Michael Watson v Carl Froch

Watson on points in a close fight..

 

The main thing about Watson apart from tucking up so well/v.rarely being hit with more than one shot at a time, was that he countered in combinations instead of just countering with one shot, as seen in the McCallum and Eubank II fights especially.

Unfortunately McCallum was a fighter who countered to the body instead of countering to the head, so Watson found shots being timed/placed/slipped in under his arms when letting off combinations; countering his counters, and breaking him down. Against Eubank in their 2nd fight, he looked much stronger and sharper at SMW, and wasn't in with a master bodypuncher.

(I personally think Watson was made for McCallum, stiff and awkward against McCallum's out-and-out fluidity. He was also rusty as hell but still held his own against one of the best we've seen, who was at his v.best, for 9-10 rounds and kept trying right up until the collapse of exhaustion.)

Froch can't do what McCallum did - countering to the body perfectly, and can't do what Eubank did - landing the sneakiest rights and flashiest flurries with no telegraphy. I don't see him doing a great deal with Watson apart from keeping him at bay with the long jab for a few rounds until Michael feels Carl out and starts inching closer, as fantasistical as the whole thing is. We saw in Eubank I how Watson could move forward without being hit - a subtle thing that signs a very very good learning boxer. Getting in and breaking Carl up, basically, covering up when Froch fires back, and countering in combination to win him the exchange.