WTF: Froch vs Abraham not for WBC title!!!

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by cheekyvid, Sep 6, 2010.


  1. cheekyvid

    cheekyvid Detroit, I shall return. Full Member

    7,324
    3
    Nov 4, 2009
    For ****s sake
    over at the scene

    dirrell vs ward gonna be for the title, froch vs AA is final eliminator. apparently dirrell was no1 so the WBC agreed to make the fight.

    jose suileman is a ****(allegedly). he is also allegedly a ****in dickhead.



    then again...is this the right move?
    if froch vs AA was for the title...that would be 2 fighters coming off losses fighting for the world title...instead its 2 fighters coming off wins...
     
  2. psilas

    psilas New Member Full Member

    76
    2
    Mar 10, 2009
    No you're right mate, the WBC are indeed ****s and have proven yet again that boxing is still run by gangsters.

    Froch is the former champion AND has a win over Dirrel which you'd think would make him ranked higher than 'Dildo' Dirrel.

    Add to this the fact that had it not been a tournament, Froch would have had a rematch clause with Kessler anyway and would/should have been next to fight for the title.


    This tournament has been sucking Wards/Dirrels ass since day one anyway.

    Team Ward...
    ....................'Ward vs Green...yeah that'll be great, thx guys'

    ....................'Ward vs Bika ....no f*ckin way, not on your life'


    WBC, please **** off and die, thankyou.
     
  3. Chinny

    Chinny Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,610
    1
    Aug 10, 2007
    Even with ward as WBA champ? Seems strange
     
  4. Beeston Brawler

    Beeston Brawler Comical Ali-egedly Full Member

    46,399
    15
    Jan 9, 2008
    Good.

    It will save Froch a few quid in fees.

    Assuming he beats Abraham he ought to do a Floyd and just **** the titles off :deal
     
  5. achillesthegreat

    achillesthegreat FORTUNE FAVOURS THE BRAVE Full Member

    37,070
    29
    Jul 21, 2004
    In fairness Ward is better than Froch at the moment and Dirrell beat Abrahams.

    Froch vs Abrahams is a quality fight without the belt and 2 guys coming off a loss fighting for the vacant belt is always questionable.
     
  6. Shizzle

    Shizzle Meh. Full Member

    400
    0
    Oct 1, 2007
    I cannot see how Dirrell v Ward is going to be for the WBC title when Ward holds the WBA strap.


    Edit - feck me just seen that it's true! WTF?!
     
  7. cheekyvid

    cheekyvid Detroit, I shall return. Full Member

    7,324
    3
    Nov 4, 2009
    actually I'm pretty sure the wbc (we be ****s) don't allow immediate title rematches hence why pavlik Taylor was a catchweight for example



    questionable? Like that's ever stopped the WBC before?
     
  8. ero-sennin

    ero-sennin Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,206
    1
    Jan 31, 2009
    Good. Take that belt and shove it in the trash can. It's not like they are fighting for a mansion or a Ferrari. It's just a belt, and a belt is only a good prize if it means something. When you win the super six trophy, it has meaning. When you win the football world cup it means something. When you win the ashes it means something. When you win the wba, or the wbo, or the wbc, or the www or the abc, or the add or the adhd or whatever the **** else there is, it means you have something to stop your trousers from falling down.

    Is Khan really a world champion? Is David Haye a two division world champion? The answer to both those questions is no.
     
  9. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    42
    Jan 7, 2005
    For once the WBC, for whatever reasons, have done the right thing.