Froch vs Chavez Jnr

I just want you to admit your bias, you claim to be a fan of the sport and not individual fighters but you **** on Froch because he doesn't have what you consider to be elite skills, I think in your mind only a skilled counter puncher like Marquez or a slick shoulder roller like Mayweather fits in that category which is such a dense way to look at the sport. History has shown us you can be great without having elite skills in any case.

If you were a real fan of boxing you would appreciate Froch for taking the tough assignments and fighting the best on the bounce, not nit pick because he is over rated by clueless casuals or doesn't have the "elite skills" that you think someone needs to fit in to your idea of what makes someone worthwhile or not. Does the most skilled boxer always win the fight? How can you be a real fan of the sport and not appreciate the wars that we got from people like Hatton and Froch? To call Hatton a dog chasing a bone and make out like he was a ******ed journeyman that fell short at world level is pretty sad. I'm not sure if you were a boxing fan in his early career but he gave us some great fights and although his style was naive and flawed against a Mayweather or Pac he won 3 world titles and got a lot of people into the sport. I just think if you were "in the middle" or "a fan of the sport" you would show a bit more respect for guys like that in your terminology instead of branding them clueless or unskilled or average.

Ian Napa had some pretty good skills but he never made it past British level, Frankie Gavin has nice technical skills but he's not got very far either, there's more to a boxer then throwing a text book jab or a crisp combo, if everyone fought like that the sport would be dull as ****!

 

Froch would murder the spik

 

Who are you to say who is a real fan or not? What is a "real fan"....

If anybody criticizes one of your personal faves (especially me), you're all over it. I'm experienced in this BS, with all the Ricky Burns crap.

The FACT is, and it is a FACT, I aint the only person in the world who thinks this about Carl Froch. There are loads and loads of people, and only a very small percentage of people voice their opinions on this forum. It may be against the norm, but I can assure you I aint the only one bud. I'm sure deep down you know that, you aint that thick. :good

You can say they are wrong try and prove them wrong all you want, but in your opinion Carl Froch is the opposite to that view. So just agree to disagree. This is talking boxing. :good

It's got f*ck all to do with Marquez and Mayweather. Don't pull that card out. :-(

We are talking Carl Froch. Nobody else.

I'm saying he aint got elite skills, but is fighting at that level because of what he is about, and he deserves to be there. When he fought true elite, he fell short. Did he not?

Answer me this then, has he got ELITE skills? If I'm wrong and not a real fan, and a Mayweather bummer, like you claim, that mans you think he has then doesn't it and it would mean he can challenge Ward all the way, and not get rolled over?

 

Craney, I have never once said I disagree with you that he doesn't have "elite skills" as I concur he is somewhat lacking technically in terms of footwork, defence and artillery.
Ward beats him by decision every time they fight in the UK or in America or the moon. I'm just questioning your criticisms of him and the way that you justify them by citing over and over that he isn't as technically gifted as others and using this impossibly high bar you set as a stick to beat him. I don't get why you'e so down on British fighters? Ward may have more elite skills but I'd rather watch Froch all day, give me a technically limited fighter that brings it over a boring elite skilled fighter all day. Ward isn't even good to watch like Mayweather!

I don't really defend anyone unless I feel they're being unfairly maligned, I'm not even a Hatton fan I just think people make out these days that he was just an average brawler because unfortunately he's remembered for his two big fights where he came up short.
You're a fan of good fights, but also a fan of Broner, explain to me when he was in a good fight? He may have elite skills but he's hardly mr excitement, I'm trying to understand how you can be fan of good fights and not enjoy someone like Hatton or Froch?

 

''He's not a great fighter'' atsch there's examples of fighters throughout the history of boxing that prove you dont need to have amazing boxing skills to be a Great fighter.
Froch is a serious force in boxing because he's beat elite fighters who are technically better than him, with his heart, toughness and underrated skills. This makes him a great fighter.

The fact you have the likes of Broner and Trout before Froch (and others) in your p4p list makes me seriously question your boxing knowledge, or lack of. Superb boxing Skills doesnt always = a great fighter.

 

Why are people still responding to Craney as if he had anything worthwhile to say? Just let him talk himself to death. Don't encourage him.

 

That particular statement by Craney shouldn't be an issue. I guess "great" is subjective and depends on your definition. If fighters Like Duran, SRR, Ali etc are great, then Froch is certainly not. If Froch is great, then what does that make fighters like Pac and Mayweather? Better think of another word for them, because they are not in the same league. "Greatness" is when you belong in the same class as Michael Jordan, Lionel Messi, Tiger Woods. Froch is a good fighter, a world class fighter, but great he is not. Not even close.

Note: I'm not shitting on the guy, I'm just saying your definition of great is odd.

 

Because I am the best to ever do it and they can't keep away. No seriously, they can't. They all want a piece. I get slated on here, but no matter what, people hear what I have to say, and we debate boxing. Whether you agree with me or not, is really irrelevant, at least we talk the sport of boxing, rather than today's fan favorite debate about out of the ring BS, like Eddie vs. Frank all the time.

Nobody wanna talk boxing anymore! Just all the crap that happens backstage and what people say during pointless for-show interviews.

@Rossco: Now you wonder why months ago I didnt give you that list, because I knew, absolutely knew, the moment I provided it, you would come out with that predictable ****. :good

Boxing is all about opinions. IKSAB, I don't know about you. In my eyes, you're just a fanboy here to cheer on your fighters, thats fine, you can do whatever you want, but don't throw your toys out the pram when someone says it how it is, just because it goes against one of your faves. If you want to debate, fine, we'll debate.

I forgot Rossco is the man who founded "people who know their boxing" but how dare you question my knowledge of boxing, how bloody dare you!!!

How do you qualify exactly in your book to know **** about boxing? What separates those that do, from those that don't, their personal P4P list? :think :rofl

Bloody hell!

Pitythefool. (in fact what has happened to PTF he aint posted in a while? Hope he is OK!)

 

atsch Sorry i thaught it would be obvious if you read Craneys post.

Froch is a great fighter in this era, in comparison to whats around now. Mate, you've just went and got your nickers in a twist and banged out a list of 'all time greats' because i said i thaught Froch was a 'great fighter', which right now he is :yep

Ya got me bruv? :good

 

Maybe I should of said boxer?

A fighter and a boxer are two different things.

Good fighter. Fights in good fights. Fights the best.

But as a boxer, nowt special.

 

I did read Craney's post, and I don't see the problem in his statement that Froch is a good fighter but not a great. You obviously disagreed with it, so that's why I responded. Even in this era, I wouldn't call him great. I get what you're saying, but usually when people use the word great, they mean great in absolute terms, not great in this era, compared to whoever else is around.

 

**** your p4p list and your knowledge of boxing, troll!

The last i read of Pittythefool was in the gen, Craney ma man:good

 

Froch is a great fighter right now, he's already close to being an all time great brit fighter, if Naz is there then why no Froch?

I get you tho mate, the meaning of the word 'great', in boxing, is very subjective!

 

Much better :good

 

He aint though. Froch will always be compared to Calzaghe, he will be beat with the stick, he may go some way to getting closer if he beats Kessler in the rematch, but if Calzaghe is considered a great fighter, then how the hell can Carl be yet?

Calzaghe's legacy is still being written, everytime Hopkins wins. As it stands, Carl Froch will absolutely need to beat Andre Ward, to even be talked about in the Calzaghe conversation. Calzaghe beat Kessler first time around, when Kessler was prime. So beating Kessler may get him a bit closer, but still way of.