This content is protected This content is protected Some dimensions of Froch are bigger than Patterson, others go to Patterson. Neck is equally thick. Froch is longer and has more reach. Froch has a bigger chest. Equally thick biceps Froch has thicker wrists Patterson has 1/2 inch thicker waist and thigh Equally thick biceps When you compare them Patterson doesn't even look that big for a smw. When you take that in count, his p4p achievement at becoming the hw champion are even better than previously thought. Pretty amazing how such a small man, could be at the top of a division he had little place in.
Froch has a slightly bigger upper body and Patterson has a slightly larger lower body. Patterson was fast and skilled. What held him back from being greater was his size and chin. We have to remember the era he was champ though, coming directly after Marciano's era of light heavies and cruiserweights ruling the heavyweight division. He would have fit in nicely with Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, and Jersey Joe Walcott. But in the era he actually fought, he held the crown for about two minutes before about five better guys came along.
ive seen footage of Patterson of course and of Froch...my gut feeling is that if you could somehow stand next to both of them, that Patterson would look a bit bigger....but not by much.
Patterson came up from MW, ate his way upto HW. Froch has trained his ass off and kept a strict diet to stay at 168. Froch is probably in 180s in the ring, which is around Patterson's weight. Patterson could easily have stayed at 160-168 if he did the same. So yes around the same size
[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/2000/lewis_tua/taleofthetape/[/url] Tua had brutal calves. (Bigger than Lewis, Vitali, Wlad, Tyson)
I have read Froch fights around his walk around weight and that he doesn't put on a lot of weight after the weigh in.
