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?