carl froch? a force or a fraud...

No of course I havent watched much boxing. If you say so. I understand fighters can learn, but for someone to say Dirrell was mediocre for his 1st title shot but top form for his next fight is a little too much not to admit Froch must have had something to do with it, along with possibly not fighting at home.
Yes Dirrell did look better as the fight with Froch went on, I felt Dirrell won rounds 10 & 11 but felt Froch shared round 12 (Im sure ill get some stick for that, but then one of the judges gave him round 12 but who wrongly in my opinion gave Froch round 11).
Froch and AA fight completely different so I dont agree about the bluprint bit you say, AA dosent throw as much as Froch and is more conservative.
Ive never called Dirrell a bum, but I admit now with him winning (by DQ) against a former MW champ it does look better for Froch

 

Why in any circumstances would he be described as a fraud?

 

FORCE
there are better fighters in the super 6 but i have a wierd feeling Froch will win or be runner up! not because hes the best fighter just because of his will 2 win i cant see him giving up and admitting defeat against any1

 

THIS is a sensible post

 

Where's your source for "every ring side observer" had Froch the winner?

Like I said, there is no style that isnt great against Carl Froch. He leaves himself so open that virtually any style fighter could beat him. What dont you understand about that?

Uhh you made the claim clown. Show me a source of every journalist in the building had Froch winning.

Btw, post your scorecard if you think Slobra won. Seems you avoid questions like Calzaghe avoided big fights. :yep

Defensive orientated boxer that throws bombs. Froch is a offensive orientated fighter with no defense that throws pillows.

Abraham loves fighters that come to him, think of a fighter like Carl Crotch who not only comes to him, but comes to him with his ugly ass mug hanging in the air, Abrahams gonna have a ****ing field day. :yep

Kesslers a boxer. Good jab, good power, if he has anything above an average chin, he should have a field day. His technique alone should be enough to carry a fight against that bum.

Sorry, Dirrell was beating Froch because Froch is a **** fighter. I dont even really like Dirrell's style against a fighter like Froch. Even a slow lumbering caveman like Froch has a chance against a fighter like Dirrell that leaves his chin hanging in the air, it leaves room for a lucky bunch, more orthodox boxers like Kessler and Taylor have a much better style. They stand in the pocket and box. proof being Taylor giving Froch an ass whipping for 9 rounds. Taylors only problem is he gassed. If Kessler doesnt gas it should be the same thing.

I'd rather American fighters be gutless and talented, then whatever the hell Froch tries to be. If America started producing **** fighters like that, boxing is officially done n this country.

:rofl Poor poor Jack.

Maybe one day one of your **** predictions will come true. Until then, your the same dumbass you'll always be.

 

It looks like you lost an avatar bet to Jack.

 

MW, you've got to find a quicker way to type "I know **** all about boxing"! I can't reply to those long tedious posts on my phone too easily.

1. My sources? The boxing magazines I get, including American ones. Now I'm asking you to find me ONE journalist who was at the fight, who thought Dirrell won. Take your time.

2. If Froch is so easy to beat, how did he outfight Pascal? You can say he was robbed against Taylor and got lucky against Taylor but Pascal? He beat a world class fighter because the style and the fight suited him.

3. I don't remember my card. At the time, I think I had Froch by a point. No way was it a robbery when the opponent avoids contact like Dirrell did.

4. Abraham likes fighters who come at him, Froch likes going against static fighters. Like I said, there's no style advantage.

You need to understand that simply being better, is not related to style. Just try and understand that, mate.

5. Again, if Kessler wins, it's because he's better. Kessler probably doesn't have the heart to beat Froch but it's a good fight stylistically.

6. Wrong. Dirrell's main strength against Froch was his speed. He was elusive enough to cause Froch massive problems and that is Froch's biggest weakness because if you give him movement, he can't throw his big punches. Dirrell had a huge advantage stylistically.

7. Yes, boxing is a better place with guys like Dirrell, rather than warriors like Froch. Who made boxing popular in America? Come forward warriors or slick runners? Exactly. If America had more fighters like Froch, boxing would still me mainstream there.

8. What predictions have I got wrong?

 

U no fck all bout bxin


Hows that?

The USA Today had Dirrell a winner 117-110. Now where's your source? Simply telling me every journalist in the room had Froch the winner isnt going to cut it. I need proof.

Pascal was whipping Froch ass the first 5 rounds until he gassed. Probably from having to cut weight. Plus Pascal is a weird case, he has arms shorter then Mayweather, 2 inches in fact, which puts him as a boxer at a disadvantage.

How do we know Pascal is world class? He beat Diaconu for a paper belt, lets see how he does against Chad Dawson until we start throwing labels round K? :yep

:rofl Had Froch by a point. Sorry dope, nobody with any sort of boxing intelligence could give Froch 7 rounds. Stop being a ***** and post your scorecard so I can tear it to shreds :good

And "When the opponent avoids contact"

Dumbass its boxing you stupid muther****er. You're supposed to avoid contact.

Doesnt matter what Froch likes. He's a **** fighter. Whereas Abraham is a decent fighter with actual power unlike Froch who cant punch for ****.

Abraham loves fighters that come to him, Froch being the lumbering dope he is probably does like fighters who dont move, he's shown a terrible ability of cutting off the ring and his punches are so slow, im sure that he loves fighters like Abraham. Problem is, Abraham has a better defense and more power. Thus Abraham has the stylistic advantage.

Boxer against crude slugger

WHo has the stylistic advantage? Boy you're pathetic. :yep

Wrong. When Dirrell stood in the pocket and pressed the fight against Froch in the 10th, 11th and 12th, he beat Froch from post to post. He landed at will. Froch is so bad, that a decent offense can nuetralize his offense. Dirrell trying to box from the outside helped Froch. Dirrell is faster then Froch, probably a harder puncher aswell. He kept Froch in the fight by boxing too much. If he had pressed the action earlier he probably stops Froch.

Dirrells elusiveness helped Froch. It gave the appearance that Froch could actually hang with a fighter vastly superior to him.

Against Kessler and Abraham his C level skills will be apparent. Against Ward, its just gonna get ugly. :yep

Froch is a brute. Warriors are supposed to be smart and intelligent. Anyone can fight like a bumbling drunk. Not many people can show the skill and athleticism of an Andre Dirrell.

Again its why Mayweather is considered the greatest in the sport, and Hatton still having dreams about his head hitting the turnbuckle.

Willie Pep and Gene Tunney, the godfathers of the slick defensive style are legends to this day. They perfected the art of the clinch. Please dont try and discuss boxing history with me.

We have tons of fighters like Carl Froch here. go to any bar on a saturday night. You'll see alot of cats that look like Carl Froch after they've had a few. :rofl

Predicted Froch to walk through Dirrell. Then predicted Abraham to stop Dirrell. Not including the dumb **** like Pavlik losing to Mayweather. :rofl

You're just **** at this sport son. Maybe you should perminantly stick with soccer?

 

He could of had the fight 6 rounds each only you must have forgot Dirrell had a point deducted.
The Ring magazine and Boxing News both had Froch a winner over Dirrell, and even without the point deduction, Froch wouldnt have been a loser on their cards.
Lucky Froch beat undefeated Pascal, if only Pascal had normal length arms and hadnt gassed
AA is such a good fighter and Froch so bad, yet it was Froch who took Dirrells undefeated record.
You rate AA so so much yet at SMW his only claim is KOing Taylor a fighter coming off a KO loss and Miranda only 2 journeyman fights past being KOd by Pavlik, so who is it on AAs record are you bigging up? And even with Dirrells DQ win over AA he finished out cold.
Sure Frochs style may not be pretty but its got the wins over a Pascal, Dirrell, Taylor and B Magee after Froch beat him has gone on to win the European title.

 

1. USA Today? I don't follow what they say on boxing, but do you realize what a horrible media outlet that is? If you want national bias and propoganda, great, but it isn't credible. Was their journalist even there? The Ring, Boxing News and Boxing Monthly had it for Froch.

2. Who cares about Pascal's reach? I'm talking his fighting style. He IS world class and got beat at his own game. End of. The idea that he was weight drained has been disproven many times and Pascal himself admitted it. I know Pascal is "world" class because he's beaten "world" champions and is himself, a "world" champion.

The funny thing is, you claim Dirrell is elite yet Pascal has a better resume.

3. Of course you're supposed to avoid contact, but there is a difference between elusiveness and actual running. You do realize at points that Dirrell literally ran? People say Mayweather runs and figuratively he may, but Dirrell literally ran. Embarassing.

What was your scorecard?

4. You saying Froch can't punch is embarassingly misinformed. It would be like me saying Dirrell is slow but no matter how much I dislike his style, he isn't. I think I'm above getting into those juvenile arguments, so if you want me to keep schooling you, at least don't disgrace yourself by posting drivel like that, ok, boy?

5. Mate, in the last few posts you have shown no understand of styles. Please, just drop that whole argument as you clearly don't understand the basics. Thanks.

6. The Mayweather:Hatton point is nonsense because it's so arbitary.

7. Yet who knows Gene Tunney? Who made him famous? Jack Dempsey, a come forward warrior. Willie Pep was an exception because his charisma made him a star. If you look at the people who made boxing what it is, what type of fighters do you get? Go back to the Sullivan days or even Mendoza. People wanted brutality and they always have. Sure, there are exceptions but come forward, face first fighters are always going to be more entertaining and that's what boxing is all about. Unless you have incredible charisma, it's easier to get fans interest by being tough because it's what the average man will always pay to see. For every popular slickster, like Ali, Pep, Whitaker or Mayweather, there are two guys who made their name by being prepared to take two shots to land one like Duran, Hagler, Greb, LaMotta.

Boxing was BUILT around these tough guys who presented a bloodthirsty audience with the brutality they wanted. Fans appreciate skills but there's a reason that casual fans will always remember brawls like Hagler/Hearns or wars like Ali/Frazier over technical masterpieces like Leonard/Benitez.

8. I don't think I did predict Froch would walk through Dirrell. If I did, I was right I didn't predict Abraham would beat Dirrell - I hoped he would but made clear it was all wrong stylistically. The Mayweather/Pavlik thread is irrelevant.





You're actually pretty childish and boring. Stop being a dick with things like "Froch can't punch" and stop stereotyping me. These arguments with you are turning tedious, so sort it out, kid.

 

The point deduction was nullified by the fact that Dirrell hurt Froch in the 10th. Even those dumbass Euro judges scored both those rounds 9-9.

There is no way anyone whos competant could give Froch 6 rounds.

Thats 2 publications. Still waiting for you and your boy to show me where every journalist had Froch the winner. The USA today had Dirrell 117-110. Apparently they are competant.

Pascal had looked like **** in his last fight. He beat Diaconu. Its not that big a scalp. If he wins 4 rounds against Chad Dawson and doesnt get KO'd I'd say he was a decent fighter.

Because Froch was fighting in England. If Abraham was fighting in England and was English he probably could have done all the illegal things Froch did and got away with a gift. Hell if Abraham was English and the fight in England his illegal hit probably would have been ruled a KO. :rofl

Abraham beat Taylor better then Froch did. Taylor was beating Froch ass until he gassed. Abraham broke Taylor down and stopped him. Even if the fight went to he cards Abraham was comfortably ahead.

Miranda beat Allan Green, a top 10 ranked contender and went rounds with Abraham, Pavlik and Ward.

Both good scalps. Its not really about resumes really. Abraham is just a far more dangerous fighter then Froch.

Stop showing yourself to be classless. Illegal blows dont count in boxing. I know you're British but you still have to follow world boxing rules. **** like that may be legal in England, not anywhere else.

Nobody gives a **** about the European title dude. As for Taylor. Lucky Taylor gassed. Against Dirrell lucky he was fighting in England, could foul with impunity and even then it was still a gift.

Your boys gonna get iced the **** out soon son. Better jump off that shaky bandwagon. :good

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

:good

This content is protected

 

fraud!!!!!

 

bottom line is Dirrell had most of the physical advantages versus Froch but none of the mental advantages

 

anyone who says fraud is a ****** just like ******o, one of the posters above.