Originally Posted by WatchfortheHook
First off, I didn't state that Mack was a credible win, I just listed off every fighter during each guys major run. There's some guys under Hatton's name that aren't all that credible either but I was merely listing everybody during their runs. I considered ranking all those guys (in my own opinion of course), and Mack would have been at the bottom
Before we discuss where I think we got mixed up on the topic...I think some of your Froch resume evaluation is a bit unfair. He could have had another clear loss on his resume if Taylor made it out.....but he didn't. I personally don't hold something against Froch that didn't happen. Also, you're striking on the Dirrell fight because you thought Dirrell won...which is fair. I can see why you think that. However, I think in the interest of being objective on evaluating between fighters you unfortunately have to go with the judges in close fights, and only invoke the "I had him winning" clause in clear outlandish robberies (Campillo!). Because anyone with an agenda can say "oh, I had Hatton losing to Collazo and Froch beating Kessler and Dirrell".
I think we might be talking about different things. It seems you might be analyzing Froch's best wins (where I believe you can make a very strong case that Abraham is the 2nd best win in certain lights) whereas I was talking about the quality/rating of the opponent. Basically, in terms of how I feel Abraham(circa 2010) would do "against the field" at 168...lets say against the top 15....there are several fights that I have no confidence that he would win. And I'm not sure if there are any fights that I have any significant confidence in. As a fan of AA, I certainly would be nervous even against the likes of Balszay, Sartison, Magee etc. I'd be nervous again in a rematch with Stieglitz.
Now, I feel much better about Dirrell's chances against the field. I also feel better about Pascal(200
chances against the top 15 of 2008 than I would about Abraham. Basically, since you were evaluating Froch's opponents to his weaknesses, I was evaluating how I think each of those fighters would do against a wide range of opponents.
As a fan of Abraham, I accept all of his limits. He's caught in weight limbo. He's too big to make 160 and too small to really compete much at 168 without any superlative skills to overcome the size difference, and worst of all, his power hasn't quite carried up with him to be his saving grace. Though I think you are right to have him ahead of Urango the similiarities are there.
At the end of the day, his legacy will be as a pretty good middleweight, and a pretty mediocre supermiddleweight. However, and I think we agree on this, it shouldn't take away that Froch emphatically dominated him.
Fair do's on Mack, crossed wires there. I'm not sure we've crossed wires that much elsewhere though mate.
I don't think I'm being hard on Froch, just realistic. I've watched literally thousands of hours of footage of great fighters, past and present, and the upper echelon of historical greatness is what I judge today's championship-level fighters by in terms of their overall career. I've watched plenty of past contenders - some great, some very good and some merely good - who never won a title and who many on here might not know much about. They're just footnotes really; victims of their era, yet I think plenty of them were better than Froch. And that isn't a slur on Carl even if it comes across as being unfair.
Now, that might be irrelevant when comparing Froch to another modern day fighter in Hatton, but even then, there seems to be an irrational instant dismissal by many people of Hatton's CV in comparison to Froch's. It might look that way on paper and might also be seemingly amplified by Hatton's more protected/selective run, but if you compare in depth the overall list of fighters they both beat and how convincingly they did it in the circumstances, the difference is fairly insignificant imo. Hatton obviously has a lot more padding, but the bones aren't dissimilar at all. Just that Froch did it faster and in a more condensed manner, which is why he earns more respect from me despite Tszyu being - imo - a heck of a lot better than anyone Froch has turned over.
I agree on giving the judges the benefit of the doubt most of the time. Froch-Dirrell was really close and I wouldn't bag on anyone for giving it to Froch. Just that the manner of victory is important and that all factors have to be taken in to account. A judge's opinion is as subjective as mine, perhaps even moreso when you consider how crooked boxing is, and I'm confident enough to give my own scorecards plenty of weight. There's no objective standard here imo.
Not to say that my opinion is worth more than the judges, but if you let their scorecards dominate your own evaluation of a fight no matter how much you disagree or how blatantly wrong they are (Froch-Dirrell wasn't), it says to me that you don't have confidence in your own judgement. Not that I'm saying you do personally. Of course a person can twist things to suit their opinions in such cases, but I think you have to bear with that and just use common sense at your own discretion.
Re: Taylor, of course Froch beat him beyond reasonable doubt. Just that he looked pedestrian doing it and I've never reckoned much to Taylor, even the peak version prior to Pavlik. And of course Froch dominated Abraham impressively. Just that I think loads of other fighters from previous era's would have done so more impressively when Abraham was at his best. They all, Dirrell included, have made for good competition against each other in this generation as you say.
Hatton-Collazo and Froch-Dirrell are very similar in that they were close enough to go either way and that Dirrell and Collazo were very roughly of similar ability. Even if the decision had gone against Froch, I wouldn't automatically peg his performance as being worse than Hatton's despite Hatton getting the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of three people, not when things were so obviously close in both cases. Like I said, no objective standard. It's why lists are largely a waste of time for me.
Right, I've probably just typed a load of bollocks and lost my way, so I'll leave it there. I've re-typed and re-jigged all of this several times over trying to understand what I think, and my head is hurting.....