Has Carl Froch surpassed Ricky Hatton....

That's bit over the top, he won two rounds on my card IIRC.

Froch>>>Hatton

 

Froch by miles

 

Froch is miles behind the best in his division. He's the no.2 but only won rounds against the best when he took them off. He has never been a genuine world champion. He also lost to Mikkel Kessler, a former champ' but on the wane.

Ricky Hatton was the genuine no.1 in his division. His ring record is not great, but he lost to better fighters than Froch has.

They both have plus and minus points. There's not much between them IMO. Many people being too extreme against Ricky and too pro Froch IMO.

And yet if I asked you 'is Carl Froch greater than John Conteh' you'd probably say yes as well. So **** the lot of ya'.

 

Froch and its not close.

 

He was totally shut down. He didn't win the two rounds as much as Ward do **** all in them. It was frankly embarrassing and showed their are a load of quality contenders and one brilliant fighter in the division. Froch is miles away from being no.1 even being no.2.

 

When did I say he didn't? I simply pointed out that Ward did not win every second of the fight, nothing to do with weather or not Ward didn't do much in the few rounds that he lost, he still lost them.

You thought it was embarrassing Flea? Hardly considering the skill level of Ward compared to Froch, I think Carl showed heaps of mental strength, normally Andre breaks his opponents mentally with in about 6 rounds.

 

I like Froch a lot but at the moment, I still think Hatton has a good case of being ahead. Simply put, I think the talent pool of 140/147 around Hatton's time was better than supermiddleweight today. Froch'd wins vs Abraham & Johnson for example I have on a par if not slightly lower than Hatton's vs Malignaggi or Collazo. They weren't the best Hatton could have fought whereas Froch's opponents probably were but it doesn't mean they aren't good wins IMO.

Right now I have Hatton just ahead for a combination of factors. He lost only to the best, Froch lost to Dirrell as well I feel and the Tszyu win is the best victory either man has by a bit IMO. Though of course, Froch has the chance still to surpass Ricky

 

:deal atsch I can't believe there's even a ****ing debate about it.

To all the peons saying Hatton... What then does Froch have to do to satisfy you?

 

Thankfully its just a vocal minority.

Outside of Tzsyu, who was badly weathered and Hatton had every possible advantage given to him, there's nothing else that impresses me.

Paulie was in a bad rut and still isn't that good
Urango and collazo are gatekeeper types, plus collazo was arguably robbed

If you examine Froch's wins

Pascal, an impressive win, no doubt

Taylor, a stylistic nightmare for froch but he got it done and closed the show in emphatic style, despite the best performance from Taylor in years

Dirrel, another stylistic nightmare, could have beaten froch but shat himself, froch did the only thing he could do to get the W, constantly pressuring, made dirrell look like the coward he is

Kessler, close loss to the Danish legend foty performance even in losing

Abraham, impressive bounce back., when froch was written off as too easy for the ko artist to hit, froch showed balls of steel to stand in front of Abraham and batter him

Johnson, also tipped to be too much for froch on the inside, bollocks

Ward, lost wide, but everyone does, tried to take it to ward all night, showing mental toughness, finished the stronger.

Bute, massive favourite to ko and retire froch. Froch put in a career best performance to batter and stop the now "overrated" Bute

 

Resumes are ripped to shreds on forums, resumes get looked at from different POV's for various reasons..

I have a decent memory when it comes to boxing , i remember build ups to fights and sometimes do have a look at old threads. Froch's victories seem to get downplayed far to much IMO. I remember a fair few of the more well respected posters believing he'd be sparked by AA and lose to Taylor.

Hindsight is truly a wonderful thing, I mean for all the Taylor and AA aren't good SMW's and past best stuff i could ask people to rewatch Castillo vs Ngoudjo on the undercard of Hatton's win against Urango. Castillo didn't win that fight IMO, Looked shocking and just got the win based on him fighting Hatton next. Hatton took care of business extremely well but it wasn't as good a win as it could of been.

For me these guys have had great careers, Froch though has taken it IMO as he's done it back to back, different types of victories and displays. Hatton's got depth but Froch has the quality it's tight but Froch just takes it in my view.

Frank was good with Ricky, i mean the WBU years are often maligned but if you see what he did he was smart he held him back and had him winning fights against names, past there best guys but in front of packed crowds on primetime slots and Frank would towards end of that reign put him in with Mitchell and Tszyu's left overs like Tackie and Phillips. Then when they sensed the time was right they got there man and won. Great matchmaking. Problem was i suppose Ricky's peak at world class level wasn't as long as it could of been due to him spending so much time building and waiting plus the silly weight put on didn't help..

 

Urango a gatekeeper? atsch

BoxingAnalyst: my point is Froch is not levels above Hatton. He is on the same level. World class but not good enough to beat the very best. Unlike Ricky he dint get a chance to fight a worn out no.1 and actually reach the pinnacle of his division. Hatton was world champion. But according to most this means nothing and Ricky is 'miles' away from Froch.

It's general forum stuff. When people are agreeing with Oli it's a sad day.

 

Froch chin is always going to hold him in great shape on comparisons........... the day Froch gets stopped people will be quick to bag him

 

Hatton was undisputed champion in possession of all 5 belt?

Because that's the only true world title.

If you refer to the ring magazine trinket, that's as worthless on its own as all the rest

David Haye was closer to being world champion than Hatton ever came

 

it's easy twisting things for your agenda isn't it? You say Collazo was arguably robbed but forget Dirrell? As someone who likes both Hatton & Froch, I'd objectively say the Dirrell fight was far more controversial than Collazo.

Anyone saying there's clearly one fighter ahead of the other is letting the bias come through. I can see both points of view for having 1 just ahead of the other but thrrr isn't a huge difference.

 

I'm aware of that.

You also have to take into consideration that the 140 division in which Hatton was numero uno, was pretty poor.

Froch is in a tougher division IMO.