Originally Posted by WatchfortheHook
Well, the win in itself might get overstated...but I don't think anyone rates Abraham as even the 3rd best fighter Froch has beaten. The reason people like that win so much is a combination of things. 1). Froch was the underdog going into the fight. 2). Even though Froch was the underdog, some thought this would be an absolute war. 3). Froch basically put on a masterclass. Total. Emphatic. Domination. He also displayed skills not many knew he had.
It's like Calzaghe-Lacy. Was Lacy the best fighter Calzaghe fought? No. But there's something about putting on an emphatic performance when people don't expect it (and Froch has 2 of those with Abraham and Bute).
Come to think of it, Hatton won 9-10 rounds on Urango is memory serves me right. But it wasn't THAT kind of performance and Urango is a pretty comparable small version of Abraham.
Abraham is the highlight of Froch's career after Bute imo. Clearly so. Who are the other three fighters who Froch has beaten that stand so clearly above Abraham in your opinion?
Dirrell? Maybe, but I thought Froch lost that one, and Dirrell isn't a good fighter in the scheme of things imo. Bad style for Carl though, so you have to credit him for forcing the fight at least and gritting it out. Compare it crudely to Hatton-Collazo if you like, though Hatton had already started to tail off by that point and was fighting in a weight class where he was ineffectual.
Bute? Froch's best win, no doubt.
Taylor? About on Abraham's level imo, though obviously with a different style and different strengths/weaknesses. Again, stylistically not a good match for Carl, but with various clear failings similar to the accumulated ones of Abraham, Bute and Dirrell which include average punch resistance, poor stamina, questionable mental fortitude and limited technical ability. The manner of victory was exciting and gutsy on Froch's part, but if Taylor had managed to hang on in the last round? Froch has another clear defeat on his record to a declining fighter who had overachieved in the first place imo.
Before the Abraham fight it was a question to me of whether or not Froch's confidence had been damaged and if he could handle Abraham's power, because they were the only two major potential stumbling blocks. The rest of the important advantages were with Froch: the jab, the range control, the work rate and the strength. He employed a very basic strategy that Abraham no answer to, and though he (Froch) quite impressed me, I came away more underwhelmed by Abraham despite feeling quietly confident beforehand that Froch would get the job done.
Pre-fight odds often surprise me tbh and are given too much credit post-event for my liking when you consider in a case such as this that they've just been empirically debunked. You mentioned Calzaghe-Lacy, which was another one I picked correctly, though it was more impressive than Froch-Abraham to my eye for a couple of reasons.
Hatton was pretty unimpressive (and past his best) against a vaguely Abraham-level fighter in Urango (slightly below Abraham I'd say), and still dominated him despite Urango making more of an effort than Abraham did imo. That it isn't considered a brilliant win should shed a bit of light on how Froch-Abraham is considered.
I don't want to go tit for tat over this, because I don't think there's much between them, if anything, and have already said that Froch's career deserves more respect than Hatton's. I just happen to think - with good justification - that it isn't nearly as clear cut as people like to make out. Froch's opponents other than Ward and maybe old Kessler aren't really a good bunch; it's more the fact that he took them all on consecutively, travelled to do it and came back excellently from defeat in the process.
Edit: Stating Mack as a credible win for Froch is laughable whichever way you stack it. Pascal and Johnson are pushing it a bit, though not entirely without merit. We might as well include Oliveira and the like.