Is Carl Froch now overrated?

Why are you laughing? On Resume its

#1 Joe Calzaghe (barely)
#2 Andre Ward
#3 Carl Froch

Calzaghe could well be #3 by the time Ward and Froch finish.

 

I'd have Carl at #3 for British supermiddles.

Jones, Ward, Calzaghe, Kessler, Eubank all have better wins, one could argue Toney does too.

Thats why I'm laughing at yet another silly post

 

What?!? Jermain was lineal middleweight champ, then Pavlik? Then Sergio.

Ward is the no.1 SMW by beating the no,2 ranked guy when there was no clear no.1

 

Horrendous thread. And some of the reasoning from the OP is just bizzare. What ****ing planet is the clown on?

 

I only count undisputed champions.

If theres other people with trinkets, its not undisputed :bart

 

Jones was at 168 for like 5 fights

Ward, yes

Calzaghe, yes but only just

Kessler, no

Eubank........... maybe, but it's certainly not by a margin.

Toney, no

 

Not overrated, I think people realise he's 2/3 in the division and the Kessler fight will determine who is the man after Ward.

 

I don't think Froch is over rated in terms of skill set and ability and achievements.

He may be over rated by some (myself included) in general because as a boxer he embodies everything that the real fans want. Will fight anyone, loves a tough fight, would never quit, and always leaves it all in the ring. Because of those attributes boxing fans give him more respect and maybe get a bit carried away.

Seriously though, if every fighter had a mentality like Froch the sport would be a lot more exciting. People seem to think he is arrogant but I personally see him as being quite a nervous character that needs to tell himself how good he is and believe it in order to get through the ropes and box, rather than as a brash trash talker.

 

**** double post, won't delete!

 

:good Brilliant!

 

:good

As an aside, I think Froch would be a better fighter over 15 rather than 12. Slowish starter with very good stamina, which isn't massively beneficial over 12 but allows you to hit full revs from 12 through 15.

Froch reminds me of Mark Kaylor a bit actually - I'd say they aren't far removed from each other in terms of ability even though Froch is slightly better overall and has achieved more. Kaylor was a better orthodox stalking boxer-puncher and hit a touch harder for his size imo, but Froch is tougher and more awkward with greater resolve and has the better wins.

I was thinking the other day about how Froch would have done against someone like Henry Wharton. Might start a thread on it....

 

Is that a fair stick to beat him with though?

Plus i don't believe it's just the punishing schedule, which by the way i don't think is too punishing in terms of how regular he fights, it's the fact that he consistently wants to fight, and does fight the best available fighters in the division. What he does by today's standards, would stand the test of time in any era IMO. You can only fight who's out there at the end of the day.

 

he has never been a humble lad.

he will always be known as the guy who had word vomit;- the nerve of him to even mention calzaghe's name was disgraceful.

respected for fighting anyone but he did get schooled for12rounds against ward, had a controversial hometown decision against direll and lost to kessler.

he IS now over-rated.

 

he won a couple of rounds against ward