Had they not fought you would be saying the same thing about iran Barkley and Hearns . And how did that went?
People will try and ignore the Barkley fights or say Barkley was some amazing fighter when he had already 7 losses on his record when facing Hearns. Froch like Barkley was big, strong and durable and while there's no doubt Hearns was more skilled and had so many more weapons. I'm sure Hearns could out box Froch and win on points but he would probably try for the KO because Hearns liked a tear up at times and with an opponent he would at times dominate and find easy to hit, he'd probably try and take him out and Froch would eventually catch up with him at some point late and turn the fight on it's head like we saw when Hearns fought SRL and Barkley and even Hagler and we saw Froch achieve vs Taylor and Groves. Hearns is the greater fighter and I much prefer him as a fighter but even as a big Hearns fan I can't help but think this match up doesn't bode well for him based on both fighters track records. It feels like sacrilege to say it as Hearns is so great but styles makes fights and this is at least 2 divisions above Hearn's best weight.
Virgil Hill treats the hittable and smaller Froch like a double-end bag: jab, jab, jab for a 9-3 or 10-2 type decision.
I see a lot of comments saying that Tommy had no power at SMW, as if Tommy wasn't very likely one of the 20 most highly skilled boxer punchers ever. Whether he could stop Froch or not isn't very relevant, he could most assuredly outbox him over 12. Plus, let's not forget despite Froch's phenomenal chin and durability, he has been hurt and dropped before, and by guys that didn't punch as sharp as Tommy. And let's be honest, a hands down style against an elite jabber like Tommy? Nah............. Also, people pointing to what Barkley did, 1: some guys are just other guys nightmares, 2: Barkley would've been hell against Froch as well. Barkley (despite his record being peppered with losses) was hell for everyone he was in the ring with. Tommy UD over Froch Disclaimer: I think Froch was a beast
Fair enough, so he was actually legit at those heavier weights? That's impressive. For a man to fight at welterweight, and be well regarded, and to then end up fighting quality opposition at cruiserweight, is quite the feat. I must confess, I wasn't as informed about Tommy's career as I should have been and I was basing my assessment off of him primarily being a welter/middleweight. I wasn't aware of how impressive he was at those bigger weights. In my original comment I basically boiled it down to Hearns being the much more sophisticated boxer, with better all round ability, and gave it to Froch either late on or by points. Mainly, i concede, because I didn't think he had as much pedigree at light heavy and cruiser and would be considered the naturally smaller man. That said, I still say we can never know for certain and it is all opinion...which is fine, that's mostly what a forum - people offering opinions.
He was a freak of nature because it was unbelievable he could make Welterweight. There are even video clips of him sparring with an older Muhammad Ali and giving him a hard time.
