Objectively great fighters that don't pass the eye test

Sadly, I feel Froch would have been rated higher had he faced more no hopers. One of the reasons why he doesn't get the respect he deserves imo is that he nearly always struggled but this was mostly due to him consistantly facing top opposition. Yet the only time he faced a B/C level guy during his run (Yussef Mack who was still a solid pro) he looked terrific. If you removed a couple of his wins where he didn't look too hot (Dirrel, Groves I) by overwhelming wins vs the type of guys Calzaghe constantly fed on, I have a feeling no one would believe Joe to be on a higher level

 

Tim Bradley is a good comparison for me. I woukd put Froch and Tim on the same level.

 

Being the number one heavyweight in the world for a decade is more impressive than anything Froch has in and of itself. Whether it's the worst division in history is very debatable. Actually, it isn't. It's definitely not the worst. The youngest eras up until the 30s were seriously bad, and clearly worse than Wlad's, and there was far more consistent quality in Wlad's era than there was in the 50s, or today. Regardless, being the heavyweight champion for ten years is far better than being, at best, the second best super middleweight of his era.

You're really that impressed by his resume? What's his best win? An old Taylor or an old Kessler? Who's after those two? A young Pascal? Or is it simply somebody on the level of George Groves or Lucian Bute? David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Chris Byrd and Ruslan Chagaev is every bit, if not more, impressive than this.

I'm not impressed by losing every round to Jermain Taylor; getting dropped on his arse by George Groves; squeaking by Pascal and Kessler; nor exposing Bute.

Wlad was clearly much better, and greater IMO.

 

didn't he lose to kessler?

 

Yup, three years after an old Calz dominated a peak Kessler.

 

Sorry mate, but when David Haye and his gammy toe is one of your signature wins, you're reaching imo. HW was an absolute deadzone during Wlad's reign. Absolutely horrible. And he amassed a lengthy winning run by not fighting the one guy most would have picked him to lose to (his brother) and bearhugging overmatched opponents for fear of getting sparked out. Again. He then lost his title to a man who threw almost no punches.

Froch beat Pascal handily. Squeaked by him my hole. He did not even close to lose every round vs Taylor. Not even close. And, notwithstanding that, he brutally stopped him. Groves dropped him in the first round then got a lucky early ref stoppage just as he was about to get laid out, then in a rematch Froch dominated him then laid him absolutely spark out. You hold that against Froch but prop up a guy who was absolutely splattered three times, including a stoppage loss to Ross Puritty? Bute was a two to one betting favourite against Froch and Carl utterly brayed him as well.

Not convinced. Not even close.

MTF

 

Lost the first one in Denmark. I scored it a draw but there was no case for him winning and Kessler probably did enough. Froch won the rematch pretty comfortably.

MTF

 

We'll, that's probably being generous to Joe. He was 4-2 down at halfway. But, as I said, Joe was 'better' than Froch. Shame he didn't fancy proving it by testing himself often enough.

MTF

 

But when an old Taylor who you only beat because he choked isn't?

 

David Haye was notably better than Groves and Pascal, and Wlad beat him far easier than Froch did. Bute was nothing special. Povetkin was way better than him. Furthermore, it's absolutely true Froch vs Pascal was extremely close.

I'm not claiming Wlad is perfect, and yeah, he has three stoppage losses; Purity being the blackest mark. However, even with three losses, he has a better resume and has a much more impressive title run than Froch ever did. He's a better fighter. By far

 

Choked? He got hit in the face, repeatedly, very hard. Then he got knocked out.

Who did Froch lose to as bad as Ross Puritty?

MTF

 

I detest Wald too much to get into that one. Wald was terrible for the sport.

 

David Haye was a good cruiserweight and an average HW who barely beat that massive urangatan and didn't throw a punch at Wlad. He got brayed, twice, by Tony Bellend

Your claim that Froch 'barely squeaked by' Pascal is demonstrably false. I've never read or heard a single credible person claim that Froch came close to losing that fight. Not one.

Wlad got battered senseless three times. And not by ATGs or even greats. By Joshua, Sanders and Ross Puritty But Froch is getting pelters for 'unimpressive' KO WINS against Bute, Taylor and Groves (X2)?

Nah.

MTF

 

Does anyone really think that Wlad was the best HW of even his awful era? I mean he wasn't, was he? His brother was.

MTF

 

I actually think he gets a bit too much stick. He's probably a top 20 HW, based on his long title reign.

But George is miles out on this one.

MTF

 

He is a top 20 heavyweight, but also a product of a Lewis/Holy/Tyson era ending.

 

AgREED. He's better than most around here tend to rate him but he's what he is. He had a long title run. He gets credit for that. But it was against mostly horrible comp. He lost, disastrously, three times. One of those losses is to a truly awful fighter at world level. He was horrendous to watch and he fought scared for years. Many feel that he lacked heart. His brother was better by common consensus. Most believe that the three men you listed would have laid him out.

Them's the facts.

MTF

 

wlad is crap. with steward's help he learned how to not lose. but he was horrible to watch.

 

I dunno how to compare Wald and Froch. Wald was without question more gifted, but with less intangibles.

Vital I can safely say was a class above Froch.

 

Unpopular pick but I would nominate Arguello if we only consider ''true'' ATG. Looked a bit pedestrian and slow to me for someone on that level.

 

I thought he clearly lost to Valuev but it was a long time ago. Funny how for someone who supposedly cleaned the division and ruled for over a decade, Wlad never fought the other champs with the most title defenses save for the weakest one (Byrd).

 

We can say vitaly or calz were better than froch, but the thing is that they never went out of their way to prove it. So we don't really know how good they were. Froch, on the opposite fought everyone there was, and won against all of them bar ward. Ill always rate a proven guy more highly than one whos main claim to fame is that he woulda/coulda/shoulda beat x,y,z

 

I get what you're saying. Arguello could look really ordinary for long stretches, then, out of nowhere, he would do some brilliant stuff. I guess he qualifies,.if we keep in mind that we're comparing him to other atg

 

Wlad didn't have worse intangibles. He had a worse chin. Intangibles are having what it took to be a great fighter. Wlad had them, Froch didn't.

 

Also Wlad was definitely better than Vitali as well.

 

Wlad lacked intangibles, most notably fighting spirit. Saying he had more intangible than froch is crazy. I don't think you'll find anyone agreeing with you

 

You don't come back from three KO defeats and then become heavyweight champion of the world and stay there for ten years without intangibles.

It's that simple.

 

Disagree completely. There's more to intangible than simply that. Him coming back was great, but id out it more on him being so much more talented than his peers, than anything else. His showing against Brewster, Fury and Peter (to a lesser extent) clearly showed that he didn't had a warrior spirit

 

In fact, I don't think wald chin was that bad. His main problem was that he was panicking every time he got hit hard

 

Lmao! No he wasn't.