Rate Carl Froch's Power...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by walk with me, May 10, 2009.


  1. Lance_Uppercut

    Lance_Uppercut ESKIMO Full Member

    51,943
    2
    Jul 19, 2004
    7 - It's not as if he's bludgeoning fighters left and right putting them out cold.
     
  2. baldbull

    baldbull Active Member Full Member

    1,183
    10
    Mar 14, 2009
    7

    technique 2

    has anybody been hit by that horrible looking uppercut
     
  3. o_money

    o_money Boxing Junkie banned

    11,894
    1
    Apr 8, 2006
    I would put it as an 8.5....i had to round up on the poll though.

    The guy's no Julian Jackson but he can take the life out of his opponents with his thudding shots.
     
  4. Lance_Uppercut

    Lance_Uppercut ESKIMO Full Member

    51,943
    2
    Jul 19, 2004
    Very fair :thumbsup
     
  5. Hermit

    Hermit Loyal Member banned

    44,341
    3
    Jan 29, 2008
    Exactly. Take their common opponent. Pavlik took Taylor out sooner and more decisively. After Pavlik Taylor had to ask if he had been knocked out. Taylor ended on his feet with Froch and was center of the ring asking for a rematch soon after.
     
  6. Taylex

    Taylex Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,885
    1
    Oct 15, 2007

    Taylor had more punch resistance at 168 and I am pretty sure that Froch has more power than Pavlik but what does it matter when they both have excellent power.
     
  7. Hermit

    Hermit Loyal Member banned

    44,341
    3
    Jan 29, 2008
    How can you make that statement? Normally it goes down with each KO. Just because he made it longer against Froch?

    Seriously, this is a loaded question from beginning. A poll to put a number on something when none of us have felt his punch. Plus it is really a little too soon to even ask this question since he is just now stepping up in class so there isn't a lot of quality opponents to go on. Pascal ended on his feet and he took quite a few of Froch's shots. As has been stated in other threads, EFFECTIVE power is the key.
     
  8. Loggo

    Loggo Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,029
    2
    Mar 26, 2006
    One punch what? Dick.He`d prob beat Froch but he`s no ****in Hearns you knob.
     
  9. konaman

    konaman Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,377
    1
    May 28, 2008
    7.

    He has raw clubbing power, but his punches aren't sharp enough for him to be a real monster puncher.
     
  10. booradley

    booradley Mean People Kick Ass! Full Member

    39,848
    16
    Aug 29, 2006
    I voted 7-8. Like many others I think that the effective use of power is far more important than brute force. Take a list of heavy handed guys like Froch, Miranda, Abraham, and Pavlik, and you'll see my point. Pavlik probably has the least concussive power out of this group, but he has a higher KO ratio than all the others.
     
  11. o_money

    o_money Boxing Junkie banned

    11,894
    1
    Apr 8, 2006
    Exactly, its his ability to place his shots behind his Jab and the leaverage he gets against shorter fighters that makes him so effective.

    IMO when he fights someone as tall as him you see his power isn't the same.
     
  12. DOM5153

    DOM5153 They Cannot Run Forever Full Member

    12,340
    1
    Jan 9, 2009
    i voted 9-10 but i feel his power is more 8 slash 9
     
  13. JediPimp007

    JediPimp007 Long suffering reader Full Member

    1,830
    552
    May 8, 2006
    Pavlike took less time, but landed a hell of a lot more in those rounds. Froch only landed a handful of flush shots, which was enough to end Jermain's night. He hit WAAAAY harder than Kelly does.
     
  14. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,467
    Sep 7, 2008
    Solid hitter, more of an accumulative puncher, though he can really dig to the body when he wants too.

    We'll have to wait and see. Kessler is a fantastic puncher due to his accuracy, Frochy just seems very heavy handed
     
  15. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,467
    Sep 7, 2008
    Perfect analysis IMO :good:good:good