Carl Froch & Clinton Woods

Never really thought of that comparison but very interesting!
And as some have said above if Woods/Froch had Warren as their promoter they would be household names, but then again, maybe wouldn't have faced the top quality opposition they have faced.

 

Sorry mate, Carl Froch is a ballsy, exciting fighter .. Yeah he has no technique, or set-up play but he has heart and will fight to the end .. I like Froch, i dont think hes a great fighter, the 2 great super-middles in history, Roy Jones and Calzaghe would beat him but lets not denigrate him to the level of Clinton Woods .. Clinton Woods is the most orthodox, most predictable fighter ive ever seen, completely devoid of natural talent and skill and the most boring fighter in the entire world .. Clinton Woods was crap, and all you guys cheering his name based on the fact 'he was a hard working, gutsy, rugged fighter' are kidding yourself .. he was shite and he operated in a shite division, in a strong division he wouldnt have even fought for the belt ....

Watch 'good ole homeboy' Clinton get embarrassed by Roy Jones, Roy was laughing while he destroyed him, it was no effort at all ..

 

I have to admit i see the similarities but i think Froch is both a bigger fighter on the world stage in terms of skill and legacy. Froch could be big just not marketed right and he still could be one of the better fighters of the last 30 years Woods was always too limited and never had the appeal. Froch almost has it there is just soemthing missing

 

Right now, I'd have Froch half a step ahead of Woods. Woods fought alot of the top guys and fought hard but usually lost, even his one win over Glenn Johnson was a bit dubious. Froch has honest wins over Pascal and Taylor at world level and his win over Dirrell falls into the same catergory as Johnson for Woods. I'd sat Froch's domestic competition was a bit sitffer too. They are comparable, though.