Froch or Holyfield who's the toughest?

Holyfield fought way way better and more dangerous fighters than Froch and was never knocked out or stopped until he was shot to **** vs James Toney. Froch is hard as nails but never fought guys of the calibre of Tyson and Riddick Bowe. I'd say The Real Deal.

I like Froch, he has earned the respect of the boxing community with his efforts, but it is unfair to compare him to Holyfield. Evander Holyfield at his peak was arguably one of the ten best heavyweights in history, and like Willie Pep at featherweight, Roberto Duran at lightweight and Sugar Ray Robinson at middleweight, Holyfield was the best crusierweight in that division's history. Comparing a true all time great against a really good popular fighter does nothing but dishonor one of them for no reason. Holyfield had trouble with Bobby Czyz, a smaller fighter, and probably would have trouble with Froch if they fought today, but given there is an almost 25 year advantage for Froch, and Holyfield would have to come out of retirement to fight him, I think the answer is clear. Holyfield at his best was far better than Froch ever could have been.

Holyfield is tougher than Froch. I don't think he's ever been knocked down in his career. If they were the same weight and both prime Holyfield would have beaten Froch without any problems.

Holyfield would butt fudge Froch with ease. Holyfield has been hit spot on by Lewis and Tyson and never went down at all. Froch has gone down to lesser punching power.

I might give the very slight edge to Holyfield in sheer toughness. However, I think Froch has the slight edge in roughness and we should know that toughness and roughness are actually two different things.

Pound for pound Holyfield is obviously the better fighter.

If they were both the same size Holyfield would win of course.