Carl Froch: Top 5 super-middleweights evah!

It showed that you always underrated him, so i don't really take your opinion of him seriously.
You also picked abraham to beat him easily.

Your comparaison is terrible btw since Spinks was a much better fighter than Calzaghe, while calzaghe was about at the same level as Froch

 

The exact same criticism applies to you and Joe Calzaghe.

MTT

 

Nonsensical? He needed a last round miracle punch to beat Taylor, he was behind to Groves when he got a very generous ref stoppage in their first fight, he got a very debatable points win over Direll (which he deserved IMO but he barely landed a glove on that coward all fight) and Ward lit him up and Froch barely won a minute, let a round, of that fight until it was nearly over.

That his entire resume over any decent speedy fighter. Nonsensical my hole.

MTF

 

He also fouled the fight out of Mikkel Kessler. Kessler should be criticised for allowing himself to be as discouraged as he was, but Ward basically cheated his arse off in that fight.

MTF

 

No. I was pretty big on Calzaghe before the johnsons fiasco

 

Again this argument is total nonsense since pretty much everyone struggles against speed, and froch showed numerous times that he could handle fast fighters just fine. Who are these mythical fighters who handled speed easily???

Pascal was a fucking speed daemon when froch faced him. If he had trouble against speedster he woulnt have beaten him clearly. Bute was also a speedy fighter. He also completely manhandled Groves in the rematch. The "froch struggles against speed" argument only make "senses" if you conviniently forget all of froch solid performances against speedy fighters.

 

Pascal? A speed demon? I've heard it all, now.

Pascal didn't fight Froch using speed and\ors slickness He stood in front of him and went to war with Froch. That's why the fight was such a good one.

Who cares about 'mythical fighters who can handle speed easily'? That's a nonsense argument. This is about how Carl Froch - an excellent fighter who won handily every fight he had (bar one) against anyone who principal attribute was speed - fares against another excellent fighter whose principal attribute is speed.

MTF

 

You haven't seen a young pascal if you dont think he was a speed daemon. That's pretty much the only elite skills/talent he had

 

Kessler was far from a speedster. Nor was Johnson

And again, everybody bar a few freaks struggles against speed

 

Right, but now you call him a 'coward' and denigrate him at every opportunity.

MTF

 

If froch fad a weakness it was mostly against fighters with a good jab and a good long straight back hand. Kessler, Taylor, groves and Ward fit the molds

 

He was a fucking coward though. The johnson duck job was the kind of stuff that should live in infamy. I dont denigrate his skills, he was pretty good and i i think he was about at the same level as Froch whom i rate highly

 

I watched his fight with Froch. I've watched every single minute of every Froch fight, which is almost all of them. That fight was a toe to toe war.

'Speed demon' my hole.

MTG

 

Froch didn't struggle with Kessler at all. He fought evenly with him for two whole fights.

MTF

 

What does this has to do with speed??

Meldrick taylor was a speed daemon and pretty much all of his fights were a toe to toe war. Same for Norris to a lesser extent.

Speed is a skill/talent, the other is a style

 

There was nothing even about the second fight. He won it clear as day. And who said anything about struggling against Kessler (and even if i did , i dont get the point of this comment except being pedantic)??

 

You said that Froch had a weakness against people like Kessler, but now you reckon he beat him handily in the second of fights?

Your arguments make no sense.

And he didn't win the second fight clear as day. It was a close, competitive Froch win. Just as the fight was a close, competitive Kessler win. Hence my statement that they fought 'evenly over two fights'.

This is a pointless back and forth, so I'm out.

MTF

 

I dont understand your logic. Since he beat him clearly in the second fight i should discount the first fight which was nap and tuck??? And clearly doesnt mean easily, it's weird that i have to point this out

And no, there was no controversy in the second froch kessler fight, while the first one was contentious at the very least

 

All of them would beat all of the guys you mention.

Steve Collins thinks Social Media is having your name mentioned in an obituary.

Zero Fucks would be given. Canelo will not beat Benn or Collins in a tear-up.

 

I think Froch was 1 round from stopping Kessler in the RE. and it wasn;t the same sort of brutal see-saw as the first.... The first fight took more out of Kessler. If there was no such thing as cumulative damage Kessler might have won the rematch but I suspect, as he showed in the Groves fight that Froch's CPU was a Neural Net Processor, a Learning Computer.


He could learn from engagements rather than having the natural Calzaghe style to mend things on the fly.

It's why Calzaghe beats him 10 out of 10 but Froch might do better in a rematch.....but Joe would probably mend any new issues on the fly again too.

 

"If Froch had a weakness."

LOL. JOM is talking about Froch like he's Ricardo Lopez or something.

Froch had plenty of weaknesses.