Jump to content

Carl Froch - A look back at 2010


brooklynbrawler
 Share

Recommended Posts

After back to back wins over Jean Pascal, Jermain Taylor and Andre Dirrell through 2009, Carl Froch can be forgiven for suffering his first setback during 2010 - A decision loss to Mikkel Kessler.

 

Though Carl continues to dispute the loss, and it was certainly a razor thin margin either way, I would concede that the better man won.

 

Whether his claims that it did indeed finish Kessler in the process ring true, remains to be seen, but there is definitely a call for the pair to meet further down the line in a highly anticipated rematch, if Mikkel can overcome his injury problems.

 

It was another fight of the year candidate, which Carl has become accustomed to being a part of in recent years, and Kessler has already been guaranteed a shot at the eventual tournament winner, upon his return.

 

 

Read More: http://ringnews24.com//index.php/blog/35-demo-content/1142-carl-froch-a-look-back-at-2010.html#ixzz18T29JKRP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think that defeat was the best thing to happen to Froch, who was becoming progressively more complacent as he rose through the echelons. He always said McCracken was one of the best trainers in the business, but fight after fight we saw McCracken pleading with him to box, to move, to throw combinations, while he kept looking for a big shot to end it all. I thought he needed a trainer who could give him a bit more of a telling off - slap round the chops and a furious tirade, that sort of thing.

 

But after the Kessler war, although Froch sulked a little, he seemed to regain his early fire, and however Abraham is perceived(and I still think he could be a force at super-middle as his power clearly carries), Froch's discipline and patience were absolutely joyous to see. Froch's next fight will be fascinating viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Gav.

 

A loss is always necessary on ANY boxer's record. Boxers who haven't lost are boxers who haven't fought the best: It's as simple as cheese.

 

I had Froch winning against Kessler by 115-113 and i rewatched the fight twice the next day and scored it the same twice.

 

But, it doesn't matter that he lost. He did so in style, he fought in one of the fights of the year and he came back to completely dominate a fighter that LOADS of people thought would knock Froch's head off.

 

Froch learnt a lot from his loss. Hopefully, he continues to listen to McCracken, keeps his hands up more, throws more punches and fights off the jab. Just like he did against Abraham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Gav.

 

A loss is always necessary on ANY boxer's record. Boxers who haven't lost are boxers who haven't fought the best: It's as simple as cheese.

 

I had Froch winning against Kessler by 115-113 and i rewatched the fight twice the next day and scored it the same twice.

 

But, it doesn't matter that he lost. He did so in style, he fought in one of the fights of the year and he came back to completely dominate a fighter that LOADS of people thought would knock Froch's head off.

 

Froch learnt a lot from his loss. Hopefully, he continues to listen to McCracken, keeps his hands up more, throws more punches and fights off the jab. Just like he did against Abraham.

 

While the era that Marciano was in was weak, he fought the best available and retired undefeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Gav.

 

A loss is always necessary on ANY boxer's record. Boxers who haven't lost are boxers who haven't fought the best: It's as simple as cheese..

Whoah there, I can't agree with that at all - supposing Mayweather gets his act together and beats Pacquiao and one or two other welters and then retires. It's hardly his fault nobody was good enough to beat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While the era that Marciano was in was weak, he fought the best available and retired undefeated.

 

Rocky Marciano fought old men and boxers who had moved up from lower weights. And that is all. He wouldn't make it into my top 10 featherweights, let alone heavyweights.

 

If anybody really wants me to, i'll analyse his record and post it all here, but i've done it so many times in the past, i should've just saved everything i'd already written.

 

Basically, it looks like this: Joe Louis was ancient and in a wheelchair, so was Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Don Cockell.

 

They were his defining fights and we're not just talking about these guys being past their primes. We're talking about them being OLD and having moved up from light heavyweight just a few years earlier.

 

Can anybody imagine the Klitschko brothers fighting a 45 year old Tomasz Adamek? They would be torn to shreds by boxing fans.

 

Rocky Marciano is only known for his style. He had a big punch and a tough jaw. But, any half decent HW can knock out old men.

 

In other words, HAD HE fought in another era WOULD HE have been a great fighter? So his entire career boils down to IFS AND BUTS. Because his record of wins are literally against old men and boxers who had moved up in weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

supposing Mayweather gets his act together and beats Pacquiao and one or two other welters and then retires. It's hardly his fault nobody was good enough to beat him.

 

If Floyd Mayweather jr beats Pacquiao and then another two guys, he still wouldn't have proved anywhere near as much as other all time greats. So his undefeated record would still be questionable. As is that of Joe Calzaghe etc and modern day boxers who are still undefeated.

 

There were plenty of guys around for Floyd to fight. He just preferred not to. And at one point, he even retired to get away from them. Only returning to boxing when Cotto had been beaten by Margarito and Margarito was suspended from boxing.

 

He could've fought Freitas, Casamayor, Tszyu, Hatton (in 2005 at 140 when they held the IBF and WBC titles between them), Spinks, Forrest, Cotto, Margarito, Williams... All fighters that had wanted to fight him the way he was wanting to fight ODLH for a couple of years (as was every other fighter because ODLH was the money man).

 

So the opponents were there for him. He just ignored them and took the easier route.

 

As for beating Pacquiao. He could beat him. But, Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez....

 

Robinson beat 10 hall of famers and several times each.

 

Floyd would have to beat Pacquiao 3 times just to come close to Leonard and i don't even rate Leonard that highly.

 

Lack of opponents simply means we're left to debate "Ifs and Buts" over a career.

 

Sam Langford, some experts say, is a P4P top 10 all time great. The footage isn't really there to watch so we basically have to take their word for it. But, he rarely ranks at the top of anybody's HW or MW pile. Because, it's all ifs and buts with his career. Racism put an end to any hopes he had of being a World champion so his career is debatable.

 

If Floyd really didn't have the opponents to fight (which he in fact DID have) then it's just tough luck. Sod's law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...