Originally Posted by Michael300
Ok, let me start this thread by making it absolutley clear that I loved the fight; it's been quite some time since I have been on my feet shouting at the TV during a fight! I loved the excitement, the atmosphere and I thought Carl Froch gave a punch perfect performance.
It was an exhilarating night and one I will remember for some time, and I'm sure it's also a fight I will almost certainly watch many times over the coming years.
Are we just perhaps overstating just how amazing the result was?
Carl Froch is a really good boxer, and he arguably has the most impressive record of any British Super Middleweight, he has not ducked anyone, hard fight after hard fight, and always willing to go into the other man's backyard. But is it clear now that Bute was perhaps overated? Did his record, as some had suggested before the contest, perhaps make him look better than he is/was?
I think perhaps it's similar to Calzaghe's win against Lacy; Lacy was presented as this fearless brutal 'mini Tyson', but in hindsight he was clearly overated (although I take nothing away from Calzaghes performance).
The media are now talking about the Froch Bute win as one of the greatest; for me the Nigel Benn win over McClellan was in a different league.
I really don't want to come across as anti-Froch, trust me I most certainly am not, I am thrilled for him, loved the fight, and can't wait to see what he does next; but now that the dust has settled, is it really unreasonable to say that the win (not the performance itself) was not quite up there with the all time greats it's being described as?
Since Joe Calzaghe beat Jeff Lacey, he has never ever been stopped even though he suffered a career threatening injury, which reduced his style and power in his right arm. I don't think Jeff Lacey was overrated, he beat guys, and he destroyed the last of a very solid great super middle weight in Robin Reid.
If you pitch Calzaghes 8 best wins against Frochs 8 best wins, Calzaghe has a better resume. Eubanks has a better resume, why is Carl Froch getting credit when he losers a fight? Boxing at the end of the day is about winning, like David Haye stated.
Calzaghe beat more proven super middle weights, Jermaine Taylor was a no mark at super middle weight, so was Arthur Abraham, Lucian Bute is a good fighter? But not really tried and tested.
Jean Pascal is Carl Froches best win, and 3 of Calzaghe oponents where better than Jean Pascal. Chris Eubanks, Bernard Hopkins even the 4 years older Bernard Hopkins, and I also think the shot Roy Jones would of beaten Jean Pascal? He is too much of a re****. How on earth do you get hit by Carl Froch n a reg? In my opinion real elite fighters with athletic ability, and above average toughness will beat Froch easy.
He is just too slow, the slowest champion pound for pound since Georege Foreman. Jermaine Taylor could of won, if his stamina was not so ****.....he was beating Froch easy until he suddenly started to fade, Froch is like one of them **** Zombies off Residents evil for the play station 1.
Froch is a massive overachiever I give him credit for that.