Originally Posted by bailey
So you think Froch who at 35 and coming off a Mdec over an old boiled down SMW jouneyman, who was behind before a late KO against Taylor, who many considered lucky against Dirrell, who lost to Kessler coming off a loss when suffering double vision is better than Eubank or Mitchell? I definately think 31 year old Eubank who was faster and more skilled with a far greater resume and experience is a better win.
I am not convinced that Froch who is a slow plodder is better than prime Lacy before he was ruined, who hits every bit as hard, is faster, has a higher workrate, better foot speed and a good chin also. If you look at prime Lacy against Reid and you look at Froch just before winning a world title against a slightly more faded Reid, Lacy looked the better to me.
To answer your opening question, yes. Byron Mitchell? You got jokes on a Monday morning.