Benn, Froch and Eubank

First topic message reminder :

It's been brought up so I'll ask it

Who had the better cv?

Froch Dirrell was a what you like fight. I preferred Dirrell but not a stinker. Degale Dirrell was very close and decided by the knockdown. Chunky took his obligatory few rounds off and Dirrell was in control for most of the middle of the fight.

Whichever I wouldn't throw degale at Froch- he'd given one Brit a chance and it was the one that beat degale.

88Chris05 wrote:I don’t see how anyone can be too hard on Froch for not bothering with Chunky. If DeGale wasn’t British, would anyone on here really think Froch was missing out on that many potential legacy points by refusing the fight?

Sure, it would have been a decent fight. But merely decent fights are ten-a-penny. As others have said, if he’d have got through DeGale, there’d have been another ‘decent’ mandatory. Then another. Then another. You get the idea. Whichever point a fighter stops at, there’s always a mandatory, or a potential half-decent opponent. Have to draw the line at some point.

Whilst I agree with this others are hard on Calzaghe for not fighting Froch, yet Froch avoidedin DeGale who was further along in his career than Froch was when Calzaghe decided not to fight him. Hope that made sense.

However, that is all moot as I felt Froch should really have focussed an attempt at immortality by targeting a Ward rematch. Win that, (unlikely I know) he'd not have needed anyone else on his CV.

LionsV2 wrote:It was a good effort because from my point of view after the 10th it was Dirrells fight but after 6 rounds of nothing Degale found a big finish.

Sure Dirrell rallied after the half way point. But DeGale had built a lead and he knew it. Could afford to give away a few rounds and save something for the end. It's called sticking to a game plan

You see this is what Froch fans don't like to hear..

Some three years after Froch gave him his title, Chunky DeGale is undefeated since that relinquishment

milkyboy wrote:Froch Dirrell was a what you like fight. I preferred Dirrell but not a stinker. Degale Dirrell was very close and decided by the knockdown. Chunky took his obligatory few rounds off and Dirrell  was in control for most of the middle of the fight.

Whichever I wouldn't throw degale at Froch- he'd given one Brit a chance and it was the one that beat degale.

Yeah both DeGale and Groves are Brits what's that got to do with the price of milk, milky?

Seriously though do you really think George best DeGale?

Herman Jaeger wrote:You see this is what Froch fans don't like to hear..

Some three years after Froch gave him his title, Chunky DeGale is undefeated since that relinquishment

Including a draw against Badou Jack, frightening form, I'm sure scrapping past Bute had Froch shaking in his boots.

Is a draw a loss? Wasn't the last time I checked

Got a knack of grinding out results Chunky

Just coz it was close(ish) with Bute(DeGale won it quite clearly) doesn't mean Froch would beat DeGale does it?

Very lazy argument

Cotto/Margarito/Mosley

Miguel beats Shane but gets smashed by Margo

Shane smashes Margo

That's the exact same argument you've been using constantly so I thought I'd show you the errors of your ways.

Look ducking James DeGale at the end of your career doesn't really fit into a film script does it?

You know it, I know it, he knows it. Everyone knows it. He ducked Chunky

But so what?

Still a British great and borderline hof so it didn't matter did it

You believe what you want but at least try to be consistent.

To be fair to Miguel, was Marg fighting clean, or with bricks??

Simple argument but they did shake hands after the fight.

Herman Jaeger wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Froch Dirrell was a what you like fight. I preferred Dirrell but not a stinker. Degale Dirrell was very close and decided by the knockdown. Chunky took his obligatory few rounds off and Dirrell  was in control for most of the middle of the fight.

Whichever I wouldn't throw degale at Froch- he'd given one Brit a chance and it was the one that beat degale.

Yeah both DeGale and Groves are Brits what's that got to do with the price of milk, milky?

Seriously though do you really think George best DeGale?

Christ, I'm having the relevancy of my post questioned by hermy!?!? Point being he'd given one mouthy domestic up and comer a shot... and he gave it to the one who won the fight and was higher profile at the time. A year on does he really need to do it again, there'll always be another Lippy tw*t in the queue.

And yes, I, the judges and a large amount of other observers thought groves won a close fight. Don't give me this 'seriously' stuff like it was Whittaker Ramirez. If you checked boxrec occasionally you'd see it says groves won

Herman Jaeger wrote:Look ducking James DeGale at the end of your career doesn't really fit into a film script does it?

Lets be sensible here, if ever there was a film about Froch it would be Froch making it and telling the story of a legend from his own point of view. He would have been a legendary property buyer, legendary commentator and obviously a legendary fighter.

Hopefully he will struggle to raise the budget to get that many people in Wembley to film the Groves fight scene...

If Froch ducked Degale, then Calzaghe ducked Froch and i don't think either is true. Some people just can't seem to accept that a fighter has retired on top (for once) and that by sheer grit and determination (and some skill) and despite being a Forest fan (*shudder*) he's managed to gain a hell of a lot of fans and a lot of respect. Is he an all time great, No, is he a british great, well we'll know in a few years if we're still talking about his accomplishments.

Oh and yes George beat Degale by the slightest of margins. Very close fight but there you go.

Oh and slacking off in the middle rounds because you think you might be winning, and away from home could be called a game plan, i call it stupid (especially as it's not the first time he's just about won a fight ;-)

With the right camera angles I reckon you'd only need a few hundred to recreate that Wembley atmosphere or maybe a couple of thousand I don't know. Wonder who we'd get to play Froch though? Surely only the man himself could fill such a roll. Will he include a scene at some point in the film though where he says in an interview(jokingly of course) that he didn't want to fight Golivkin because the Kazakh middleweight hit too hard?

Joking aside I think I ought to say that I saw the DeGale/Groves fight on my laptop and the picture cut out three times during the fight. So with the time it takes to reload I lost a good few minutes of the fight.

Also I feel by today's standards Froch is nailed on hall of fame albeit back row

Derbymanc wrote:If Froch ducked Degale, then Calzaghe ducked Froch and i don't think either is true. Some people just can't seem to accept that a fighter has retired on top (for once) and that by sheer grit and determination (and some skill) and despite being a Forest fan (*shudder*) he's managed to gain a hell of a lot of fans and a lot of respect. Is he an all time great, No, is he a british great, well we'll know in a few years if we're still talking about his accomplishments.

Oh and yes George beat Degale by the slightest of margins. Very close fight but there you go.

Oh and slacking off in the middle rounds because you think you might be winning,  and away from home could be called a game plan, i call it stupid (especially as it's not the first time he's just about won a fight ;-)

Ok all joking aside let's just say the timing wasn't right for either of those two fights to come off still don't know though how Froch was comfortable in letting DeGale get away with his disrespect he has to live with relinquishing to him for the rest of his days

You might call DeGale's tactics stupid derby but the bottom line is he beat Dirrell quite comfortably in his own back yard the same fighter who made Froch look silly just a few years before. Those are just the facts

He knew when to call it a day Herms, let's just hope he sticks to it.

He won (and i'm glad he did, i'm a bit of a chunky fan on the side), but it doesn't deter that he's done it a few times now and makes hard work when he shouldn't. He's got the talent to go on to great things but he just seems to switch off which will be held against him (especially by those that really don't like him)

114-112 with the final round deciding it is comfortable?

Herman Jaeger wrote:Just knock the film script talk on the head that's all what he achieved in the game has been bettered my many pugilists before him

Beating Golivkin and Kovalev(just one weight class above) now that would be legendary

Don't know what the Joshua comment has got to do with anything nobody goes from 68 to challenge for the heavyweight title

Roy Jones says hi.

Roy Jones can fuc£ himself

Seriously get pedantic all you like but Jones was an established light heavyweight at that point and light heavyweights have often challenged for the heavyweight crown

But your comparing Jones challenging the weakest link in Ruiz with Froch challenging the main man in Joshua is relevant to the debate how?

Why didn't Jones challenge Holyfield?

About as relevant as you claiming Froch ducked Degale.

wait, where did i miss Froch challenging Joshua

Froch was a helluva fighter man but c'mon in the old days the great fighters faced more good fighters in eighteen months than Froch fight in his whole career

Herman Jaeger wrote:Froch was a helluva fighter man but c'mon in the old days the great fighters faced more good fighters in eighteen months than Froch fight in his whole career

They also retired penniless and destitute half the time so what's your point?

you could use that for just about any fighter today like GGG for example

I think originally it was that Froch's ring endeavours while impressive and probably hof worthy are hardly worthy of a film. Beat Golivkin and Kovalev defend against Stevenson then you see the makings of a real legend put the Ward loss down to styles. Then you could maybe compare his resume with the some of the greats of yesteryear

Are we classing Benn and Eubank as greats of yesteryear or British greats of yesteryear?

Oh I think British don't you

Benn and Eubank are not great fighters, except in British terms.

That's my feeling, I don't think Froch is a great of Yesteryear, I think he's a British great and is held in high regard at this moment (although would be interested to know what they say over the pond about him) but he won't be an ATG

Derbymanc wrote:That's my feeling, I don't think Froch is a great of Yesteryear, I think he's a British great and is held in high regard at this moment (although would be interested to know what they say over the pond about him) but he won't be an ATG

Lewis
Calzaghe

That's the two recent British greats. Other fighters had the talent, but these guys have backed it up. Aj should be added to this list in time.

Gets me in bother on here from time to time, but to be honest I don't put Calzaghe down as an all-time great. Can see the appeal in doing so, but for me he falls just short.

Still a notch ahead of Froch, though.

I think his talent and his later part of his career sees him through, but only just. He is definitely behind Lewis, that's for sure.

88Chris05 wrote:Gets me in bother on here from time to time, but to be honest I don't put Calzaghe down as an all-time great. Can see the appeal in doing so, but for me he falls just short.

Still a notch ahead of Froch, though.  

I have him slightly below Hamed who I think has the overall better record.

LionsV2 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Gets me in bother on here from time to time, but to be honest I don't put Calzaghe down as an all-time great. Can see the appeal in doing so, but for me he falls just short.

Still a notch ahead of Froch, though.  

I have him slightly below Hamed who I think has the overall better record.

Seriously?

I'm a big fan of Hamed but would struggle to understand how you could have him above Calzaghe or were you referring to Froch?

No Calzaghe, I just prefer Hamed's overall reign at Featherweight which consisted of less gimmes and the excitement factor tilts it in his favour.

Herman Jaeger wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:If Calzaghe is close to Hopkins and Eubank is close to Calzaghe then Watson has to be close to Hopkins

No form line showing one is clearly ahead of the others

Calzaghe pretty much shout out Eubank, it wasn't a close fight in the slightest as for the rest of the logic well it's pants.

Hopkins overall career shows he's clearly ahead of Watson and Eubank.

Calzaghe may very well outpoint Watson but it's on record there's video evidence that Calzaghe felt (a post Watson) Eubank was one of his most physically demanding fights and he was glad he didn't have to fight too many fighters like Eubank in his career

Thing is though Calzaghe was pretty green in that fight. His first world title fight and all that. Hamed is below Calzaghe in that he got soundly beat by Barrera. Had he won he'd be ahead.

Calzaghe is a polarising figure but the general consensus amongst most boxing writers and experts alike seems to be that he's an All Time Great so I like Andy would agree Britain has produced just Lewis and Calzaghe as ATGs in recent times.

I'm with Chris in that i don't think Calzaghe is an ATG, he could have been but just isn't

Win or lose, Steve Collins had the best resume. Kalambay, johnson, mcallum, benn, eubank.

Taylor: quality boxer. I ratte him highly, but he came unstuck against punches who didn't give a damn about winning rounds. Lacking in stamina when pushed to the brink.

Kessler: solid, solid in every respect, totally. Tooth and nail in both fights. Won one, lost one.

Johnston: old challenger.

Pascal: best win. Stellar performance. One of my favourite fights.

Dirrel: he won a home decision. He lost IMO.

Groves: good boxer, beat on robustness and fortitude.

Froch: great Engish boxer. A more diverse record from which we can judge him on compared to calazaghe. Howver, who would have won? Calzaghe, obviously! Too fast and busy. Would have outworked him for a points decision. Only chance froch would have is a stoppage, but joe was too durable and would match him on stamina. Would have been a great fight for the spectators.

How about Calzaghe/McClellan that's a nice little fantasy match?

What if it had been Gerald in there instead of Kessler?

If Gerald had of landed the punches Kessler did in the 4th, Calzaghe could be in big bother.

I still think Calzaghe would be too busy. Tough, tough fight for sure.

Gerald could put Froch's lights out too

If he kept his chin in the air. However he didn't put Benn's lights out, so doubt he would Froch.

I would need to watch more McClellan fights. Did he not beat Jones in the amateurs?

A lot of McClellan's reputation is built on those pair of wins against Jackson and Mugabi both of whom had fairly poor chins whilst Benn wasn't exactly famed for his either. When the going got tough the bully got bullied, I can't see him taking out either Calzaghe or Froch, you could argue that Kessler punched harder than him.

Yes I believe he did Adam, those that witnessed the Jones/McClellan fight say that it was the greatest example of speed and power ever witnessed in an amateur boxing match(by both participants)

I'd say McClellan would be more dangerous than any fighter Froch ever faced. Much quicker than Arthur imagine Pascal but with dynamite

LionsV2 wrote:A lot of McClellan's reputation is built on those pair of wins against Jackson and Mugabi both of whom had fairly poor chins whilst Benn wasn't exactly famed for his either. When the going got tough the bully got bullied, I can't see him taking out either Calzaghe or Froch, you could argue that Kessler punched harder than him.

Agreed. McClellan was also more devastating as a middleweight. I believe he moved up in weight to fight Benn and thought it would be a gimme. There's even footage of him saying he never expects to go the full 12 rounds again so when Benn took his best and came back punching the shock on Gerald's face pretty much set the tone for the rest of the fight. GM took some severe and prolonged punishment and was incredibly easy to hit. He was a flat track bully who I don't believe gets past Calzaghe or Froch.

AdamT wrote:If Gerald had of landed the punches Kessler did in the 4th, Calzaghe could be in big bother.

I still think Calzaghe would be too busy. Tough, tough fight for sure.

Not sure it would have been that tough for Calzaghe. The Benn v McClellan fight was a classic case of a flat track bully moving up in weight and being found out. Calzaghe was a big super middle and by all account better than Benn.

Calzaghe and Froch can't hit like Benn though can they?

And what do we make of McLellan complaining of headaches for weeks before the Benn fight? Substantiated or not?