carl froch has been shown up most of the time at world level at 168

Pavlik has looked horrific consistently post-Hopkins. Froch would beat him comfortably.

As for Froch's power, it's pretty much non-existent at the top level IMO. Solid, but average and not helped by lack of handspeed and inaccuracy.

 

How right you are.

 

thank you how long till i get banned of this site?

 

The sooner the better.

 

Fitzgerald90=Cotto20

 

I do think it's strange how some fighters can seem murderous at domestic and European level yet appear to have nothing more than a respectable dig when facing world class opponents.

Froch was knocking guys out, or wearing them down and legitimately stopping them, there weren't many British stoppages that I recall, unlike fighters like Gavin, DeGale etc that have misleading KO ratios.

Hatton was the same. Plenty of KO's or stoppages, but at world level it wasn't there.

 

Froch actually has a pretty good resume. Of the current UK big 3 (Haye, Khan, Froch), Froch has the best legacy, and IMO you can debate whether he is above Hatton or not.

Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Johnson, are good wins. He's proved himself as a world class fighter. The Dirrell fight will always be debated. Personally I thought Dirrell won as despite "running" he was still the only one landing any significant punches. David Haye ran against Valuev and put in a dull performance, but again, he was the only one landing anything.

The consistency with which Froch fights high quality opponents is something you just don't see. All he wants to do is fight the best, and why not? He's at his peak, he's no longer a prospect so why should he waste his and the fans time? If he loses he loses, but at least he's having a go. As for his boxing ability, I think it's under-rated.

 

It must be when people start saying that Cleverly could ''out box'' him, given most people's interpretation of the phrase ''out box'' these days.

Out-hustle, out-work, yes perhaps, but when he's got a jab in his face all night and is taking left and right hooks to his body all night he'd struggle, and he'd not out-do Froch on the outside in a million years, his footwork simply isn't anywhere near good enough.

 

Dirrell did outbox him, there's nothing wrong with boxing at long range, there's nothing wrong with boxing at cclose range. There's no strict definition of boxing, there are many ways to score points and be effective, it's subjective. It's not an 'i'm harder than you' contest.

 

Froch has not been exposed at world level, he is clearly a world class fighter.

 

Yeah Froch's jab is actually pretty good and we saw what happened to Clev when he stepped in the ring with Bellew and got outboxed untill Bellew's stamina was gone. For people to say Clev would do Froch is madness. They see Froch as being one dimensional and having nothing but power. His power is actually a myth, and while he has limitations, he has a good jab, an awkard style, and he makes good use of his ability.

 

Pavlik a few years ago would have been tough for Froch - good jab, decent right hand and capable of boxing and slugging. Based on the weight and his overall grit, I think Carl would have taken a close decision.

Now though? Carl wins clearly. He could take him off of the jab.

 

Dirrell was not boxing at range, he was running. He rarely committed to offence until the last few rounds when he realised he was a harder puncher than Froch.

If he'd been as positive from the start and he was in those last rounds, he'd have held the WBC belt and would likely have been better regarded.

 

From the wild swings I think.

 

No,. I've watched the fight countless times. If he was running and landing punches without then it is scoring, he doesn't have to please you or anyone else on an aesthetic level as long as he does the scoring.