Better/Greater: Froch or Benvuneti

Benvenuti and Froch are sort of polar opposites really. Nino was the more gifted, technically able classic stand up technician and better fighter imo, Froch cruder and less refined with more holes in his makeup despite being a bit better physically and Nino being capable of making fights awkward and ugly. Froch though far more focused, dedicated, mentally consistent and less likely to lose in an upset through being pissed up or shagged out like Benvenuti. Benvenuti has the better wins with Griff and Rodriguez etc.

 

Well, I'm glad you're comfortable in how you have rated Froch. You'll have to excuse me for not agreeing with you and X on this one

Your second to last paragraph is one of the most patronising collections of words I've ever read. To a man who has boxed, and been around boxers, for the last two decades, you'll have to forgive me me if I chuckle at them..

I won my pool game, thanks for asking. And I win most of my snooker games. Give me a shout if you ever fancy a game.

MTF

 

Not my intention to be patronizing, sorry. I'm sure you've boxed and been involved, I'm not putting meself above you though it probably came across that way. I was just trying to sort of say that if my opinion of a fighter seems harsh or low compared to yours or someone else's, that I'm comparing that fighter to a vast amount of others and didn't come to the conclusion harshly or out of bias etc, judging him (or her) in a sort of all time context against fighters that a lot of people might not know too much about or have even heard of as has often been the case. Not saying it's applicable to you, mind. Just that Froch is imo a good fighter out of a shitload of good fighters throughout history, many of whom are sadly relatively forgotten or underrated in comparison. So my definition of great is different to that of a lot of people who I've interacted with, not necessarily Better.

 

Though reading some of what's been said in the eye test thread, it's a fucking apt name for the thread. Arguello not passing the eye test...

 

Everything point out to Pascal being much better than Bute. Beating him h2h (Bute wasnt past it when he faced pascal. Hell his more impressive performances probably came afterward), beating better names, and doing better against common opponents. The "he looked better beating c level guys" argument is frankly irrelevant, cause we all know that the eye test can be highly misleading.


As for the context, yes bute was indeed viewed as a bigger threat at the time, but we have the advantage of hindsight and it would be foolish to deprive ourself of it. Pascal and Froch were both unproven when they faced each other, but they both pretty much were the finished product. The pascal that lost to froch was the same fighter as the one who went on to not only become a wc, but also beat a top 10 if not top5 p4p, a few fights afterward.

 

I don't think anything points to Pascal being much better than Bute. End of chat for me , pal, I don't want to argue about it especially.

 

Benvenuti beats him. Froch is basically an elite gatekeeper. He is litmus. Anyone pretending to be elite but isn't is getting burst.

Anyone who is elite is beating him.

I think Benvenuti is just better.

Was he greater? Probably not. I'd call that a draw. Froch featured in an awful lot of significant fights which were televised, dramatic affairs that defined the 168lb division at the time, gave the era something it could compare to what had preceded it and maintained the benchmark for future fights.

Benvenuti basically mixed with a smaller collection of better names in fights that probably didn't define the division or embellish it in any great fashion.

 

Pascal was a big descendant of slaves with not much in the line of boxing ability. I saw him struggle with Stephen Smith in 2002 and I knew he was just a big physical lug.

Bute was skillful and could box but was frail and prone to overrating his offensive capacity.

Bute with Pascal's strength murders Froch.