Carl Froch... The new Marciano?

[Neverchair]

What's the Classic's take:

Im gonna get some shit for this but.....

Both very tough punchers with no style. Technically not that great but they just keep winning!

Froch takes a lot of shit especially on the general forum (actually so does Marciano!) but if he keeps on coming up with the win will he ever get real respect?

Surely The Rock wasn't the betting favourite going into some fights?

[PetethePrince]

Froch is a joke. Marciano is better technical. Hits way harder P4P, and has a much better chin. They aren't even comparable. Froch lost to Dirrell and Marciano beat HOF fighters like Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Louis.

[GPater11093]

Marciano is Ezzard Charles compared to Carl Froch

[PetethePrince]

Marciano is Ezzard Charles compared to Carl Froch

:rofl

Funny because it's true. What's next... Hatton gets compared to Julio Cesar Chavez?

[Neverchair]

Froch is a joke. Marciano is better technical. Hits way harder P4P, and has a much better chin. They aren't even comparable. Froch lost to Dirrell and Marciano beat HOF fighters like Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Louis.

Thats not really my point:

Perhaps I should clarify by saying that watching some Marciano fights (without the hindsight of knowing he was never defeated) might lead you to think it would only be a matter of time until he got beat. A la Froch!

[he grant]

Beware Neverchair ... you are walking on sacred ground ... remove your sandals and beg forgiveness ...

[Jorodz]

Froch is a joke. Marciano is better technical. Hits way harder P4P, and has a much better chin. They aren't even comparable. Froch lost to Dirrell and Marciano beat HOF fighters like Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Louis.

:lol:first thing i thought when i entered this thread is: I can't wait to see what Pete thinks

[McGrain]

I don't think it's the worst comparison I ever heard. At the very least I can see what the OP is getting at. The thing is,Marciano maintained his awesomeness throughout an entire career and a title reign. That's what makes him so awesome. Thats why comparing him to any work in progress isn't going to make much sense. Try again in five years (or not, depending on how he does).

[lora]

As of right now, i'd say Bazooka Limon would be a decent comparison.

[PH|LLA]

if he goes undefeated through the super 6, he'll be a legend. Wether his style is ugly or not.

I don't see it happening.

[Jorodz]

As of right now, i'd say Bazooka Limon would be a decent comparison.

:goodthat or maybe ray mancini

[McGrain]

Why has powerpuncher not been in this thread to point out that these guys are basically the same weight yet?

[PetethePrince]

Thats not really my point:

Perhaps I should clarify by saying that watching some Marciano fights (without the hindsight of knowing he was never defeated) might lead you to think it would only be a matter of time until he got beat. A la Froch!

Okay, but Froch won't stay undefeated for long.

[Boxed Ears]

The only truly accurate comparison between the two that I wouldn't hesitate to point out is their supreme confidence in themselves.

[Axl_Nose]

What's the Classic's take:

Im gonna get some shit for this but.....

Both very tough punchers with no style. Technically not that great but they just keep winning!

Froch takes a lot of shit especially on the general forum (actually so does Marciano!) but if he keeps on coming up with the win will he ever get real respect?

Surely The Rock wasn't the betting favourite going into some fights?

I like your boldness in coming to the classic forum to compare Froch to Marciano .. Theres so many Marciano boot lickers in here its unbelievable .. I can see were your coming from, your not making a literal comparison, what your saying is these 2 guys have the ability to win ugly due to there style .. Marciano is undoubtably a true great of Boxing and he is to be revered but he made 'winning ugly' an art form .. He was brilliant but he was never fluid or pleasing to the eye .. Froch has the same kind of thing, he wins but he never looks especially great doing it .. Froch operates in a division that will never have the talent that Marciano faced though, and of course Marciano was a Heavyweight which in itself has a totally different kind of mythology ....

An interesting and controversial thread Neverchair, which i always enjoy .. Dont worry about the morons on here who dont have the brains to distinguish a 'literal' comparison between fighters and a more subtle stylistic comparison ..

[red cobra]

Marciano is Ezzard Charles compared to Carl Froch
I agree.

[booradley]

Froch is to Marciano what fried horsehit is to strawberry jam. Very comparable comparison.

[FromWithin]

Marciano was way way better. He beat better opponents, was better overall and was underrated defensively.

[itrymariti]

Froch is to Marciano what fried horsehit is to strawberry jam. Very comparable comparison.

:lol: Thought it was baboon shit...

[Pachilles]

Froch is to Marciano what fried horsehit is to strawberry jam. Very comparable comparison.

He beat Jermain Taylor's ass..

[Flea Man]

What's the Classic's take:

Im gonna get some shit for this but.....

Both very tough punchers with no style. Technically not that great but they just keep winning!

Froch takes a lot of shit especially on the general forum (actually so does Marciano!) but if he keeps on coming up with the win will he ever get real respect?

Surely The Rock wasn't the betting favourite going into some fights?
Didn't you see my response in the British?!!?!? Don't clog up this forum as well please:good

[anarci]

What's the Classic's take:

Im gonna get some shit for this but.....

Both very tough punchers with no style. Technically not that great but they just keep winning!

Froch takes a lot of shit especially on the general forum (actually so does Marciano!) but if he keeps on coming up with the win will he ever get real respect?

Surely The Rock wasn't the betting favourite going into some fights?
:patschBlasphemous:-(

[PowerPuncher]

Why has powerpuncher not been in this thread to point out that these guys are basically the same weight yet?

What you talking about, Froch has to be giving up at least 10-15lbs :lol:

The thing is Froch can't throw compact punches inside or mid range like Rocky, he can only wing telegraphed shots from the outside that are far from compact, he cant throw combinations, Marciano is probably quicker than him, Froch leaves his chin out to dry, Froch isnt the big puncher him and his fans think he is. Froch is pretty strong for a SMW, he is decent enough at fighting at the right range, a solid fighter, nothing special and if Kessler is on form he should win a UD

AND HE LOST TO DIRRELL

[Flea Man]

What you talking about, Froch has to be giving up at least 10-15lbs :lol:

The thing is Froch can't throw compact punches inside or mid range like Rocky, he can only wing telegraphed shots from the outside that are far from compact, he cant throw combinations, Marciano is probably quicker than him, Froch leaves his chin out to dry, Froch isnt the big puncher him and his fans think he is. Froch is pretty strong for a SMW, he is decent enough at fighting at the right range, a solid fighter, nothing special and if Kessler is on form he should win a UD

AND HE LOST TO DIRRELL

I also think Froch is nothing more than an average hitter.

[janitor]

Some parallels have occured to me, but I expect Froch's 0 to go before too long.

[red cobra]

Hopefully, this mediocrity called froch will be eliminatedby Mikkel Kessler.

[GPater11093]

:rofl

Funny because it's true. What's next... Hatton gets compared to Julio Cesar Chavez?

:lol::lol:

Julio Cesear Chavez is Pernell Whittaker compared to Ricky Hatton

As of right now, i'd say Bazooka Limon would be a decent comparison.

Thats a good comparison. Both throw some shots from miles out.

:goodthat or maybe ray mancini

Nah, Ray Mancini was semi-skilled

[janitor]

Hopefully, this mediocrity called froch will be eliminatedby Mikkel Kessler.

It is by no means a given of course.

[Jorodz]

:lol::lol:

Julio Cesear Chavez is Pernell Whittaker compared to Ricky Hatton



Thats a good comparison. Both throw some shots from miles out.



Nah, Ray Mancini was semi-skilled

:rofl

[bodhi]

It is by no means a given of course.

If Kessler doesn't regain his form, Abraham will beat Froch. He is just a better Froch than Froch :D

[Flea Man]

Froch likes to fight. He can't punch hard enough to stop Abraham, and will walk into Arthurs bombs.

Even as a Froch fan, King Arthur KO 6

[janitor]

If Kessler doesn't regain his form, Abraham will beat Froch. He is just a better Froch than Froch :D

The thing about Kessler and Abraham is that whatever advantages they hold they will give Froch the fight he wants.

[bodhi]

The thing about Kessler and Abraham is that whatever advantages they hold they will give Froch the fight he wants.

Yeah but wih Abraham it's also the fight he wants. And he is better at it than Froch. Better defence, at least as good chin, better power, better tactician, better technique, as confident. They are similar in their mindset. They never give up and do everything it needs to win. I'm really looking forward for this match, although it may be that Froch is done when Kessler beats him. His biggest asset is his confidence. A loss may be enough for it to vanish.

[TommyV]

Why has powerpuncher not been in this thread to point out that these guys are basically the same weight yet?

Froch would also win because he is the modern fighter, and therefore much more technically advanced, with modern day training methods, techniques and dieting etc, etc.

[Jorodz]

Froch would also win because he is the modern fighter, and therefore much more technically advanced, with modern day training methods, techniques and dieting etc, etc.

which part of that ISN'T true?:tong

[The Mongoose]

Froch is big for his weight class, and fights from the outside behind winging haymakers and a plodding but strong jab. He's a tough, confident...well maybe arrogant fighter but style wise, not a good contrast to Rocky. Mabye closer to Layne without the the great wins?

[My2Sense]

Technically not that great but they just keep winning!


Actually, Marciano was a very good inside technician. He just wasn't naturally talented, so he often looked slow and unspectacular in executing his technique.

[essexboy]

Froch is a joke. Marciano is better technical. Hits way harder P4P, and has a much better chin. They aren't even comparable. Froch lost to Dirrell and Marciano beat HOF fighters like Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Louis.

Wow close the thread, couldnt agree more. :good

[cuchulain]

What's the Classic's take:

Im gonna get some shit for this but.....



[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Neverchair]

Actually, Marciano was a very good inside technician. He just wasn't naturally talented, so he often looked slow and unspectacular in executing his technique.

A technique that looks slow and unspectacluar doesnt sound that great to me.

At least you can see where im coming from though.

Where most people have made a mistake here is in thinking im saying Froch is, or will be, better than Marciano.
Im simply making a few general comparisons between the two fighters as a comment on how we view Froch's career so far.

The main point being (apart from comparisons in style) that as long as Froch keeps winning will people still give him shit for the way he fights?

[jaffay]

Marciano is Ezzard Charles compared to Carl Froch

:rofl:rofl:rofl:good

[ironchamp]

I like your boldness in coming to the classic forum to compare Froch to Marciano .. Theres so many Marciano boot lickers in here its unbelievable .. I can see were your coming from, your not making a literal comparison, what your saying is these 2 guys have the ability to win ugly due to there style .. Marciano is undoubtably a true great of Boxing and he is to be revered but he made 'winning ugly' an art form .. He was brilliant but he was never fluid or pleasing to the eye .. Froch has the same kind of thing, he wins but he never looks especially great doing it .. Froch operates in a division that will never have the talent that Marciano faced though, and of course Marciano was a Heavyweight which in itself has a totally different kind of mythology ....

An interesting and controversial thread Neverchair, which i always enjoy .. Dont worry about the morons on here who dont have the brains to distinguish a 'literal' comparison between fighters and a more subtle stylistic comparison ..

I second this.

Clearly a literal comparison wasn't the objective and frankly I do see some parallels to The Rock.

Froch can be very unassuming but even when faced with fighters who appear to be more talented than he is, he seems to pull through. I would however refrain from this comparison only to the extent that from needs a few more wins under his belt for this thread to have more credence. Conventional wisdom says he loses that "0" before the tourney is over but in boxing stranger things have happened.

Despite the criticism, I thinks its a good thread.

[frankenfrank]

What's the Classic's take:

Im gonna get some shit for this but.....

Both very tough punchers with no style. Technically not that great but they just keep winning!

Froch takes a lot of shit especially on the general forum (actually so does Marciano!) but if he keeps on coming up with the win will he ever get real respect?

Surely The Rock wasn't the betting favourite going into some fights?
there were marcianos before and after marciano :
before : tom sharkey , charley mitchell , tommy burns
after : bonavena , frazier , tyson , tua
some might think quarry too

but they did not have (enjoy) the privilege / luck of fighting merely men close to their own size , that was their problem