring true

[Rantcatrat]

That's right ward would rather fight nobodies whereas froch will keep headlining fight of the year matches and go down with sugar ray Leonard.

Froch is a good boxer, not a great one, but a good one. He's not HOF material. He just isn't fast enough at the very elite level. He actually has some craftiness to him if he didn't he wouldn't have defeated Glen Johnson and he wouldn't have fought Dirrell to a stalemate. Dirrell has publicly given Froch credit after he lost to Froch. He said Froch was trickier than he appeared. I believe that. I just feel that at the elite level he's a tad bit too slow and he doesn't have enough boxing ability to make up for his lack of speed like Bernard Hopkins does.

I disagree with Shza that the division is all that weak. It's just top heavy to me and probably winds up about average in depth. Ward is undefeated at the top of the division appears to be a solid boxer with legitimate wins over Kessler, Froch, and Bika. Bute is undefeated and another solid boxer with wins over Johnson and Bika. Froch has wins over Johnson, Pascal and Dirrell. Kessler has a recent win over Froch. After that the division somewhat falls off. There is Bika, Johnson and Stieglitz.

[shza]

I disagree with Shza that the division is all that weak. It's just top heavy to me and probably winds up about average in depth. Ward is undefeated at the top of the division appears to be a solid boxer with legitimate wins over Kessler, Froch, and Bika. Bute is undefeated and another solid boxer with wins over Johnson and Bika. Froch has wins over Johnson, Pascal and Dirrell. Kessler has a recent win over Froch. After that the division somewhat falls off. There is Bika, Johnson and Stieglitz.

I don't think we actually disagree at all. I said "mediocre" (read: average), not weak, "apart from Ward and (possibly) Bute." I agree that Froch and Kessler are better than average ("B+ fighters"); and I think Dirrell is probably better than either of them (he certainly has far more raw talent -- we'll see what he can do with it). The rest of the division is undoubtedly sub-par.

I don't mean to completely bad-mouth the division, I'm just reacting to this notion that it's one of the most talent-laden divisions in boxing, which it isn't, and never has been.

[Dia bando]

Before Froch ,had his fight with Ward I did say Ward , would out box him and he did to be honest,it was easy to pick the winner,Ward. Yes Froch is game yes he is entertaining, but any one that's a bit faster than him beat's him.? Fact Froch is a limited fight he will not improve so don't look for Gold when you got a bit
Brass lad's