Michael Watson v Carl Froch

I think Watson could have taken Froch whenever he wanted too...:yep

Watson would have been far to technical for Froch and had power that could and would have sunk Froch...:yep

 

all respect to Watson but Froch was WBC world champion. Watson lost every time he stepped up to that level.

 

Good point Rob but he went up against far better opponents than what Froch has...:yep

What about Froch v Wharton, that would have been on the cobbles...:yep

 

So....?

Watson beat Benn, gave McCallum a good fight, lost a debatable decision to Eubank and at Super Middleweight was just over a round away from decisively beating Eubank. Froch would be beat by this kind of opposition without doubt in my opinion.

It's like saying Herol Graham couldn't beat Richie Woodhall because Woodhall was WBC champion...

 

atsch

 

Watson was damn damn good against Don Lee, Errol Christie and Eubank the 2nd time. Offensively slipping inside jabs and doing damage with tight accurate shots, and either changing angle of his attack inside to let go more or tucking up beautifully to block anything. Just immense. Stiff and awkward, but tremendous timing too.

That Watson beats Froch up.

 

Michael Watson was a great fighter watch his fight with McCallum, who was a top ten Pd 4 Pd fighter at the time, and is an all time great ring technican, even though Watson lost that fight, he gave McCallum a lot of problem's, it did'nt become onesided till the late rounds of the fight. Watson had a lot of skill.

Anyway Watson would school Froch easy, Froch is way to open for a fighter as technical good as Watson.

 

Froch has never boxed anyone like Mccallum or Eubank.The first time he went in with a proven world class fighter anywhere near his prime he was beaten.I think Watson would have had too much for Froch but would have won on points and not by KO.

 

wATSON WOULD COMPREHENSIVELY BEAT fROCHY, AND PROBABLY STOP HIM. (oops caps)

Probably Kessler too, though I'd favour Kesslers fundementals to save him being stopped.

Watson continues to be underrated.

 

I'm sorry, and I know i'm going to get a lot of hate here but I think that you lads are in serious danger of completely overrating Watson. He was a decent fighter with good skills but his two best wins don't really justify some of the accolades that he is getting. Benn did his usual early career whirlwind routine, blew himself out and was put down by a lame jab he was so tired, and Errol Christie was at the end of his rope career wise...every other time he stepped up he got beat.

Grahams performance against McCallum was significantly better than Watsons.

 

Agreed but Graham was a nightmare.

I had him winning the first Eubank fight.

 

Wouldnt say Watson's being overrated he was a very skilled figher. Even Eubank says he was beaten twice by Watson (bad decision and tragedy of course) and was out of the ring for over a year prior to the McCallum right and he was always a busy fighter. He takes the best of Benn's shots he can take Froch's and outpoint him comfortably for me

 

Froch

 

Watson does get overrated at times but he was a lot better than Froch.