Froch vs Abraham - Biggest fight of there careers

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010.


Page 1 of 3
  1. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    - If Froch wins he is back in the limelight and can argue the Kessler fight was just a bad night at the office
    - If Froch loses again then for me he might as well retire. He would have been beaten twice by decent fighters - not great fighters and will find it very hard for anyone to back him. PLus got lucky against Dirrell and Taylor.

    - Abraham wins and he is back up there. Can argue Dirrell fight was a farce and a blip
    - Abraham loses and where can he go from there? Froch has so many flaws that a great fighter would expose and I think Kessler showed the blue print how to beat Froch, outwork him, go to the body and stay active.

    Make or Break for both fighters, especially Froch for me.

    What we have learnt from the super six is that this weight division is weak. No outstanding fighters at all. Calzaghe would wipe the floor with all of them. Id even back Robin Reid to beat them! (Prime Reid)
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #1
  2. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009


    While I agree with your first part, the last sentence is ridiculous. The weight division is not weak. It´s good, very good. It has a high level of contenders and the best fight each other. Of course they will pick up a loss. I rather have a division with many good contenders fighting each other than one (borderline-)great dominating mediocre opposition and avoiding the hardest challenges - like Calzaghe.
     
    bodhi, Apr 28, 2010
    bodhi, Apr 28, 2010
    #2
  3. JoeAverage

    JoeAverage Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,150
    1
    Oct 26, 2008
    You are saying, and I tend to agree, that the blueprint to beating Froch has been laid. Go to the body early, outwork him, and stay active. I think Dirrell could do this - and in the moment in rounds 10, 11 where Dirrell tried to pressure Carl, Dirrell had his best moments.

    BUT - AA is just so inactive that I'm not sure he can carry out the plan even if he knows it.

    And I don't agree wit hyour last sentence at all. The division has never in history been deeper than it is today. This, I think, is fact.
     
    JoeAverage, Apr 28, 2010
    JoeAverage, Apr 28, 2010
    #3
  4. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    I agree that it is more exciting for fns to watch - 100%

    But this has proved the division to be weak. There are no outstanding fighters at all.

    Come on mate, 5-10 years ago would Froch, Ward, Dirrell, Kessler...... even make it to the top with the likes of Roy Jones, Joe C, even Ottke, Benn, Eubank, Toney, Hearns.
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #4
  5. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    The division is stacked at the top...... with decent fighters.

    I would rather have a division stacked with great fighters e.g. Benn, Eubank, Jones, G man etc

    All could possibly beat eachother but all far superior to the Super Six

    And If DIrrell fought Froch again I would back Dirrell every time if he was more active. He should have won that fight but was far too cautious the first half of the fight
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #5
  6. JoeAverage

    JoeAverage Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,150
    1
    Oct 26, 2008
    Yes, actually yes. The guys you mention would all have multiple defeats if the ywere in a tourney together. And e.g. 5 years ago only Calzaghe was there. You act like if the division was very strong with all those fighters at any one time. Fact is that they were never there at the same time.

    You could argue that the no. 1 or 2. at any one time was better than the SS fighters - but my argument is that they seemed better because there were no depth and they were not really pressured at 168.

    Back when Eubank, Benn, Collins were there.. no other country really had any interest in the division. The US send Lacy.. sorry, (well, same thing really) McClellan (who had been losing on points to mediocre fighters, and KOing mediocre fighters) to compete with the Brits (because at the time the world championship belt was really a UK championship - and McClellan was shown to be the Lacy of then.

    The ones you mention span decades and Hearns was a smaller fighter etc. You are just mixing everything up and it seems like you are not really very experience in terms of boxing knowledge.
     
    JoeAverage, Apr 28, 2010
    JoeAverage, Apr 28, 2010
    #6
  7. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    Haha The UK championship. Only the US had no interest because the UK had the better SMW's.

    Roy Jones, Benn, Eubank, Collins, Watson, Gerald, Rochhigianni all from the same era, all better fighters than the current SMW's. = More packed division
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #7
  8. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    Even James Toney and Hopkins were middleweights at the time.

    You say decades, Hearns was a decade earlier, Calzaghe was a few years later. The rest all early 90's
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #8
  9. JoeAverage

    JoeAverage Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,150
    1
    Oct 26, 2008
    Dude, this is so ridiculous that I can't be bothered.

    I think everyone in boxing knows that the two best divisions today are 168 and 147.

    You are just too far out for any discussion to even begin.

    This thread = FAIL.
     
    JoeAverage, Apr 28, 2010
    JoeAverage, Apr 28, 2010
    #9
  10. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    If they lose and drop out, they could face Bute or Pavlik moving up among other names in the division. Maybe even step up in weight.

    This myth that somehow one or two losses at the elite level is sufficient for retirement is just ridiculous.
     
    itrymariti, Apr 28, 2010
    itrymariti, Apr 28, 2010
    #10
  11. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    Ye and last week 140 was stacked. Changes all the time son.
    Froch = half decent
    Kessler = half decent
    Dirrell - half decent

    See the trend. My point was this division is not as strong as it is claimed to be. Beginning of the super six it looked strong but the super six has just exposed the SMW's as nothing special
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #11
  12. dannylatics

    dannylatics Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,059
    0
    Nov 21, 2008
    WHy would Bute and Pavlik fight the losers of the Super SIx when there are bigger fights out there for them??
     
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    dannylatics, Apr 28, 2010
    #12
  13. JASPER

    JASPER Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,214
    8
    Jul 21, 2007
    I agree with you joe for the most part because the over the top claims about the SMW division being stronger at anytime prior to the current era. The Big Money was always at MW, and SMW was always a stepping stone to the LHW division. The claim of the SMW divisions prior strength is as absurd as saying the Heavyweight division is at a strong point.

    That being said this is a make or break for both fighters.
     
    JASPER, Apr 28, 2010
    JASPER, Apr 28, 2010
    #13
  14. psilas

    psilas New Member Full Member

    76
    2
    Mar 10, 2009
    @ Joe and Greasy Jasper.

    YOU are the ones who need some decent boxing knowledge, FACT!

    Benn, Eubank, Jones, Toney, McClellan, Collins, Watson, Rochigiani

    ALL Supermiddle at or around the same time fools, plus you had Jackson, McCallum, Hearns, Graham, Barkley and Nunn etc ALL on either side of supermiddle.

    You have the cheek to compare this era with THAT era....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOL.

    Not 1 of todays Super6 supermiddles beats any of the above fighters without an extreme amount of luck or home cooked refs/decisions.

    I'd have them all struggling with a super middle Pazienza, Henry Wharton or Robyn Reid.
     
    psilas, Apr 28, 2010
    psilas, Apr 28, 2010
    #14
  15. Lampley

    Lampley Boxing Junkie banned

    7,508
    2
    Oct 30, 2005
    The TS is out of his ****ing mind. You're pulling fighters from multiple years into a single-year hypothetical that never existed.

    Prime Jones and prime Calzaghe would be favored to win the event, sure, but the division never has had this amount of depth at the same time.

    The tournament has underscored the outstanding quality of these fighters, even if no one (at least at this point) has the chops of Jones or Calzaghe.

    Here we are, in 2010; if you want to talk about some other great period at 168, please choose a year.
     
    Lampley, Apr 28, 2010
    Lampley, Apr 28, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 3