Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: Who's Career wins?
Hatton's 19 15.70%
Froch's 98 80.99%
Both very similar 4 3.31%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-27-2012, 06:30 PM   #46
BremnerBomber
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

I think if Froch gets his rematch with Kessler and wins then that pushes Froch ahead with no argument.

Froch is such a great "finsher" when his opponents are hurt, he is so calm and collected and goes in for the kill. Most guys just throw wild combos when they hurt they're opponents.
BremnerBomber is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-28-2012, 12:56 PM   #47
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyvid View Post
Thing about Froch's best wins; hardly anyone said beforehand that AA or Bute wasn't all that or was past it.

Ok a few had doubts about Bute because he was a stay at home fighter but let's not forget how many folk had him picked to lose those fights or for them even to be close.
I watched Abraham from very early on in his career. He's tough, can be a sneaky puncher and obviously has excellent power, but he's as one dimensional as they come at 'world' level with his feet stuck in sludge and a low punch output due to questionable stamina. He was also coming off a conclusive defeat himself and doesn't have Froch's mental strength.

Moving up to 168 obviously reinvigorated him a bit, but Dirrell made him look a tool in their fight and he subsequently seemed to have zero confidence against Froch in the same way that Bute did imo. Suicide. A fighter of Froch's insane self belief and drive will always prosper against that kind of mentality. The biggest thing for me about it was how it demonstrated that Froch could come back from losing and win resoundingly against a dangerous but limited opponent. Very good win but it get's a bit overstated for me.
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 09:44 PM   #48
WatchfortheHook
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 1894
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

You can make a case either way.

The strength of Ricky Hatton's case: He was the man at 140. He had the best win of the two (Kostya Tszyu) . Take away the comeback fight and his only losses came to the 2 best fighters of the generation. He got a belt in 2 different weight divisions.

The strength of Carl Froch's case: Better overall resume. Better longevity. Better variety (has won fights in different ways). More fight of the year type fights (Kessler, Pascal). Most dramatic moment (knocking out Taylor with 14 seconds left). Bonus points for "reshuffling the deck" by scoring upsets (Taylor, Abraham, Bute).And more outright dominant performances.

Me personally, I like Froch. If he gets a rematch with Kessler and wins I think it puts him over the top without too much question.

Last edited by WatchfortheHook; 12-05-2012 at 08:08 PM.
WatchfortheHook is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 09:54 PM   #49
WatchfortheHook
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 1894
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs View Post
Carl has rare gumption and deserves a lot of credit for fighting the string of fighters that he fought, and yes Hatton spent too much time pissing about fighting nobodies for the WBU bauble and skirting around Witter, but I think if you take a balanced view of the likes of faded Abraham, Johnson, Dirrell (who I thought Froch lost to) and compare them to ageing Tszyu, Malignaggi, Collazo (who Hatton struggled with), Urango etc, there isn't too much difference. It's not like Froch fought a string of great fighters other than maybe Ward, though that doesn't demean him in any way.
Hatton
Kostya Tszyu
Carlos Maussa
Luis Collazo
Juan Urango
Jose Luis Castillo
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Juan Lazcano
Paulie Malinaggi
Manny Pacquiao

Froch
Jean Pascal
Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward
Lucian Bute
Yusaf Mack

Considering all of the circumstances, I think Froch has the better overall resume.
WatchfortheHook is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 03:23 AM   #50
WatchfortheHook
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 1894
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs View Post
I watched Abraham from very early on in his career. He's tough, can be a sneaky puncher and obviously has excellent power, but he's as one dimensional as they come at 'world' level with his feet stuck in sludge and a low punch output due to questionable stamina. He was also coming off a conclusive defeat himself and doesn't have Froch's mental strength.

Moving up to 168 obviously reinvigorated him a bit, but Dirrell made him look a tool in their fight and he subsequently seemed to have zero confidence against Froch in the same way that Bute did imo. Suicide. A fighter of Froch's insane self belief and drive will always prosper against that kind of mentality. The biggest thing for me about it was how it demonstrated that Froch could come back from losing and win resoundingly against a dangerous but limited opponent. Very good win but it get's a bit overstated for me.
Well, the win in itself might get overstated...but I don't think anyone rates Abraham as even the 3rd best fighter Froch has beaten. The reason people like that win so much is a combination of things. 1). Froch was the underdog going into the fight. 2). Even though Froch was the underdog, some thought this would be an absolute war. 3). Froch basically put on a masterclass. Total. Emphatic. Domination. He also displayed skills not many knew he had.

It's like Calzaghe-Lacy. Was Lacy the best fighter Calzaghe fought? No. But there's something about putting on an emphatic performance when people don't expect it (and Froch has 2 of those with Abraham and Bute).

Come to think of it, Hatton won 9-10 rounds on Urango is memory serves me right. But it wasn't THAT kind of performance and Urango is a pretty comparable small version of Abraham.
WatchfortheHook is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 03:33 AM   #51
Dai
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 556
vCash: 500
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Froch quite clearly.

Hatton was a fabrication
Dai is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 02:36 PM   #52
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatchfortheHook View Post
Well, the win in itself might get overstated...but I don't think anyone rates Abraham as even the 3rd best fighter Froch has beaten. The reason people like that win so much is a combination of things. 1). Froch was the underdog going into the fight. 2). Even though Froch was the underdog, some thought this would be an absolute war. 3). Froch basically put on a masterclass. Total. Emphatic. Domination. He also displayed skills not many knew he had.

It's like Calzaghe-Lacy. Was Lacy the best fighter Calzaghe fought? No. But there's something about putting on an emphatic performance when people don't expect it (and Froch has 2 of those with Abraham and Bute).

Come to think of it, Hatton won 9-10 rounds on Urango is memory serves me right. But it wasn't THAT kind of performance and Urango is a pretty comparable small version of Abraham.
Abraham is the highlight of Froch's career after Bute imo. Clearly so. Who are the other three fighters who Froch has beaten that stand so clearly above Abraham in your opinion?

Dirrell? Maybe, but I thought Froch lost that one, and Dirrell isn't a good fighter in the scheme of things imo. Bad style for Carl though, so you have to credit him for forcing the fight at least and gritting it out. Compare it crudely to Hatton-Collazo if you like, though Hatton had already started to tail off by that point and was fighting in a weight class where he was ineffectual.

Bute? Froch's best win, no doubt.

Taylor? About on Abraham's level imo, though obviously with a different style and different strengths/weaknesses. Again, stylistically not a good match for Carl, but with various clear failings similar to the accumulated ones of Abraham, Bute and Dirrell which include average punch resistance, poor stamina, questionable mental fortitude and limited technical ability. The manner of victory was exciting and gutsy on Froch's part, but if Taylor had managed to hang on in the last round? Froch has another clear defeat on his record to a declining fighter who had overachieved in the first place imo.

Before the Abraham fight it was a question to me of whether or not Froch's confidence had been damaged and if he could handle Abraham's power, because they were the only two major potential stumbling blocks. The rest of the important advantages were with Froch: the jab, the range control, the work rate and the strength. He employed a very basic strategy that Abraham no answer to, and though he (Froch) quite impressed me, I came away more underwhelmed by Abraham despite feeling quietly confident beforehand that Froch would get the job done.

Pre-fight odds often surprise me tbh and are given too much credit post-event for my liking when you consider in a case such as this that they've just been empirically debunked. You mentioned Calzaghe-Lacy, which was another one I picked correctly, though it was more impressive than Froch-Abraham to my eye for a couple of reasons.

Hatton was pretty unimpressive (and past his best) against a vaguely Abraham-level fighter in Urango (slightly below Abraham I'd say), and still dominated him despite Urango making more of an effort than Abraham did imo. That it isn't considered a brilliant win should shed a bit of light on how Froch-Abraham is considered.

I don't want to go tit for tat over this, because I don't think there's much between them, if anything, and have already said that Froch's career deserves more respect than Hatton's. I just happen to think - with good justification - that it isn't nearly as clear cut as people like to make out. Froch's opponents other than Ward and maybe old Kessler aren't really a good bunch; it's more the fact that he took them all on consecutively, travelled to do it and came back excellently from defeat in the process.

Edit: Stating Mack as a credible win for Froch is laughable whichever way you stack it. Pascal and Johnson are pushing it a bit, though not entirely without merit. We might as well include Oliveira and the like.
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 07:44 PM   #53
WatchfortheHook
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 1894
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs View Post
Abraham is the highlight of Froch's career after Bute imo. Clearly so. Who are the other three fighters who Froch has beaten that stand so clearly above Abraham in your opinion?

Dirrell? Maybe, but I thought Froch lost that one, and Dirrell isn't a good fighter in the scheme of things imo. Bad style for Carl though, so you have to credit him for forcing the fight at least and gritting it out. Compare it crudely to Hatton-Collazo if you like, though Hatton had already started to tail off by that point and was fighting in a weight class where he was ineffectual.

Bute? Froch's best win, no doubt.

Taylor? About on Abraham's level imo, though obviously with a different style and different strengths/weaknesses. Again, stylistically not a good match for Carl, but with various clear failings similar to the accumulated ones of Abraham, Bute and Dirrell which include average punch resistance, poor stamina, questionable mental fortitude and limited technical ability. The manner of victory was exciting and gutsy on Froch's part, but if Taylor had managed to hang on in the last round? Froch has another clear defeat on his record to a declining fighter who had overachieved in the first place imo.

Before the Abraham fight it was a question to me of whether or not Froch's confidence had been damaged and if he could handle Abraham's power, because they were the only two major potential stumbling blocks. The rest of the important advantages were with Froch: the jab, the range control, the work rate and the strength. He employed a very basic strategy that Abraham no answer to, and though he (Froch) quite impressed me, I came away more underwhelmed by Abraham despite feeling quietly confident beforehand that Froch would get the job done.

Pre-fight odds often surprise me tbh and are given too much credit post-event for my liking when you consider in a case such as this that they've just been empirically debunked. You mentioned Calzaghe-Lacy, which was another one I picked correctly, though it was more impressive than Froch-Abraham to my eye for a couple of reasons.

Hatton was pretty unimpressive (and past his best) against a vaguely Abraham-level fighter in Urango (slightly below Abraham I'd say), and still dominated him despite Urango making more of an effort than Abraham did imo. That it isn't considered a brilliant win should shed a bit of light on how Froch-Abraham is considered.

I don't want to go tit for tat over this, because I don't think there's much between them, if anything, and have already said that Froch's career deserves more respect than Hatton's. I just happen to think - with good justification - that it isn't nearly as clear cut as people like to make out. Froch's opponents other than Ward and maybe old Kessler aren't really a good bunch; it's more the fact that he took them all on consecutively, travelled to do it and came back excellently from defeat in the process.

Edit: Stating Mack as a credible win for Froch is laughable whichever way you stack it. Pascal and Johnson are pushing it a bit, though not entirely without merit. We might as well include Oliveira and the like.
First off, I didn't state that Mack was a credible win, I just listed off every fighter during each guys major run. There's some guys under Hatton's name that aren't all that credible either but I was merely listing everybody during their runs. I considered ranking all those guys (in my own opinion of course), and Mack would have been at the bottom

Before we discuss where I think we got mixed up on the topic...I think some of your Froch resume evaluation is a bit unfair. He could have had another clear loss on his resume if Taylor made it out.....but he didn't. I personally don't hold something against Froch that didn't happen. Also, you're striking on the Dirrell fight because you thought Dirrell won...which is fair. I can see why you think that. However, I think in the interest of being objective on evaluating between fighters you unfortunately have to go with the judges in close fights, and only invoke the "I had him winning" clause in clear outlandish robberies (Campillo!). Because anyone with an agenda can say "oh, I had Hatton losing to Collazo and really he was saved by the ref against Lazcano and I had Froch beating Kessler and Dirrell".

I think we might be talking about different things. It seems you might be analyzing Froch's best wins (where I believe you can make a very strong case that Abraham is the 2nd best win in certain lights) whereas I was talking about the quality/rating of the opponent. Basically, in terms of how I feel Abraham(circa 2010) would do "against the field" at 168...lets say against the top 15....there are several fights that I have no confidence that he would win. And I'm not sure if there are any fights that I have any significant confidence in. As a fan of AA, I certainly would be nervous even against the likes of Balszay, Sartison, Magee etc. I'd be nervous again in a rematch with Stieglitz.

Now, I feel much better about Dirrell's chances against the field. I also feel better about Pascal(200 chances against the top 15 of 2008 than I would about Abraham. Basically, since you were evaluating Froch's opponents to his weaknesses, I was evaluating how I think each of those fighters would do against a wide range of opponents.

As a fan of Abraham, I accept all of his limits. He's caught in weight limbo. He's too big to make 160 and too small to really compete much at 168 without any superlative skills to overcome the size difference, and worst of all, his power hasn't quite carried up with him to be his saving grace. Though I think you are right to have him ahead of Urango the similiarities are there.

At the end of the day, his legacy will be as a pretty good middleweight, and a pretty mediocre supermiddleweight. However, and I think we agree on this, it shouldn't take away that Froch emphatically dominated him.

Last edited by WatchfortheHook; 12-05-2012 at 08:10 PM.
WatchfortheHook is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 09:42 PM   #54
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatchfortheHook View Post
First off, I didn't state that Mack was a credible win, I just listed off every fighter during each guys major run. There's some guys under Hatton's name that aren't all that credible either but I was merely listing everybody during their runs. I considered ranking all those guys (in my own opinion of course), and Mack would have been at the bottom

Before we discuss where I think we got mixed up on the topic...I think some of your Froch resume evaluation is a bit unfair. He could have had another clear loss on his resume if Taylor made it out.....but he didn't. I personally don't hold something against Froch that didn't happen. Also, you're striking on the Dirrell fight because you thought Dirrell won...which is fair. I can see why you think that. However, I think in the interest of being objective on evaluating between fighters you unfortunately have to go with the judges in close fights, and only invoke the "I had him winning" clause in clear outlandish robberies (Campillo!). Because anyone with an agenda can say "oh, I had Hatton losing to Collazo and Froch beating Kessler and Dirrell".

I think we might be talking about different things. It seems you might be analyzing Froch's best wins (where I believe you can make a very strong case that Abraham is the 2nd best win in certain lights) whereas I was talking about the quality/rating of the opponent. Basically, in terms of how I feel Abraham(circa 2010) would do "against the field" at 168...lets say against the top 15....there are several fights that I have no confidence that he would win. And I'm not sure if there are any fights that I have any significant confidence in. As a fan of AA, I certainly would be nervous even against the likes of Balszay, Sartison, Magee etc. I'd be nervous again in a rematch with Stieglitz.

Now, I feel much better about Dirrell's chances against the field. I also feel better about Pascal(200 chances against the top 15 of 2008 than I would about Abraham. Basically, since you were evaluating Froch's opponents to his weaknesses, I was evaluating how I think each of those fighters would do against a wide range of opponents.

As a fan of Abraham, I accept all of his limits. He's caught in weight limbo. He's too big to make 160 and too small to really compete much at 168 without any superlative skills to overcome the size difference, and worst of all, his power hasn't quite carried up with him to be his saving grace. Though I think you are right to have him ahead of Urango the similiarities are there.

At the end of the day, his legacy will be as a pretty good middleweight, and a pretty mediocre supermiddleweight. However, and I think we agree on this, it shouldn't take away that Froch emphatically dominated him.
Fair do's on Mack, crossed wires there. I'm not sure we've crossed wires that much elsewhere though mate.

I don't think I'm being hard on Froch, just realistic. I've watched literally thousands of hours of footage of great fighters, past and present, and the upper echelon of historical greatness is what I judge today's championship-level fighters by in terms of their overall career. I've watched plenty of past contenders - some great, some very good and some merely good - who never won a title and who many on here might not know much about. They're just footnotes really; victims of their era, yet I think plenty of them were better than Froch. And that isn't a slur on Carl even if it comes across as being unfair.

Now, that might be irrelevant when comparing Froch to another modern day fighter in Hatton, but even then, there seems to be an irrational instant dismissal by many people of Hatton's CV in comparison to Froch's. It might look that way on paper and might also be seemingly amplified by Hatton's more protected/selective run, but if you compare in depth the overall list of fighters they both beat and how convincingly they did it in the circumstances, the difference is fairly insignificant imo. Hatton obviously has a lot more padding, but the bones aren't dissimilar at all. Just that Froch did it faster and in a more condensed manner, which is why he earns more respect from me despite Tszyu being - imo - a heck of a lot better than anyone Froch has turned over.

I agree on giving the judges the benefit of the doubt most of the time. Froch-Dirrell was really close and I wouldn't bag on anyone for giving it to Froch. Just that the manner of victory is important and that all factors have to be taken in to account. A judge's opinion is as subjective as mine, perhaps even moreso when you consider how crooked boxing is, and I'm confident enough to give my own scorecards plenty of weight. There's no objective standard here imo.

Not to say that my opinion is worth more than the judges, but if you let their scorecards dominate your own evaluation of a fight no matter how much you disagree or how blatantly wrong they are (Froch-Dirrell wasn't), it says to me that you don't have confidence in your own judgement. Not that I'm saying you do personally. Of course a person can twist things to suit their opinions in such cases, but I think you have to bear with that and just use common sense at your own discretion.

Re: Taylor, of course Froch beat him beyond reasonable doubt. Just that he looked pedestrian doing it and I've never reckoned much to Taylor, even the peak version prior to Pavlik. And of course Froch dominated Abraham impressively. Just that I think loads of other fighters from previous era's would have done so more impressively when Abraham was at his best. They all, Dirrell included, have made for good competition against each other in this generation as you say.

Hatton-Collazo and Froch-Dirrell are very similar in that they were close enough to go either way and that Dirrell and Collazo were very roughly of similar ability. Even if the decision had gone against Froch, I wouldn't automatically peg his performance as being worse than Hatton's despite Hatton getting the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of three people, not when things were so obviously close in both cases. Like I said, no objective standard. It's why lists are largely a waste of time for me.

Right, I've probably just typed a load of bollocks and lost my way, so I'll leave it there. I've re-typed and re-jigged all of this several times over trying to understand what I think, and my head is hurting.....
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:13 PM   #55
WatchfortheHook
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 1894
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs View Post
Fair do's on Mack, crossed wires there. I'm not sure we've crossed wires that much elsewhere though mate.

I don't think I'm being hard on Froch, just realistic. I've watched literally thousands of hours of footage of great fighters, past and present, and the upper echelon of historical greatness is what I judge today's championship-level fighters by in terms of their overall career. I've watched plenty of past contenders - some great, some very good and some merely good - who never won a title and who many on here might not know much about. They're just footnotes really; victims of their era, yet I think plenty of them were better than Froch. And that isn't a slur on Carl even if it comes across as being unfair.

Now, that might be irrelevant when comparing Froch to another modern day fighter in Hatton, but even then, there seems to be an irrational instant dismissal by many people of Hatton's CV in comparison to Froch's. It might look that way on paper and might also be seemingly amplified by Hatton's more protected/selective run, but if you compare in depth the overall list of fighters they both beat and how convincingly they did it in the circumstances, the difference is fairly insignificant imo. Hatton obviously has a lot more padding, but the bones aren't dissimilar at all. Just that Froch did it faster and in a more condensed manner, which is why he earns more respect from me despite Tszyu being - imo - a heck of a lot better than anyone Froch has turned over.

I agree on giving the judges the benefit of the doubt most of the time. Froch-Dirrell was really close and I wouldn't bag on anyone for giving it to Froch. Just that the manner of victory is important and that all factors have to be taken in to account. A judge's opinion is as subjective as mine, perhaps even moreso when you consider how crooked boxing is, and I'm confident enough to give my own scorecards plenty of weight. There's no objective standard here imo.

Not to say that my opinion is worth more than the judges, but if you let their scorecards dominate your own evaluation of a fight no matter how much you disagree or how blatantly wrong they are (Froch-Dirrell wasn't), it says to me that you don't have confidence in your own judgement. Not that I'm saying you do personally. Of course a person can twist things to suit their opinions in such cases, but I think you have to bear with that and just use common sense at your own discretion.

Re: Taylor, of course Froch beat him beyond reasonable doubt. Just that he looked pedestrian doing it and I've never reckoned much to Taylor, even the peak version prior to Pavlik. And of course Froch dominated Abraham impressively. Just that I think loads of other fighters from previous era's would have done so more impressively when Abraham was at his best. They all, Dirrell included, have made for good competition against each other in this generation as you say.

Hatton-Collazo and Froch-Dirrell are very similar in that they were close enough to go either way and that Dirrell and Collazo were very roughly of similar ability. Even if the decision had gone against Froch, I wouldn't automatically peg his performance as being worse than Hatton's despite Hatton getting the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of three people, not when things were so obviously close in both cases. Like I said, no objective standard. It's why lists are largely a waste of time for me.

Right, I've probably just typed a load of bollocks and lost my way, so I'll leave it there. I've re-typed and re-jigged all of this several times over trying to understand what I think, and my head is hurting.....
Fair enough. I think we're mostly on the same page, crossed wires on my end...I agree that the CV gap is not that large though I have the slight edge for Froch ( I am interested to see what happens with the time Froch has left). And if we're talking about comparing fighters from different generations, I certainly agree and wouldn't take it as a slight towards Froch. Fact of the matter is, and I think you would agree with me, there aren't many truly great fighters today period.

Anyways, fun going back and forth

Last edited by WatchfortheHook; 12-05-2012 at 10:37 PM.
WatchfortheHook is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:07 PM   #56
Carnage
KingFroch
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,256
vCash: 2556
Default Re: Hatton's Career v Froch's Career who wins?

I guess you can tell what I will say...Hatton...
Carnage is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013