BBC Home

Explore the BBC

69 comments

user rating: 3 star

Carl Froch

Super middle
by Aveyard01 (U12666957) 14 May 2009
comment on the article

Its been a few weeks now since the jermain taylor fight. Anyone know what is next for Carl Froch??

I mean appart from the standard callin JC out of his armchair!

I really think he needs to strike while the irons hot as it were, and not leave it a year or so before he fights again.

I want to see him fight again this year, but who? I personally would love to see him in with kessler.

I think kessler would have to be a heavy favourite due to carls reckless (almost non existent) defense, but as he has shown he has huge heart and can bang with the best of 'em! Would certainly be interesting. Also, I feel it is a travesty that he could not get coverage, and I hope that this never happens again. His last two fights have been more entertaining than anything Khan is likely to produce anytime soon, yet there will be no doubt 10x more media coverage of warrens golden boy.

Anyway, I digress.

Back to froch...what next?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted May 23, 2009

For the record I'm not going to suggest Froch would necessarily beat Hopkins, but equally I think its a bit daft that people suggest it is a FACT that because BHOP did so well against Pavlik that he'd beat Froch in the same way, particularly if the fight was made at 168. Pavlik's undoing was that he's used to bullying people at 160. Take away his physical advatage and a wily old fox like 'nard makes him look ordinary.

Personally I'd like to see Hopkins v Froch, but again I don't think that meeting BHOP or not is as career defining as some might think.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 23, 2009

I really hope Froch does fight Bhop because I think it is far more 50:50 than is being suggested. Either way it would be far more competitive than that bore fest that he had with Calzaghe. Hopefully Froch would not entertain ideas of copying the Calzaghe hip shuffle which is normally the stock in trade of women in Peter Stringfellows establishments. Made me laugh everytime he did it and even more so against RJJ.

I`m not going to entertain any more of the to and fro on here about this, all I was making trying to get across was that as BigManOnCampus said so well, Bhop would probably not be Froch`s defining fight and given the financial stunt being pulled on Froch I can see why he might prefer to stick about and try and rule the roost at SM.

I`m a Froch fan because every one of his fights have entertained me and he always looks to take as big a step forward or make as much progress as possible. For 25 odd pro fights he has done remarkably well with that kind of mentality and given the nature of his win against Taylor when he was basically outboxed nearly every round - I had a wide decision for Taylor up to the 10th - I don`t see how anybody can say that so and so would beat him easily or that Froch would not stand a chance.

I also don`t think Bhop should be regarded as the benchmark by which fighters around the 160-175lbs mark should be judged, that discredits a lot of other guys in those divisions.

Froch should go his own way, leave Calzaghes route well alone. If Froch did beat Bhop would we then be talking about RJJ ?!?!?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Steve (U13936139)

posted May 25, 2009

"If he fights Hopkins he knows he'll lose....."

"Froch could take the fight beat Hopkins and shut people like me up".

I'm not sure what to make of this, other than theres a whopping direct conflict between these two sentences.

I'll clarify for you - I meant if he is as good as he says he wanted the fight - he'd take it. Clearly he doesn't want the fight and knows he'd lose - so he isn't taking it.

There isn't a single doubt in my mind that Hopkins would beat Froch comfortably. Hopkins studies fighters inside out - Froch telegraphs way too much of what he does and is way to easy to hit.

Froch's good at hitting people if they stand in front of him - like Pascal or tire with bad stamina problems like Taylor.

Hopkins wouldn't do that - he'd use ring, so him the angles - making sure that Froch feet aren't set to get his shots off - keeping his balance off kilter, then counter him when he's open. He hold him and break his momentum.

Watch the third round against Taylor - he throws a shot from way back with his wide stance - he lunges forward his left hand is down by his side while the right is coming up to throw the shot - Taylor catches him and he falls into the ropes. That's the sort of thing Hopkins will exploite all night long. You can get away with against some fighters, but Hopkins is the last guy you'd want to fight if you have thoese sort of chinks in your style.

50-50 fight - you in the minority there if you believe. Clearly even Froch doesn't believe it.

Hopkins is the biggest name out there - box office wise in the M,SM LH division. He's a legend and there aren't any left in that division. He's a really smart and skillfull fighter and there isn't anybody as good as him or with as many top names on their record.

He showed in his last fight that he isn't past it - so yes, if the fight's there to be made(which it is) - of course he's the benchmark. If you want the very best - which Froch claims he does.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 25, 2009

Froch should go his own way, leave Calzaghes route well alone. If Froch did beat Bhop would we then be talking about RJJ ?!?!?
*************************
That's the problem for anyone taking a Hopkins fight. Because BHOP is a middle aged man still held in high regard for his stellar career, the next person to beat him might well face the criticism that it was actually father time who finally caught up with Bernard. Froch would have to win, and then hope BHOP goes on to beat someone of note ie Abrham or Kessler, order to give the win any credibility.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Steve (U13936139)

posted May 25, 2009

Like I stated before RJJ was past his best but Hopkins wasn't as he schooled Pavlik thereafter.

It's a criticism that gets thrown at Calzaghe from certain circles - funnily enough, from a lot of same of people who I talk to but for some reason, don't want Froch to take the Hopkins fight.

So in certain circles - fighters will always get that thrown at them.

From Froch's perspective if he thought he could beat a legend in Vegas, with the kind of exposure he'd get - earning millions at the same time and then still be able to go and beat the other excellent fighters out there, of course he'd take it, if he was convinced he'd win.

Don't forget Froch nearly 32 and hasn't made a lot of money. Boxing's a brutal sport and money is his main priority at this stage - he has his future to take care of.

If he believed he'd win he'd take the fight. It makes sense for all reasons.

It's accademic - as the fight won't happen.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 25, 2009

I cannot disagree about Froch`s lack of technical prowess...it was all too clear against Taylor. I think the thing is, the Pavlik win for Bhop was good, but it did take Pavlik coming some way out of his division and really when you look at Pavlik he is absolutely natural middleweight frame. Bhop did have the size and weight advantages in that bout, also if Pavlik beat him he would still not really be disgraced by it.

Personally the reason I think its a 50:50 fight is that at Bhop is a ticking clock really and at some stage the alarm is going to sound for him, I admire his preparations hugely but the performance must fall away and I just think Froch actually stands a good chance of another late on stoppage. You`ve also got to ask why is Bhop interested in Froch ? Basically there is no one else out there for Bhop now, again a defeat would not be a disaster for the Bhop legacy....there just isn`t anyone else out there, forgetting all the junk about going up to cruiser or whatever he said recently about Adamek.

Also don`t forget Froch does not just use boxing for an income, according to some he owns and rents out half of the houses in the UK !!!!! I don`t think he is struggling for a penny or two. I`m sure money does play a part but I think its his reputation he boxes for.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Steve (U13936139)

posted May 25, 2009

I cannot disagree about Froch`s lack of technical prowess...it was all too clear against Taylor. I think the thing is, the Pavlik win for Bhop was good, but it did take Pavlik coming some way out of his division and really when you look at Pavlik he is absolutely natural middleweight frame. Bhop did have the size and weight advantages in that bout, also if Pavlik beat him he would still not really be disgraced by it.


You've answered my point there for me. It's not about size and strength and it is about technical ability if fighting Hopkins. What's the point in having a huge punch - if you can't land it all night and get tied up and countered.

Personally the reason I think its a 50:50 fight is that at Bhop is a ticking clock really and at some stage the alarm is going to sound for him, I admire his preparations hugely but the performance must fall away


You seem to be admitting here that Froch isn't in Hopkins's league and the only reason he'd win is if a shot Hopkins turned up?


I just think Froch actually stands a good chance of another late on stoppage.

On what basis - I've explained tactically why I'm sure Hopkins would comfortably beat Froch.

I just don't see where a late stoppage comes from. Hopkins won't be standing there like Taylor - he's known as the defensive master - Froch's gotta catch him and often enough to stop him. Hopkins will use the entire ring, switching his movement - so Froch is moving trying to close the distance down but off balance. Froch isn't slick enough in that respect - he has to plant his feet to get his bombs off. He won't be on balance long enough to do that and his defence is so bad - Hopkins will counter all night. Hopkins is an old fox - he knows every trick in the book for different styles.

Also don`t forget Froch does not just use boxing for an income, according to some he owns and rents out half of the houses in the UK !!!!! I don`t think he is struggling for a penny or two. I`m sure money does play a part but I think its his reputation he boxes for.

How? You have to earn big money to buy and rent out houses - which he hasn't done yet? Maybe buy 2 or 3 small houses on the back of what he's earned.

If he boxes for his reputation he should take the Hopkins fight - that fight will give him more respect any fight out there!

Every fighter boxes for money! I saw him interviewed - Bunce boxing hour - He said - He's 32 soon and wanted the biggest fights, he couldn't afford to wait about and wanted the biggest money and title fights.

You're entitled to your opinion - but I think you're wrong about this fight and the majority of boxing fans believe the same. Pundits and fans have been telling Froch to stay away from this fight.

It's a debate - wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed. I just think your perspective is a little weak tactically - you haven't told me looking at the styles why you believe he'd stop him or beat him unless it;s purley Hopkins would be finished.

If that is the case - it seems to be a gamble Froch is unwilling to take.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 26, 2009

I think he would stop Bhop becasue the old man is getting tired. Against JC he bought as much time as possible. I`m not saying for one moment that Froch would dominate, honestly I doubt he would even be competitive becasue as you say Bhop would tie him up and spoil and probably dump right hands on Froch all night. I just think that Froch is a different proposition to Bhop`s recent opponents, JC stood there slapping him all night and doing the Calzaghe 'wiggle' whilst Pavlik was too weak and static. Bhop has faced all styles so I`m not saying either that he would be fazed by Froch`s style (or lack of it) but I just think that Froch will grind away and keep throwing shots all night, even the US commentary of the Taylor fight said that they thought eventually Froch would land, it took its time coming but it did happen.

I think the same would happen with Hopkins, he was dreadfully tired against JC from 8 onwards and I think that Froch brings a similar kind of pressure but with bigger and more regularly big shots. Pavlik was discouraged because he was getting schooled. Froch would not be in that same place and would bring Calzaghe levels of pressure with big shots - I think it would prove to be too much for the old man. Certainly Bhop being finished does play a part in my thinking yes. I don`t think for one minute that Froch technically would beat Bhop of the 90`s but that was then and this now. I don`t think Calzaghe would have beaten Bhop in his prime or RJJ but the fights occured in 2007/08 and he did win them - its back to persepctive, do those wins make JC better than Bhop or RJJ, I don`t think so becasue they are very nearly fighters of different era`s.

I don`t think a Bhop fight would tell us that much about Froch - just give us another yardstick with which to argue about JC and Froch.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Steve (U13936139)

posted May 26, 2009

I just think that Froch is a different proposition to Bhop`s recent opponents, JC stood there slapping him all night and doing the Calzaghe 'wiggle' whilst Pavlik was too weak and static. Bhop has faced all styles so I`m not saying either that he would be fazed by Froch`s style (or lack of it) but I just think that Froch will grind away and keep throwing shots all night, even the US commentary of the Taylor fight said that they thought eventually Froch would land, it took its time coming but it did happen.

Froch landed against Taylor because Taylor stood right in front of him waiting to counter. Froch wouldn't land against Hopkins becuse his footwork is poor - he has to be in position and have his feet set to get his bombs off and with Hopkins movement and angles - he'd be off balance the entire fight - he'd be grinding away at thin air. Also, Froch fights leaning back with his long left hand in front him - he lunges and telegraphs his shots.

Calzaghe got excellent footwork and speed and fights at a much higher intensity than Froch. He was therefore able to catch up to Hopkins close the space down and make him work the entire fight.

Looking at the styles - your argument doesn't hold water. That's your opinion and that's fair enough. However, I think you have to accept that your are very bias and I can only assume that this is making you blinkered.

Impartial boxing fans, expert pundits and even staunch but honest Froch fans have been saying that Hopkins is too much for Froch, you have to admit that you're very much in the minority on this one.

I don`t think for one minute that Froch technically would beat Bhop of the 90`s but that was then and this now. I don`t think Calzaghe would have beaten Bhop in his prime or RJJ but the fights occured in 2007/08 and he did win them - its back to persepctive, do those wins make JC better than Bhop or RJJ, I don`t think so becasue they are very nearly fighters of different era`s.


I agree with you about RJJ (there you see - not bias or blinkered), he was one of a kind.

Hopkins is a true legend but I see the fight being slightly easier for Calzaghe then - Hopkins's style has always been defensive and pot shooting counters. I look at Hopkins fights back then - there's very little difference. He's still got his speed and reactions and never had great stamina because he always dictated the speed of fights to his pace.

Calzaghe on the other hand - you could see his speed had decreased a fair bit and certainly his reactions and his work rate wasn't what it was.

I don`t think a Bhop fight would tell us that much about Froch - just give us another yardstick with which to argue about JC and Froch.


We could go on all day - we won't agree. It would tell us everything about Froch whether he is a decent, excellent, or Great World Champion. Hopkins is the best out there and you see how good you are against a legend.

We'll never know - but it's clear to see what fight fans believe.



add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 27, 2009

For once I agree with 99% of your post.

Calzaghe though against both RJJ and Bhop was never ever looking for a KO, Froch is not that kind of guy and does go looking for a stoppage or KO.

I agree with you about the better footwork of Bhop over Froch, my grandad is in a wheelchair and has better footwork than Froch, but I still maintain that Bhop has not been properly hit in his last few fights, either becasue Pavlik was scared of what would come back or Calzaghe just wanted to tickle him. Froch would load up with every shot and how ever good Bhop`s footwork and defense is/was it will not be that way forever and of all the fights out there I think Froch is one that could prove it, if he lasted long enough with Bhop landing rights on him and if he did not get frustrated hitting thin air....its a big if but basically thats what happened in the Taylor fight so it is possible and like Taylor, Bhop does tire.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 50.00%
    2 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 50.00%
    2 votes

average rating:
3.00 from 4 votes