Best guy you take Carl Froch to beat

Let's say from 160-175. Who's the best fighter in history you would take Froch to beat?

 

Hakkar

Maybe

 

At middleweight, the best guy I would take him over is Pavlik.

At 175, I would take him over Bobby Czyz and Dennis Andries.

 

He beats benn and eubanks cmearly imo. Calz is a toss up

 

At 160, i think he beats a lot of guys cause he would be so much bigger than then.

 

Dont think his style would be a food fit for 175. Wouldn't have the strength advantage that he relied a lot on.
Maybe je could get to hill late and wins a close dec, but even then, i don't really like his chances

 

Prime Virgil Hill would beat the shit outta Froch.

We gotta go a much lower level than Hill.

 

Im not so sure its that clear. Ward was a much better fighter than Hill and Froch pressure managed to make it close

 

I dont think there's a large gap between Hill and Ward, and thats a matchup we discussed a few weeks ago.

Ward gets overrated, and Virgil Hill is actually extremely underrated.

I dont see Ward as a lock over the 80s Hill.

Hill had faster hands than Ward, a better jab, and more power.

 

Both Fabrice Tiozzo and Henry Maske were better fighters than Froch, and a fading Hill whipped them both.

Hill gets undersold.

 

Oh and BTW, there was zero "close" about Ward-Froch. It was either 9-3, or 8-4 Ward.

Not a close fight at all.

 

I dont see it. Both were inferior imo.

 

Then Froch is starting to get way overrated in your book.

Maske, for one, shut out Charles Williams to win the title and stopped Iran Barkley.

Tiozzo shut out McCallum.

Granted, McCallum wasn't a light heavyweight, but its not like Froch would fare well against McCallum.

You're overrating the shit outta Froch, and overlooking a lot of his short comings and close calls.

This is still a guy who needed a last round stoppage to beat Taylor. The same Froch who was run VERY CLOSE by a washed up Glen Johnson. And the same guy who arguably lost to Dirrell (I thought he did).

He wasn't as good as good as you're hyping him to be.

 

Mccallum was small and geriatric. Decent win for Tiozzo but more a case of catching a name at the right time

Same for Barkley for Maske, he was a smaller fighter clearly who had not much left. Ill give him th williams fight , but i still think Maske was rather mediocre


I dont think the johnson fight was very close. Was a pretty clear win for Froch imo

 

Going back to Hill vs Froch, Froch would never get past Hill's jab, and in attempting to he'd get nailed with counters all night. Hill, unlike Ward, had the power in his left hook to legitimately hurt Froch if he caught him good with it.

 

I recall Froch only beating Johnson 7-5. Glen gave him a very tough fight.

 

DM pressure was able to get to hill. I can see a case for Froch replicating tjat kind of performance. Again, i wouldn't make him the favorite, but i dont think its far fetched

 

You're pretty much in the minority then. Most unnoficial.scorecards had him by 3-4 rounds iirc.

Hell even Johnson admitted he lost and hes one of the sorest loser ever

 

1. DM was better than Froch.

2. Hill was past his prime in 97. Still a world class fighter, but no longer in his prime.

If we can use the best versions of Froch, then we should be talking about the young Hill who blasted Leslie Stewart.

 

Well.never agree on this i think. DM need.an acting job worthy of an oscar to get past the very ordinary Rocchigiani. I dont think he was better and his resume surely doesnt support it

 

I won't fault you if you wanna argue it in a P4P sense.

Straight up H2H, DM would batter Froch. Too big and strong.

 

Sad to say, but i think Froch would be much highly regarded if he had taken more soft touches in his career. Absolutely destroyed the few B-, C+ fighters he faced like a slightly past it reid.and that gay porno actor whom name i forgot at the moment

 

Froch is held in plenty high regard. Higher regard than he deserves at this point.

My point is more about Virgil Hill being underrated.

Hill lost twice between 87-97, to Hearns and DM. One thing those two had in common, they both had piston jabs.

 

Frocj also.had a hell of a jab, murdered Abraham and Pascal with it

 

I could outjab AA and Pascal.

Froch has absolutely 0% chance of winning a jabbing match with freakin Virgil Hill, who probably had one of the top 20 jabs in boxing history.

This is EXACTLY what I mean about Froch's attributes getting overrated.

Where was that Froch jab against Ward?

 

Not really. People act.like his an overachiever who didnt had much talent. Yet when he faced non elite opposition, he looked as good if better as JC did fighting the same kind of figjters, who's praised as a much better fighter by most

 

I never said.he would out jab Hill. I said he would pressure him and he could land a few jabs since he had a good one. And what's with Pascal being easy to outjab? Dawson had a good stick and he couldn't do it. Bar Froch, the only fighters that outjabbed pascal were Kovy in the second fight (which was a bit of an anomaly, since he was still.shellshocked from the first fight) and Alvarez to a lesser extent

 

Hell even AA wasn't nearly as easy to outjab as the myth goes. Was pretty good at landing counters over them

 

Groves

 

Froch was too slow to pressure Hill.

Watch the early rounds of Froch-Taylor. JT has zero issue landing early with his jab, and counters Froch several times with clean check hooks - one of them hurt Froch.

This is retarded ass Jermain Taylor we're talking here, and of course, he badly faded.

Hill would do what Taylor did in the early rounds all night, and on a higher level.