Was this a better version Glen Johnson than the 3rd Clinton Woods fight?

[Fenster]

Truthfully, Johnson has been on the slide since the first Chad Dawson fight. So no it's a poorer version. All that said, I would definitely argue that Froch did better than Woods did against Johnson in any of their fights.

This post is confusing Jazster.

1. Johnson was a better fighter when losing to Woods.

2. Froch did better than Woods although he lost (according to you) against a worst version of Johnson.

[JazMerkin]

Truthfully, Johnson has been on the slide since the first Chad Dawson fight. So no it's a poorer version. All that said, I would definitely argue that Froch did better than Woods did against Johnson in any of their fights.

This post is confusing Jazster.

1. Johnson was a better fighter when losing to Woods.

2. Froch did better than Woods although he lost (according to you) against a worst version of Johnson.

Ok, let me clarify. I believe Johnson was a better fighter then, but I also felt that Woods benefitted from being on home turf in all 3 fights. I thought he lost both the 1st & 2nd quite convincingly & the 3rd could've gone either way. Although I had the Froch-Johnson fight a draw, the reason that Froch was losing rounds was his own laziness in rounds 1-3 & 6-8. He didn't bother doubling up the jab or if he did he was in reverse so it wouldn't land. He seemed happy to only throw punches after Johnson had landed a hard shot. On a round by round it was even, but I reckon the overall feeling of the fight if you weren't scoring it was that Froch won if you get my drift. When he did step it up as he did in rounds 4,5 & 9-12 he showed how easy he could make it for himself. This also cost him badly in the Kessler fight where he let rounds slip away from him.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

The 3rd Woods fight went pretty much the same as this, except Woods had the 'luxury' of knowing Johnson more than well enough. Woods put up the big drive at the end of that fight but was a little lucky on the cards imo. Anyway I actually think Johnson hasn't looked all that different from 2007 to 2011 but the work rate was maybe a little lower in the Froch fight but the skills are still as prevalent.

[Fenster]

Truthfully, Johnson has been on the slide since the first Chad Dawson fight. So no it's a poorer version. All that said, I would definitely argue that Froch did better than Woods did against Johnson in any of their fights.

This post is confusing Jazster.

1. Johnson was a better fighter when losing to Woods.

2. Froch did better than Woods although he lost (according to you) against a worst version of Johnson.

Ok, let me clarify. I believe Johnson was a better fighter then, but I also felt that Woods benefitted from being on home turf in all 3 fights. I thought he lost both the 1st & 2nd quite convincingly & the 3rd could've gone either way. Although I had the Froch-Johnson fight a draw, the reason that Froch was losing rounds was his own laziness in rounds 1-3 & 6-8. He didn't bother doubling up the jab or if he did he was in reverse so it wouldn't land. He seemed happy to only throw punches after Johnson had landed a hard shot. On a round by round it was even, but I reckon the overall feeling of the fight if you weren't scoring it was that Froch won if you get my drift. When he did step it up as he did in rounds 4,5 & 9-12 he showed how easy he could make it for himself. This also cost him badly in the Kessler fight where he let rounds slip away from him.

I get your drift. Woods lost the first two but won the third fair and square. Real close fight could have gone either way.

I agree Froch definitely beat Johnson more convincingly... even though you don't think he won ().

Jimbo - I agree Johnson hasn't looked much different for the past 100 years. No-one has ever schooled him apart from B-Hop and Ottke.

[IamInuit]

Please, who looks good or premiere against Johnson. Name two in the last decade? Hell, name one. Having said that, I'm hard pressed to find him a round in the fight. And the announcers my lord. Every time Johnson blinked their was raised volume and an exclamation point. Froch kicked his ass. That 114/114 card was hysterical.

[Master]

Johnson was a lot better and busier against Woods, Tarver and Jones, that was his “Indian summer”. Since then he has not fought at the same intensity and aggression. He had his hand up but was not punching enough with his forward movement. Froch cannot change enough to beat Ward who is an all round complete fighter. He will out box Froch, he has better speed, boxing ability and timing. The only way Froch can win is if he starts early, tries to pressure Ward, hurts Ward early and gets Andre to be negative, which I do not see happening.

What will happen to Froch after he loses to Ward, he will have no title and no big fighter will want to fight him?

[J_C]

What will happen to Froch after he loses to Ward, he will have no title and no big fighter will want to fight him?

If he loses to Ward (big chance imo unfortunately) then a move up to light heavy to face Nathan Cleverly would be a big draw in the UK. Especially if Cleverly can hang on to his strap. Makes sense.

[captainanddew]

I watched the fight twice. Did anyone else get the feeling that Froch was rather jittery in the early going? The first 3-4 rounds seemed like he was trying to adjust to the mental pressure that is there when you fight Johnson (as Johnson is going to be in pretty close and you can't really back him off very easily).

Against Ward he has to be ready and not give away early rounds.

[captainanddew]

Froch and Kessler. Froch may have lost a razor close fight, but he seemed to win the war.
Kessler had to take alot of time to recover while Froch soldiered on for an impressive win against Abraham where he displayed better than expected boxing skills and a tough win over Johnson where he showed his great chin and brass balls.