Carl Froch vs Chris Eubank

Bute is nothing like McClellan

 

there is no way you can compare bute to mcellan, its like comparing monte barrett to joe frazier

 

Inthink it would be a good fight, both hard *******s and both great boxers.

But again, i see froch being highly underatted by the esb people ,froch is easily up there with benn/eubank/watson in the bestsupermiddles since it came into being.
Im going for froch

 

I love Eubank and that's "my era" but I'm going for Froch here. He's similar to Steve Collins in lots of ways but bigger and with a longer reach.

Eubank really struggled with rangy types like Malinga and his stamina was very suspect, he just had enough heart and kidology for it not to matter too often.

 

I think that Eubank in his prime was the better fighter, but Froch has fought slightly better opposition overall, that and Eubank never really went to America in a big way.

 

Hard one to call. Eubank has better wins for me, and a more proven chin, and better one punch power.

He was taken out of his game numerous times though, lots of horrible ugly performances where he got dragged down to the level of his opponent. And a few decisions that were tight or downright fortunate, and not always against guys who should have been troubling him.

I watched all his fights after benn 1 and I didn't like him until late in his career. Terribly frustrating fighter. The showboating was awful. He seemed to fight within himself, or was that an illusion and he didn't have more? Was always hard to know. But I'd lean towards him being a complex ****er and having more in his locker, only brought out in ultra tough fights or where he was very motivated.

Head to head id arguably pick froch, it's a safer bet and he is more consistent, and he has the ring smarts to execute a plan, stick to his boxing. But on career etc id probably have to go eubank. Hell of a lot of Tough scraps, thoroughly proven.

 

Eubank dealt with Malinga comfortably, as he did all rangy types (Corti, Stretch, Rocky, Storey)

 

Eubank on points he's the better boxer and puncher

 

I m going eubank. Watching the older fights back....there looks a massive gulf in skill level between the guys of the 90,s and todays top contenders.

Suspect there might be strength differences as the sports moved to more scientific methods. That and its all about tactics and nullifying opponents nowadays...probably cant even use their skills to their full extent because the opponents spent 2 months working on how to nullify you. But from the eye test eubank had a lot more ability/skill than froch imo.

Always hard to judge different eras....but even looking at guys froch beat groves, pascal, taylor, kessler. These guys seem a long way off guys at the top when eubank was around. Roy jones junior. James toney. Etc. Reckon they,d have beat any two on that list on the same night.

 

But Eubank never fought Toney or Jones. I was a big Eubank fan as a kid and him v Froch would be a stuck on close 12 round, close fight. I think Froch workrate and reach would give him the edge.

 

Just a comparison bud. People sort of hold it against guys like eubank not challenging the best when froch pretty much did. But tbf to eubank etc....the best of his day we,re lightyears ahead of frochs.

I still reckon the guys from the 90,s we,re much better than todays guys and eubank would have beaten froch....but its pretty subjective tbh. Think boxing became more aware in the 2000,s of protecting the health of fighters. Rest etc. Meant they could go on longer but they we,rent quite getting the same grounding in terms of boxing...we,rent taking months off of training at a time and we,re sparring like it was a fight. Learned a lot of guys how to ride shots. Take shots. And improved their boxing skill/ability to work different styles out etc.

Just need to look at some of the sparring footage from back then. Toney v mclellan etc. Tyson v anyone.

Nowadays i see pro boxers that cant do the speedball...cant work a heavybag etc. Decent fighters as well.

Its been a change for the better for safeguarding fighters....just no sure its improved them as fighters tho.

 

I think most of the top Americans were on drugs back then. Jones especially. I agree him and Toney were something else. I actually think Andre Ward would have ran both close, not saying he would have beat them. I agree alot of boxers look past boxing fundamemtals. Think too many are using camps as a weight lose camp. That cant help as leaves lack of time for boxing. Thats why i love to see gyms likenthe Ingles getting their fighters to still do the lines. Footwork is something so many boxers neglect its untrue.

 

Funny seeing primadonnakool in this thread, that guy was obsessed with Audley harrison and that he was going to beat Haye and become a world champion

 

Froch is the 2nd best SMW to come from these shores behind Calzaghe + some of the names he faced back to back shows what a throwback he was.

Eubank and Benn were natural MW's who moved up, both awesome but they sit underneath those 2 names.