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

[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.

[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.

[erics44]

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?

[sanatogen]

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

[Syntax Error]

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.

[ykdadamaja]

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.

[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.

[sanatogen]

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

[IamInuit]

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.

[Master]

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.

[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.

[Master]

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.

[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.

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.

[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).

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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.