Hopkins: "Froch Can Be a Superstar By Fighting Me"

[Dave Rado]

You really are slow.

Joe had the oppurtunity to face him all his career. But faced him when Hopkins was 43 and close to retirement lmfao.

Wheras Froch wants to face him the first oppurtunity he got, as his second title defence.

You really haven't got a clue have you mate

You really haven't got a clue, have you mate. Joe tried to make a fight with Hopkins in 2002, Hopkins was offered $3 million by Showtime, the fight was agreed, the contracts were drawn up, and the day before contracts were due to be signed, Hopkins doubled his purse demand to $6 million. Showtime refused to meet his new purse demand, and Hopkins fought a mandatory against a nobody instead, for far less money. Afterwards Hopkins said the real reason he pulled out was because of his bad blood with Don King at the time.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

I said they're both good pressure fighters so just saying Kelly wins using pressure is weak, and also that I don't see where Kelly is good enough, or better, in enough area's, to enough of an extent, to destroy Froch.

Not what you just said, that was you, not me.

It was quite clear, really.

Is Kelly much faster than Froch, not loads.
Is Kelly much harder hitting then Froch, not loads if at all, esp at all 166+.
Is Kelly's defence better then Frochs, not much, I don't think Nard will **** Froch as easily as he did Kelly.
Is Kelly a much more intelligent fighter, not loads, no.
Is Kelly tougher, more mentally strong, no.

It wasn't quite clear, because you didn't elaborate. You made a vague comment about not being able to "see glaring differences between them". That was exactly what you said, not what I said, and it implies they fight alike. So you appeared to be saying Froch wins by dint of being a "tougher" version of Pavlik (which is, actually, still kind of what you're saying LMAO).

Rather than saying "I don't see glaring differences between them", why didn't you just list the qualities in Froch which make you think Kelly doesn't destroy him?


Kelly's defence is much better than Froch's, btw. He keeps his hands up and doesn't allow himself to be hit for fun. You could also argue there's an intelligence differential between a guy who keeps his hands up and a guy who keeps them low without the reflexes to get out the way.

He's more fundamentally sound by far.

If Kelly has so much heart, why did he look like a surprised school boy when Taylor knocked him down harder then Taylor did Froch I might add, and why did Kelly look like a completely naive child unable to get down, dirty, and find a way inside you of trying something to win, against Hopkins?

I don't think you understand boxing. It's not like the Rocky movies. Sometimes you can try and try, but if you don't come in with the tools, you're fucked, however hard you try. Pavlik tried. Like Ricky tried last weekend, got up the 2 times but couldn't find a way.

It's not like you just reach down into that spot within yourself, press the button and all of a sudden Survivor's palm-muted guitar riff starts playing and you've got the Eye Of The Tiger.


What you're talking about in the bold isn't lack of heart. It's lack of ability to adjust.

As for getting knocked down by Taylor, he got up, fought on and knocked the guy out. That's heart.

I'm not sure you know what "heart" is in a boxing context. It's not the ability to not get hurt. It's the ability to get up and keep fighting when you're hurt.

[Dave Rado]

was anything signed? Were any contracts written up and offered to hopkins? Or was it a verbal agreement to fight?

The contracts were drawn up, Hopkins agreed to sign them, then doubled his purse demand the day before they were due to sign, and Showtime refused to meet his new purse demand. But the real reason Hopkins pulled out was because of his bad blood with Don King at the time.

[Dave Rado]

I know hopkins is a legend and no one can tell him anything, but WTF hopkins?! Froch?! he's the weakest of the 168 lbers.

atleast fight kesler.

Exactly. He can fight whoever he likes of course, at his age, and with his résumé, but still, it's a meaningless fight for him, like Pac fighting David Diaz except that at least that fight was meant to be a "testing the waters fight" in a new division for Pac.

It's funny how everyone criticises Kessler for not fighting top names, yet none of the top names are showing any willingness to fight him. Froch was asked if he wanted to fight Kessler, immediately after the Taylor fight, and he ignored the question completely and changed the subject. Kessler tried to make a fight with Hopkins last year and Hopkins said he wasn't interested - and yet he now wants to fight Froch, the #3 ranked Super Middleweight, in preference to fighting the #1 ranked Super Middleweight.

[Kris Silver]

It wasn't quite clear, because you didn't elaborate. You made a vague comment about not being able to "see glaring differences between them". That was exactly what you said, not what I said, and it implies they fight alike. So you appeared to be saying Froch wins by dint of being a "tougher" version of Pavlik (which is, actually, still kind of what you're saying LMAO).

Rather than saying "I don't see glaring differences between them", why didn't you just list the qualities in Froch which make you think Kelly doesn't destroy him?

If it was based on that comment alone then perhaps ok, I can see why you'd say that. But I did also say I don't think there's many things Kelly is much better at than Froch, suggesting he'd destroy him. I think I did say why before shortly, but I elaborated in saying speed, power, tactics, toughness, mental strength. And I'm sorry, I do think Froch's tougher, as much as I hate to admit it. It's kinda subjective though.

Kelly's defence is much better than Froch's, btw. He keeps his hands up and doesn't allow himself to be hit for fun. You could also argue there's an intelligence differential between a guy who keeps his hands up and a guy who keeps them low without the reflexes to get out the way.

He's more fundamentally sound by far.

His defence is slightly better, but not by as much as you make out imo. Putting your hands up more does not immediately equal better defence, although yes it is more orthodox and clever at times, it's also pretty simple.

Froch purposely keeps his hands down because he's comfortable with it, it brings opponents in, and suites his stance. I'm not saying that's good defence either but it's something, if he just stuck his hands up I wouldn't just plainly say he'd have better defence because for him, he'd probably get his as much with it not suiting his style.

I don't think you understand boxing. It's not like the Rocky movies. Sometimes you can try and try, but if you don't come in with the tools, you're fucked, however hard you try. Pavlik tried. Like Ricky tried last weekend, got up the 2 times but couldn't find a way.

It's not like you just reach down into that spot within yourself, press the button and all of a sudden Survivor's palm-muted guitar riff starts playing and you've got the Eye Of The Tiger.

What you're talking about in the bold isn't lack of heart. It's lack of ability to adjust.

I think this is partially subjective like I said, people criticise fighters for how they carry themselves all the time, so I don't know what your problem is with it. I think, and I think a lot agree, that Hopkins mentally and physically broke Pavlik down, to the point he did not want to, and did not, try as much as the fight went on. He did not look like a fighter that fought he could win, ko in the final rounds, nor that he even wanted to. A lack of adjusting there. Regardless it showed a heart, a person, that's been manipulated and weakened, and I don't think Hops could do this to Froch as much, infact anywhere near as much. I'd go as far as to say you'll never (unfortunately as a hater) see Froch like that. He will just keep on drilling with hardly so much as a grimace, in fairness to him.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

If it was based on that comment alone then perhaps ok, I can see why you'd say that. But I did also say I don't think there's many things Kelly is much better at than Froch, suggesting he'd destroy him. I think I did say why before shortly, but I elaborated in saying speed, power, tactics, toughness, mental strength. And I'm sorry, I do think Froch's tougher, as much as I hate to admit it. It's kinda subjective though.

I'm not the guy who claimed Pavlik destroys Froch. I was saying you weren't dis*****g the claim very coherently.

The word "destroy" is the subjective part, since it could mean a 12RD schooling or a brutal early-round KO.

And breaking the matchup down is more than just "is he quicker? no", "is he more powerful? no", etc. That isn't really speaking for Froch's strengths, or Kelly's, or how the styles will look when they come together. For all you appear to know, Froch could be tailor-made for Pavlik.

His defence is slightly better, but not by as much as you make out imo. Putting your hands up more does not immediately equal better defence, although yes it is more orthodox and clever at times, it's also pretty simple.

Um, yes - keeping a decent guard, and not blocking punches with your jaw, immediately equals better defense if you don't have the reflexes to fight with them low and not get hit.
Of course it's simple - it's boxing 101. That's the whole point. There's a reason why it's one of the first things you're taught when you start to box. Boxing, as a discipline, is full of delightfully simple rudiments such as this.

Froch purposely keeps his hands down because he's comfortable with it, it brings opponents in, and suites his stance.

Guys like David Haye, Junior Witter keep their hands low because it suits their style, they have good reflexes. Froch gets away with it because of his canny ability to take a really good punch, which will fail him eventually.

I'm not saying that's good defence either but it's something, if he just stuck his hands up I wouldn't just plainly say he'd have better defence because for him, he'd probably get his as much with it not suiting his style.

Of course it's not good defense. It's zero defense, since he's too slow to get out of the way more often than not.

And if it would compromise his style so greatly, why was McCracken pleading with Froch to get his hands up more against Taylor? It wouldn't inhibit Froch that much to make some judicious use of his left hand now and again to protect his chin. Unless he modifies that style slightly, the first guy he meets who can really box and crack hard enough will KO Carl and possibly make it look easy.


Besides which, you're missing the point. For Kelly's upright, fundamental style, he has a decent defence, because his hands are up in the guard position.

For Froch's hands-low, inviting style, he has next to no defence at all, because the reflexes aren't there. For guys who fight like that (many of the Ingle kids, for instance), the reflexes are the defence, in theory.

I think this is partially subjective like I said, people criticise fighters for how they carry themselves all the time

Yeah, and most of them are being idiots. Like DiegoFuego saying Taylor lacked heart, as if he didn't get off the canvas and try to make it through the round after being dropped against Froch.

I think, and I think a lot agree, that Hopkins mentally and physically broke Pavlik down, to the point he did not want to, and did not, try as much as the fight went on. He did not look like a fighter that fought he could win, ko in the final rounds, nor that he even wanted to. A lack of adjusting there. Regardless it showed a heart, a person, that's been manipulated and weakened, and I don't think Hops could do this to Froch as much, infact anywhere near as much. I'd go as far as to say you'll never (unfortunately as a hater) see Froch like that. He will just keep on drilling with hardly so much as a grimace, in fairness to him.

Nah, it's not that subjective. People just need to get a grip on the nuances.

Key words - "mentally" and physically". If you said Pavlik was demoralized and tiring as the fight progressed, that would be fair comment. But if you said he stopped trying to fight, then either you aren't paying attention or you don't have much intuitive understanding of fighters/your perception is off.
Demoralized, dog-tired, he kept getting off his stool and giving it his best shot, trying to get in the fight. He was unable to impose his style, because Hopkins had all the answers. But at the final bell, when Hopkins was trying to take him out, Kelly was blazing back. You could use a phrase like "Hopkins broke his heart", but it would be wholly rhetorical. Heart, in boxing, is measured by the ability to keep going, and keep trying when you're hurt, tired, demoralized. Sometimes, heart can keep a guy in the fight until he's able to impose his strengths (Froch against Taylor) or apply the answer to the style in front of him (Marquez getting up 3 times in the 1st round of Pacquiao-Marquez I to outbox him for the majority of the remaining 11 in the eyes of 2 judges). Other times, heart can keep a guy going to no avail, simply because they don't have the answer (Tarver-Woods). Bear in mind, as well, that a puncher, teeing off on Pavlik as Hopkins was, would have KO'd Kelly. Pavlik ended up looking so lost by a combination of the protracted nature of the beating and the failure of his best efforts to implement the gameplan - taking a beating is exhausting enough by itself, even moreso when your best efforts aren't making any inroads. To say he lacked heart is like saying Lacy lacked heart during the beatdown he received against Joe, which would be insane. Hopkins-Pavlik wasn't quite as scarily brutal, but it was just as demoralizingly one-sided and comparable for that.

We'll see about Pavlik in time, as his hardest fights are probably yet to come.
To question his heart at this stage is bull****. Whenever it's been called on, his ticker has been big and strong.

But if you think it's impossible for Froch to be made to look like a dejected punching-bag, then you've been seduced by his 2 big-time performances to date (fan or not), and might yet be surprised.
I like Froch a lot, but there are plenty of guys as robust and with as seemingly indomitable a spirit who were broken down that way.



lastly, why would you admit to being a "hater" of Carl? what is there to hate?

after the glowing review you've given in this thread, you should be a fan.

must just be the 'mean' things he said about Joe. how...fanboy-ish.