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.

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.