Hah, I actually thought I'd get support from you on this one. Ah well. I'm a pro, btw, but ok keyboard warrior.
Of course it is. If you drop him into the 40s or 50s, he gets smashed by the elites of his size. Are we debating that? If we agree, then we must agree that what was once considered elite, is no longer in existence, no?
Because that's his own, distinctive style. Again, you're judging Froch by textbook boxing and Froch isn't textbook. I've spoke about this a lot relating to George Foreman and he's another people think lacked talent because he wasn't textbook, but his own style was perfect for him. That's what boxing is about. Finding a fighters strengths and weaknesses and moulding a style around that, which Froch has done. You can say things like "He doesn't hold his right hand up after he jabs" but that's just Froch. The reason he doesn't do it, is because he likes to throw a right hand from a low position after the jab, so it suits him to hold it low. Most people throw a jab, keep their right hand by their face and then throw a straight right, like Kelly Pavlik, for example. Froch will throw a long jab out and then follow it up with a right uppercut or something and catch his opponent off-guard, because they're not used to his style. That's why his style works and to effectively judge it, you can't make comparisons to textbook fighters. Everyone knows Froch makes mistakes that boxing scholars would half kill you for, yet the style he has, works for him. Rate his style as it is, not compare him to guys like Robinson or whoever else.
It's not that I think people are surprised and impressed more than anything. Most of us did not see that kinda performance from him based on his previous fights. That's why there is so much being said about him.
Dpn't be stupid you don't know that unless it actually happened/happens. Styles make fights. You just don't know stylistically who will match up with his. Some he will lose, some he will win, simply because for as good as the other guy may be, may not be able to adapt against the style Froch brings. It's not an easy one to get around. If you knew anything about boxing then you would know this.
you cant deny the man, he is technically very limited and physically very average, but he still finds ways to win against world class opposition. His will and belief in himself are something to admire and i also think he is a bit under rated in terms of ring IQ(He could have easily punched himself out early against Abraham but he fought a very controlled fight).
Even if that's true, Froch would still be competitive with guys like Maxim, Olson, Zale, Graziano etc.. In fact, when you look at the white fighters of that era, most of them weren't that good technically either and Froch would have a great shot against them. There's no way that he gets beaten up by the average top 10 middle/light heavy during the 40's and 50's. He'd be extremely competitive with the elite of those days because he has the same qualities that guys like LaMotta had. None of those guys I listed, who were elite at the time, would come out of the Super 6 undefeated. None. There may be a slight drop in skill, and it's certainly a big drop in skill if you think of Moore, Charles, Robinson etc., but there was still lots of Froch-esque fighters in the glory days of boxing and they had success then too.
If we dropped the current Shane Mosley in the ring with Sugar Ray Robinson, who would win? If the answer is anything other than we cannot know unless it actually happened, then you can help yourself to shutting the **** up.
That's the style which is written about in every technique book, yes, but it doesn't mean it would work for every fighter. Regardless of anything else, my point would remain that Froch wouldn't have this level of success, if his style didn't work for him. He's fought some very good fighters and lost once, a close decision. If he had as many flaws as you say, I don't think he'd have got beyond British level.
Comparing with fighters in the 40's and 50's is totally pointless. A fighter has to be measured in his own era. I am no Froch fan (read some of my other posts) but he is a good boxer and an exciting boxer to watch, suggesting otherwise is.. well.. idiotic. What will you say if he beats Johnson then Ward? Oh hold on, I already know. He beat a bunch of D listed weak fighters and therefore should be discounted from history. Go dry your eyes..
Actually, i saw a lot of "textbook" from Froch on Saturday. His right was in position to parry, he wasn't squared up like his **** opponent, etc. The LHW's and bigger middles of the 40's and 50's would own Froch though. Charles, Burley, Moore, Conn, etc? That was a really good generation- imho the best boxing has ever seen.
Thanks for continuing to argue thoughtfully and knowledgeably. I just disagree though. Rightly, or perhaps wrongly, I am looking at people like Ez and Moore when I want to bestow the mantle of elite boxer upon someone. Perhaps it is MY standards then that are wrong.