Carl Froch V Nigel Benn

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by ApatheticLeader

Actually, probably not, although it's difficult to compare at 168, as Taylor exclusively fought top competition as far as I remember at that weight.

Benn, meanwhile, fought average - good fighters in the main.

EDIT: No, I take that back. Benn was a harder puncher than Taylor at 168. And Froch did get knocked down - he got caught loads due to his inexperience at that level and Taylor's superior technical ability.

Benn doesn't have the technical ability, speed or ring generalship of Taylor. He does have similar stamina though.

Outside of Wharton and a few others, Benn got rid of a few guys at super middle, even if he wasn't a humongous hitter at the weight.

It also has to be said Benn was hitting some of the best chins of that era up at 168 as well. Not too many of the more devastating hitters in this range I'd pick to stop Eubank, Collins, Malinga, McClellan. And if he wasn't injured I don't think Benn would've stopped Gerald either.

[ApatheticLeader]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

It also has to be said Benn was hitting some of the best chins of that era up at 168 as well. Not too many of the more devastating hitters in this range I'd pick to stop Eubank, Collins, Malinga, McClellan. And if he wasn't injured I don't think Benn would've stopped Gerald either.

True, but then he struggled to stop other, less durable names too. Really it was the lack of skill set hat prevented him from stopping Malinga.

I'll concede that most of the fighters he were fighting were incredibly durable, but if you had either the offensive skill set or the power that people are suggesting Benn had, they'd have been stopped - especially as they weren't the cream of the division.

[atberry]

Froch would stand no chance against Nigel Benn - none at all.

[ApatheticLeader]

Originally Posted by atberry

Froch would stand no chance against Nigel Benn - none at all.

Based on?

What does Benn do better than Froch at 168? Apart from gain nostalgia points?

[atberry]

Originally Posted by ApatheticLeader

Based on?

What does Benn do better than Froch at 168? Apart from gain nostalgia points?

Everything.

[ApatheticLeader]

Originally Posted by atberry

Everything.

No he doesn't.

He doesn't punch as hard (I'd say it's about equal).

His defense wasn't as good, especially as he got tired.

He sure as hell can't take a shot as well.

He can't fight at as quickly a pace, and he gets much weaker as the fight goes on.

He wasn't particularly strong in clinches, which hastened his inevitable physical deterioration. In fact I don't remember him being much good apart from at mid-range.

He wasn't a strong combination puncher, and he struggled to punch straight, not unlike Eubank (but not THAT clumsy). In fact, he didn't have a great variety of punches at all. Nice uppercut, when he could be bothered to use it.

No....he wasn't as good as Froch, who certainly has his weaknesses.

[widdy]

Originally Posted by ApatheticLeader

No he doesn't.

He doesn't punch as hard (I'd say it's about equal). wrong

His defense wasn't as good, especially as he got tired. wrong

He sure as hell can't take a shot as well. ypossibly not but not 'chinny like you sa

He can't fight at as quickly a pace, and he gets much weaker as the fight goes on.

He wasn't particularly strong in clinches, which hastened his inevitable physical deterioration. In fact I don't remember him being much good apart from at mid-range.bollocks,his inside game was spot on

He wasn't a strong combination puncher, and he struggled to punch straight, not unlike Eubank (but not THAT clumsy). In fact, he didn't have a great variety of punches at all. Nice uppercut, when he could be bothered to use it.again,what a load of fucking bollocks

No....he wasn't as good as Froch, who certainly has his weaknesses.

im not going to argue about froch,i like him,great fighter,tough as fuck,but i just think you don't like benn

[ApatheticLeader]

Originally Posted by widdy

im not going to argue about froch,i like him,great fighter,tough as fuck,but i just think you don't like benn

Provide evidence of what you say at 168, or be quiet.

Especially this mythical punching power. Or the combination punching. Or the defence.

Do it.

EDIT: Actually, defence should be quite easy...

[atberry]

Oh dear.

[Flea Man]

Froch has very little inside game IMO.

And his uppercut can be horrid. Like the Shoryuken, but not as deadly.

[BoxingAnalyst]

I'd probably go with Benn, close points decision, wouldn't be surprised if Froch won though, very close fight to call.

[ApatheticLeader]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Froch has very little inside game IMO.

And his uppercut can be horrid. Like the Shoryuken, but not as deadly.

I agree he can't do much in or directly out of a clinch, but for a fighter with such long arms, he does well up close.

[widdy]

Originally Posted by ApatheticLeader

Provide evidence of what you say at 168, or be quiet.

Especially this mythical punching power. Or the combination punching. Or the defence.

Do it.

EDIT: Actually, defence should be quite easy...

fucking hell,what a knobend you can be ,

i give up,obviously a troll,you win,your the best

[ApatheticLeader]

Originally Posted by widdy

fucking hell,what a knobend you can be ,

i give up,obviously a troll,you win,your the best

Yeah. Whatever.

[BoxingAnalyst]

Eddie Hearn ‏@EddieHearn

Saw that thread on Eastside today - what a fight! #warriors "@AndyLucas_01: Imagine what a @Carl_Froch and Nigel Benn fight would be like!''