I think this is absolutely spot on. Bute has not fought the calibre of opponents that Froch has and a Froch win, whilst being impressive no doubt, would not in my books leap frog the wins against Pascal, Taylor and Abraham straight away.
Hands down yes, is the only acceptable answer. 1. Andre Dirrell was/is far more untested than Bute, and Frochy did not actually beat him in any way shape or form. 2. Jermain Taylor had his arse handed him to Kelly Pavlik previously, not the same fighter he was but a creditable scalp. 3. Jean Pascal was a goodish win but...meh. Hopkins fight shows he's not all that, one look at the two fighters says Bute is a far tougher nut to crack. 4. Arthur Abraham. Just no.
No. Abraham fought a Taylor that got sparked by Froch. No way was Taylor as done as he is now. Admittedly past his best though.
I think it'd be his best win by a fair margin. Bute's classy. Lacks the opponents on his record but you can also rate fighters by actually watching them in their fights as well as looking at records. He's quick, awkward, hits hard, good engine, southpaw, nice jab, great body work, generally pretty good across the board and awkward. With this in mind, I also think Froch is a little bit overrated (in terms of ability, not heart) in that the main boxers that he has actually beat convincingly are actually not great in a technical sense - bar Taylor who outboxed Carl but got KOd. I think Bute's the better boxer with similar power so am expecting a competitive UD/SD and would be well impressed if Carl won. Although I'm heading up there on Sat from London and will be cheering him on! Taylor Pascal dirrell Abraham Johnson
Unless Bute proves to be a bit chinny (which I don't see) I struggle to see Carl winning this. I think the Taylor win is sometimes underated, Carl did lose the early rounds but won most past the mid-way point so it wasn't a case of being outboxed for 12 rounds then pulling out a lucky KO at the end as some would have you believe.