Froch V Calzagh - obvious but interesting

I am just going to keep posting this whenever anybody questions what I say! Until the thread disappears or until I am banned.


Joe Calzaghe has a better fighter and fought better fighters. Jermaine Taylor, Andre Dirrell, Aurthur Abraham none of these are proven solid middle weights.

Joe Calzaghes 8 best wins, are better than Carl Frochs 8 best wins. Jermaine Taylor was a no mark at super middle weight, and so was Arthur Abraham, they had did nothing at the weight. It's like Usain Bolt moving up to 400m, he has done **** all over that distance, so he is a no mark. I dont care what he has done 100 and 200.

People just don't like Joe Calzaghe because he was a winner. Carl Froch is the underdog, he is slow, looks like he is crap, has no technical flare, but he is mighty determined. The british public love that, Carl Froch should lose more big fights than he wins. He was getting beat by Jermaine Taylor before his stamina had him fading bad, he look clueless against Andre Dirrell, clueless against Andre Ward.

Joe Calzaghe has never looked clueless never ever been out classed, never ever been out fought, or even out thought.

The Bernard Hopkins that Joe Calzaghe beat and forced to act and fake low blows to take a rest. Abusers all of Carl Froches opponents, ohh infact at 46 years old he beat Jean Pascal who is Carl Froch's best win, because over time Jean Pascal has been tried and tested.

Chris Eubank another fighter who would abuse all Carl Frochs best wins.

And are people ignoring the fact that Carl Froch was beaten by Kesseler, a fighter who Joe Calzaghe beat and took his 0, and virginity.

Look at froch's resume, and tell me the proven super middleweights he has beaten? Or fighters at above the weight.

Bute and Jean Pascal where the only proven fighters. Well Jean Pascal has proved himself and has been tried and tested over time.

Andre Dirrell? Is a complete ******, apart from being unbeaten when he fought Froch.....he was a no mark. Guys like Bryon Mitchell, and Charles Brewer tried and tested fighters who Joe Calzaghe beat, yet again are proof of Calzaghes better resume.

Carl Froch is a over achiever, he should be a loser. But with determination and toughness and solid basic ability, he wins fights. But anybody really elite who is tried and tested, I doubt he will ever beat these kind if fighters....unless their old and ****ed up or injured.

I don't think he beats real elite special fighters. He lost to Kessler, and he lost and looked clueless against ward. He has not beaten many tried and tested fighters who are ether still young enough to be considered.

Joe Calzaghe never look clueless, was never out fought, never out thought, you wanted a fight?he rumbled, you wanted to box? He boxed you, and beat you at this game.

We love losers the brave loser in this country, and the fact of the matter is. Carl Froch should be a loser, everything down on paper suggests he should be average fighter.....but he has found a way to bend sport science.

Joe Calzaghe was a handsome guy, his ability was also handsome. His speed, his immense work rate, his tendency to want a scrap. And he never lost, we don't like winners............we are a nation of losers mentally.

Just look at the olympic build up, it's ****ing pathetic.

 

You, my friend, are one funny ****er!

You still got owned.

I dissected your post, "point by point..."? and you couldn't reply.

Lilo EVT1 PK :deal

 

PK - Ever wonder if there's a reason you can't start your own threads? :hey

 

:deal

 

I don't need to reply, when Bernard Hopkins called out David Haye. David Haye did not reply, because Hopkins was not a realistic threat. Nobody has given yiu credit for your post, because it was **** mate.

 

Joe Calzaghe was a better fighter and fought better fighters. Jermaine Taylor, Andre Dirrell, Aurthur Abraham none of these are proven solid middle weights.

Joe Calzaghes 8 best wins, are better than Carl Frochs 8 best wins. Jermaine Taylor was a no mark at super middle weight, and so was Arthur Abraham, they had did nothing at the weight. It's like Usain Bolt moving up to 400m, he has done **** all over that distance, so he is a no mark. I dont care what he has done 100 and 200.

People just don't like Joe Calzaghe because he was a winner. Carl Froch is the underdog, he is slow, looks like he is crap, has no technical flare, but he is mighty determined. The british public love that, Carl Froch should lose more big fights than he wins. He was getting beat by Jermaine Taylor before his stamina had him fading bad, he look clueless against Andre Dirrell, clueless against Andre Ward.

Joe Calzaghe has never looked clueless never ever been out classed, never ever been out fought, or even out thought.

The Bernard Hopkins that Joe Calzaghe beat and forced to act and fake low blows to take a rest. Abusers all of Carl Froches opponents, ohh infact at 46 years old he beat Jean Pascal who is Carl Froch's best win, because over time Jean Pascal has been tried and tested.

Chris Eubank another fighter who would abuse all Carl Frochs best wins.

And are people ignoring the fact that Carl Froch was beaten by Kesseler, a fighter who Joe Calzaghe beat and took his 0, and virginity.

Look at froch's resume, and tell me the proven super middleweights he has beaten? Or fighters at above the weight.

Bute and Jean Pascal where the only proven fighters. Well Jean Pascal has proved himself and has been tried and tested over time.

Andre Dirrell? Is a complete ******, apart from being unbeaten when he fought Froch.....he was a no mark. Guys like Bryon Mitchell, and Charles Brewer tried and tested fighters who Joe Calzaghe beat, yet again are proof of Calzaghes better resume.

Carl Froch is a over achiever, he should be a loser. But with determination and toughness and solid basic ability, he wins fights. But anybody really elite who is tried and tested, I doubt he will ever beat these kind if fighters....unless their old and ****ed up or injured.

I don't think he beats real elite special fighters. He lost to Kessler, and he lost and looked clueless against ward. He has not beaten many tried and tested fighters who are ether still young enough to be considered.

Joe Calzaghe never look clueless, was never out fought, never out thought, you wanted a fight?he rumbled, you wanted to box? He boxed you, and beat you at this game.

We love losers the brave loser in this country, and the fact of the matter is. Carl Froch should be a loser, everything down on paper suggests he should be average fighter.....but he has found a way to bend sport science.

Joe Calzaghe was a handsome guy, his ability was also handsome. His speed, his immense work rate, his tendency to want a scrap. And he never lost, we don't like winners............we are a nation of losers mentally.

Just look at the olympic build up, it's ****ing pathetic.

 

Until this thread disappears.....


Joe Calzaghe was a better fighter and fought better fighters. Jermaine Taylor, Andre Dirrell, Aurthur Abraham none of these are proven solid middle weights.

Joe Calzaghes 8 best wins, are better than Carl Frochs 8 best wins. Jermaine Taylor was a no mark at super middle weight, and so was Arthur Abraham, they had did nothing at the weight. It's like Usain Bolt moving up to 400m, he has done **** all over that distance, so he is a no mark. I dont care what he has done 100 and 200.

People just don't like Joe Calzaghe because he was a winner. Carl Froch is the underdog, he is slow, looks like he is crap, has no technical flare, but he is mighty determined. The british public love that, Carl Froch should lose more big fights than he wins. He was getting beat by Jermaine Taylor before his stamina had him fading bad, he look clueless against Andre Dirrell, clueless against Andre Ward.

Joe Calzaghe has never looked clueless never ever been out classed, never ever been out fought, or even out thought.

The Bernard Hopkins that Joe Calzaghe beat and forced to act and fake low blows to take a rest. Abusers all of Carl Froches opponents, ohh infact at 46 years old he beat Jean Pascal who is Carl Froch's best win, because over time Jean Pascal has been tried and tested.

Chris Eubank another fighter who would abuse all Carl Frochs best wins.

And are people ignoring the fact that Carl Froch was beaten by Kesseler, a fighter who Joe Calzaghe beat and took his 0, and virginity.

Look at froch's resume, and tell me the proven super middleweights he has beaten? Or fighters at above the weight.

Bute and Jean Pascal where the only proven fighters. Well Jean Pascal has proved himself and has been tried and tested over time.

Andre Dirrell? Is a complete ******, apart from being unbeaten when he fought Froch.....he was a no mark. Guys like Bryon Mitchell, and Charles Brewer tried and tested fighters who Joe Calzaghe beat, yet again are proof of Calzaghes better resume.

Carl Froch is a over achiever, he should be a loser. But with determination and toughness and solid basic ability, he wins fights. But anybody really elite who is tried and tested, I doubt he will ever beat these kind if fighters....unless their old and ****ed up or injured.

I don't think he beats real elite special fighters. He lost to Kessler, and he lost and looked clueless against ward. He has not beaten many tried and tested fighters who are ether still young enough to be considered.

Joe Calzaghe never look clueless, was never out fought, never out thought, you wanted a fight?he rumbled, you wanted to box? He boxed you, and beat you at this game.

We love losers the brave loser in this country, and the fact of the matter is. Carl Froch should be a loser, everything down on paper suggests he should be average fighter.....but he has found a way to bend sport science.

Joe Calzaghe was a handsome guy, his ability was also handsome. His speed, his immense work rate, his tendency to want a scrap. And he never lost, we don't like winners............we are a nation of losers mentally.

Just look at the olympic build up, it's ****ing pathetic.

 

Quack quack.

Daffy aint got **** on you :deal

Calling out a fighter two divisions heavier than you and systematically breaking down someone's post are two entirely different things. The are as different as comparing Usain Bolt running 400m to Jermain Taylor fighting at 168lbs.

:smooch

 

I have never found PK funny. It's the same schtick every time.

 

Of course there two different things you ****ing mong. But they have similaritys, Jermaine Taylor had done nothing at 168, just like Usain Bolt has done nothing over 400m, Bernard Hopkins is a no mark at Heavyweight, reason why David Haye never have his fronts any time of day.

It's called, being creativity and getting my point across from multiple angles.

 

If I smashed you're face in do you think this will be a laughing matter.?

Quit moaning...

 

You're certainly 'creativity', I'll give you that.


















You still got owned though. You couldn't repl to a single point I made. You said you had an answer too.

You are the Floyd Mayweather of ESB: Master Duck

 

op

 

Predictable if nothing else. Go and play with the traffic, PK. You're a headcase and know **** all about boxing anyway.