yes, and he was jabbing and feinting to stop groves from setting. it wasn't a different groves but a different froch.
wilde v naz would be fun (from what i've read)
in the real world judges should not focus on just 1 criterion and ignore the other 3.
...and although i imagine the commentary was pro-froch in the pub i watched it in, i don't speak a word of polish!
they were watching ring generalship and effective aggression. i like to rewatch a fight sober and without distraction before giving a definitive...
kiss my arse
he looked like he'd been hit by 1!
mackenzies smelling salts
no, who would delusional southerners misplace their faith in?
nice to finally agree with you. bloody obvious.
me and everyone else on this forum save you. that's some punch to make him need surgery on that hip 3 years previously.
bear in mind you're alone on here in taking the barker performance as evidence of anything other than both legs being vital to boxers.
what an utter wanker.
carl froch
only if you are absolutely determined to diminish froch's achievement tonight.
