Would Froch not have a massive reach advantage? IF Saunders can't get past Froch's jab he would loose I think. Saunders would be able to slip in and out of will and we all saw the problems Froch had with Dirrell but Froch was one of them fighters. Head to head he didn't match up that well with anybody but only lost cleanly to an ATG.. I'd say Froch would get to BJS in the end. Bigger stronger and Froch himself was awkward as hell.
Time and time again I've heard people say Billy would be stopped in both hypothetical and realistic matchups. Why does nobody talk about the fact his chin is almost impossible to crack? It's absolute granite. No man born from his mother is stopping Billy Joe Saunders!
To be fair hes only been in with one huge banger and he wasn't capable of landing a glove on BJS.. I do think his chin is very good. Granite might be a stretch especially at 168. If he can get in with the best of the best we may find out
I'm a fan of Billy, but some of these comments are nonsense. He's literally just stepped up to 168 and his resume is light years away from Froch who consistently fought - and more often than not beat - world class fighters back to back.
Exactly. People forget that when Lemieux did land (And there was one moment where he did manage to land clean in those 12 rounds), Billy Joe took it like it was nothing. And Lemieux is the hardest hitting middleweight of them all, even hitting harder than GGG. If Froch wants a chess match, then BJS has that covered. If Froch wants a war, then the inner gypsy will take over and beat Froch from pillar to post. BJS can deal with anything, he is a gypsy who knows how to box. When you've got that combination, I don't see how anyone can beat him unless they have a massive reach advantage.
Lee was a legitimate world champion and BJS was a 25 year old challenger. He clearly won the fight. I fail to understand the criticism here? He visibly gassed in the Jr fight. When fighting fit he didn't drop a round.
The only time he looked like this untouchable master boxer was vs Lemieux. He has tons of competitive fights where he loses plenty of rounds, including John Ryder.
I think the way people backing Saunders here look at this is as follows: Saunders lost around fifteen rounds against Akavov, Lee and Eubank. Saunders won twelve rounds against Lemieux. The Lemieux fight is the real Saunders. The Akavov, Lee and Eubank fights all have questions against them based on age, trainer, fitness, lack of drugs. Whatever.
Froth (lmfao) ain't no lemieux but if BJS is focused I think he outboxes him. Intriguing fight but let's not forget BJS has an iron gypsy chin also. BJS struggled with Eubank Jr for some rounds so by no means a gimmee. In the words of the great Mile Lane 'lets get it on'. Fully focused BJS beats all but anything less than 90% and he is at threat of elimination at elite level.
Why would you focus on the negatives of a fantastic young British fighter? Anyone who's followed and supported Billy Joe Saunders' career from amateur level onwards has seen bags and bags of ability and several really good wins. Granted he's blew up in between fights, showed up unprepared at times and had poor performances, but why would that be the focus when he's remained unbeaten? Why would that be the focus when in his biggest fight to date, against a former world champion and genuine world class opponent, he completely schooled him? Billy proved in that fight that when fit and focused he's levels above world class. Surely that should be the focus? He's currently in shape and training his arse off and as I've said, is still only 29. The fact is, you don't like Billy Joe Saunders and don't want him to fulfill his potential. That's why you come on here, belittling his achievements and talking him down. Just like you do Tyson Fury. No coincidence there. Newsflash: both are unbeaten, both are in great shape and both have the best years of their career ahead of them.
Why should I support drug cheats? Especially drug cheats like Saunders who, let's face it, are the sort of people the world would just be better off without. I make no bones about disliking him; most people don't.
