Originally Posted by chatty
I have Honeyghan as the better boxer as well but I wouldn't say there was a massive gap between the pair of them. Lloyd obv has the best win with Curry, a very good win with Blocker and a nice revenge win (first a TD) over Vaca but he got well beaten in his other big fights with Starling, Breland and even Paziena.
I'm not going to argue on a technical side of it as I feel Honeyghan was more gifted than Froch but imo Froch has juat as good a resume than Honeyghan and has looked far better in his losses than Lloyd did.
Lloyd was past his best before Starling schooled him. Froch was totally
schooled during his best run of form. Vinny Pazroid is inexcusable but Breland was a good fighter at least at that stage and had a big dig, and Honeyghan was shot to pieces (looked HORRID) Froch has built at a steady pace and has hit his physical best into his mid-30s. If after this incredible run he gets old, gets blasted a few times against opposition he could've beaten at his best would it detract from what he's done already? Not really.
And as Kos pointed out Honeyghan wasted Rosi away from home as well.
At this point, I go with the guy who has actually won a real World title as well as having some solid second tier wins. Froch would need something pretty spectacular to overtake Honeyghan at this stage or a few more very
solid wins...for me a couple of B+ wins don't necessarily make a fighter overtake a guy with one incredible win and comparable second tier victories.
Not far off but Honeyghan clearly more accomplished (with several defences of THE World title) and the better fighter on film.