If froch beats groves...

I would still go with Lennox as the best British record/ resumé with Calzaghe 2nd and Froch 3rd at the moment

 

No he won't mainly because of two reasons:

1. He never beat the best in his division.

2. His best win really isn't that great a win at all.

You have to give him credit though, he will fight anyone (albeit only those at 168) but he most definitely doesn't have anywhere near the best British record or resume and beating Groves won't change that one bit.

Moving up to 175 would enhance his record and resume more than staying at 168 but he doesn't seem to want to do that.

 

Why? Because he was a better fighter and had a better record that cannot be beaten by Froch?

Froch is a great british fighter for us to be proud of in the sense he is merciless in the ring and meticulous in his preparation for bouts and will always leave it in the ring win lose or draw.

As others have said, he will face anyone anywhere and is one of the toughest fighters out there.

 

If froch beat groves for me it doesn't do anything for him really.

Would have prefered a rematch with Ward, then he could claim he beat the best in the division.

 

no :nono

this

 

Better fighter 100%

Better record ? Not a ****ing chance in hell

 

Froch would have the best supper middleweight resume by far. Hopkins win for Calzaghe was at light-heavy. Calzaghe became linear champion by beating Kessler who Froch has also beaten now. Ward is better then Kessler. It doesn't really matter about being the linear champion when comparing the two because Ward is a better fighter then what was in Calzaghe's reign anyway.

 

+1

 

Right so the fact carls biggest win was completely outboxed by JC?

Joe beat hopkins, rjj, kessler, lacy (when he was going ktfo of joe by all critics) etc.

He was ring magazine champ in 2 weight divisions.

To top it off he remained undefeated throughout.

Yes carls record is better you fool

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Firstly the question was would he have the best record/resume of a British fighter ever. So you can't just dismiss Calzaghe's win over Hopkins at 175. The fact he beat him at 175 after being at 168 for all of his career actually is a plus for Calzaghe!

And you just can't compare the Kessler that Froch narrowly beat to the prime Kessler that Calzaghe beat back in 2007. Those two versions of Kessler are poles apart. It was a decent win by Froch in that last fight but it was clear that Kessler is just about finished at that level.

 

No.

If you don't have a decent argument for being the greatest fighter ever period, then you are not close to being the greatest British fighter ever.

That is where the bar is set.

 

Rack us up a fat one will you Joe?:hey

 

Cant understand this myself even if it was Clevs paper title, it world still add notches to his legacy

 

:yep:yep Same as Calz win over Bhop looks better everytime he keeps stepping in the win, same as LL win over V.Klit

 

It's been explained so many times it is boring. He will never fight at 175. More chance of dropping down than going up.