Golovkin vs Froch - keys to victory

You seem to 'nutthug' American fighters quite a lot. I have no issue with American fighters whatsoever, Froch might have landed on Dirrell but that is a damn sight better than Dirrell who didn't even try to land on Froch.

 

I can think of certain posters who will not like this post at all. op

 

and you seem to nuthug british fighters a lot too. Dirrell landed far more than Froch.

 

Froch too old now. GGG wins.

Froch would deserves credit though for taking the fight. Froch has traditionally taking on the toughest challenges.Huge props :good

 

Froch is gonna be in a lot of hurt.

 

I can't believe people here think Froch has no chance. It's really crazy. Froch is a legit SMW the best guy that GGG has fought by far. If you think Froch will just lay down like most of GGG's opponents have done you'll be in for a rude awakening come fight night. Forch has underrated boxing skills and is an old school warrior with and iron will who's never out of a fight. His confidence is unbreakable he will not be intimidated by GGG at all and will give GGG hell.

 

Do I? So me saying the official winner won is 'nuthugging'? But you ,who claims that someone schooled someone else whilst losing the fight, isn't? Yeah you may need to rethink that. Just like Brook vs Porter, how in the world can you make an argument for Porter winning that? You just have some sort of agenda against Brits.

 

No your reasnos on why Froch won is nuthugging. I guess RIos didnt get schooled by abril either huh? By your logic. Pretty dumb logic imo.
My argument was actually very reasonable if you read it. Brook held as much as Abril did against Rios. He held over 100 times. And Porter was the aggresor for 99% of the fight, I was amking the argument that you can't take the title off a champ in his back yard by countering and holding all night. But honestly this isn't the right way to score a fight, and Brook rightfully won, it was the refs fault for not deducting points for holding.

 

so continue to follow the modus operandi of his own career rather than calzaghe's.

 

Not sure why you're bringing Brook into this but he totally deserved to win against Porter and both fighters were responsible for the clinches.

 

If you dont know why I brought Brook up, you should read the person I replied to. He brought up the fact that I called Brook/Porter a robbery and I gave my reasoning.

 

I am pretty sure ellerbe is purely on the forum intending to troll. How can any serious boxing fan claim Porter beat Brook. The fight was pretty one sided.

 

Old Today, 09:38 AM
Remove user from ignore listblundell
This message is hidden because blundell is on your ignore list.

Douchebag alt says what?

 

Lol brook/porter a robbery? stop smoking that whacky baccy son

 

They were not my reasons for Froch winning the fight. I did not at any point say Froch won because of that. Froch won because he took the fight to him, he landed as much as Dirrell and as the away fighter you cannot win a fight by avoiding any sort of confrontation in the ring.
Mayweather is another example, the best in the business but he moves and stays out of trouble but he is much more effective on the outside, and can get shots in on the inside. But he fights at hoke so he can expect the judges to score that in his favour, but if he was fighting away there would be things he would have to change.
As for Porter he rushed in and ran into Brook most of the time, Brook landed the only clean shots in the fight, Porter landed less than 10 decent shots in the whole fight, you cant win a fight like that. Yes Brook was excessive in his holding, no dispute over that but when Porter runs in wildly there isn't a lot you can do.