True, Froch was beaten and outclassed by Ward, and outboxed by Kessler first time, whereas Naz tripped over his ego on the way to the fridge. So many parallels between Toney and the Prince too. When Naz was kept busy like he was in those first couple of years after winning the belt (96–97), he rode the wave, similar to Toney. Once the gaps between fights got longer, so did all the traps and trappings of what they’d become. For the Barrera fight Naz “made weight” and that was pretty much it, and the documentary shows it clearly, no structure, no discipline, and no one willing to tell him no. Total delusion and ego running wild.
Don't usually comment here but I just want to say that, in my personal opinion, Hamed is well overrated whilst Froch is slightly underrated. Hamed has a lot of unfavourable context regarding his wins (such as Kelley and Vasquez being active for 15+ years at lower weight classes by the time he fought them,). The best fighter he fought, Barrera, beat him clearly when Marco himself was past his absolute best. Whereas Froch fought a lot of top fighters in or near/just past their prime, winning nearly all of them and only decisively losing to a legitimate ATG. In a h2h sense, Hamed is massively vulnerable and would likely lose to nearly every single prime historical elite around his division h2h, whereas Froch has insane attributes that give him a chance with any man around his weight. Froch's intangibles also far outclass Hamed's. I just see him doing so much better against other elites around his range than Hamed does his.
I'm a little bit biased towards Froch mainly because I followed his era a bit more closely then Naz's. Even to this day I struggle to comprehend how impressive Froch's resume is. I know he lost to Ward and the first Kessler fight, but damn! What a career he had. Jean Pascal (UK) Jermain Taylor (USA) Andre Dirrell ( UK) Mikkel Kessler (DEN) Arthur Abraham (FIN) Glen Johnson (USA) Andre Ward (USA) Lucian Bute (UK) Yusaf Mack (UK) Mikkel Kessler (UK) George Groves (UK) George Groves (UK) Ridiculous run, most of his Super 6 fights were on the road as well. Only one gimme and that was Mack.
In terms of consistently taking on the best around, that's as good a resume as most in the sport. A good few of those fights, Froch wasn't even favourite going into the fight, and outside of Mack, and to a lesser extent, an old Johnson and Groves I, most of the rest were either 50/50 or Froch being a slight favourite. He was an warrior!
I had someone winning by one round, but I can't remember who now. I can understand Froch getting the nod, though. Defensively, Dirrell was brilliant that night. He highlighted all of the flaws in Froch's offense. Unfortunately, he barely let his hands go. It's all well and good making your opponent miss, but if you don't make them pay for their mistakes then it's hard to win rounds. My feeling after the fight was that Dirrell threw the fight away rather than Froch won it.
Come on bro, you’re doing Marco a disservice. He went into the Naz fight fresh off Morales I, one of the greatest fights ever where plenty, me included, thought he was robbed, and he avenged that loss after Hamed, so he was right in his physical and mental prime. HBO even picked Barrera over Morales for that date for a reason. Are you British or a refugee from the General board? Beyond that, who’s better out of Froch or Hamed is totally subjective.
If you are the best in the world at your weight your world class at that weight regardless of what that level was in different eras or different weights