Froch on Ringside

Whilst I agree with everything you've wrote it's easy to pick holes in fighters looking back in hindsight.

The fact is Froch was an underdog in all of them fights except Dirrell & Pascal & he was only a narrow favourite in them 2 fights, he also travelled in most of them fights so gets massive respect from me

 

Outside of boxing he's a very successful property developer, you have to have a bit about you.

 

Mand laying down the truth! Frochy :happy

 

HAHAHA!

So he turned up then, well done Nath :rofl

Not sure that proves anything apart from he's well advised. If you've a lot of spare disposable income then property is always one of the best default options. Plus property developer is easy money if you've got enough to afford a "team" to update the properties and market them for you. Basically by investing in property he's about on par with your average footballer, a lot of whom have done the same. I don't think it shows intelligence, just common sense.

 

Froch deserves nothing but respect, I've always believed in him.

Joe Calzaghe should have fought him, and on recent form very few can beat him. I think he's got 2 - 3 big fights left in him, and I hope he makes the most of them, winning in convincing style and goes out with the full honours he deserves!

 

He's not well advised though, I'm sure him and his brothers do up the houses, they have no team.



It doesn't mean he's intelligent, but he's certainly not thick as icemax claims.

 

Why? He hadn't done anything to merit that fight at the time.

 

Froch is clearly clever, he just tries to play the hard man part and it makes him sound like a tool.

 

And Peter Manfredo did?:think

 

I knew Manfredo would come up. That was pretty logical - he was well-known to the US public after The Contender, that's the only reason they picked him.

Froch brought nothing to the table at all.

 

Yes he did, Froch was clearly a better fighter.

 

Froch is my favourite fighter by a country mile but the bottom line is he has never (and more than likely never will be) number 1 in his division, and this probably eats away at him. Coupled in with the fact that hes not had the exposure that he deserves as someone who approaches the sport in the right way i.e. not ducking, travelling etc.

 

Well, quality doesn't often have much to do with making fights. But there wasn't much between Manfredo and Froch at that point. Neither had faced significantly good competition.

Easy to say in hindsight, but no one thought Froch was that good.

 

Froch was a definite contender in the division after beating Magee IMO and a hell of a lot better then Manfredo Jr, even back then.

Think about it, Calzaghe vs 20-0 English contender with Frank W promoting, easy sell.

I know what you mean though, Manfredo brought Showtime into the picture.

 

Calzaghe-Manfredo was on HBO.

The biggest issue with Froch was the same one he has now - he doesn't draw big money on his own. Calzaghe wasn't going to fight an unproven contender for minor money when he knew the Manfredo fight would get him money and on HBO.

It worked for him too. Post-Manfredo, he took the Kessler fight. It drew big money from HBO and set him up for the Hopkins and Jones fights. He wouldn't have got that with Froch.

Calzaghe had no reason to fight him.