carl froch? a force or a fraud...

http://www.sportinglife.com/boxing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=boxing/09/10/17/manual_211133.html

http://boxing.fanhouse.com/2009/10/17/carl-froch-vs-andre-dirrell-live-round-by-round-updates/

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2009-10-17-froch-vs-dirrell-rounds_N.htm

http://boxingwatchers.blogspot.com/2009/10/froch-v-dirrell-round-by-round.html

All these publications/boxing sites had Dirrell the winner, some by a not so surprisingly wide margin.

Now post your sources. You've already proven your too big a ***** to post your scorecard, atleast you can post some round by round scoring from some of these websites you "claim" scored the fight for Froch.

If you arent man enough to post your scorecard, atleast post theres and I'll rip theres apart if they did infact score the fight for Froch.

He's not world class. I know you Europeans have a different definition of what constitutes world class. But just because you beat some Eurobum for a silly paper strap doesnt mean you're world class. One fight doesnt make you look world class. Apparently Pascal looked like **** against a fighter before Froch, and given that he lost to a fighter as painfully bad as Froch is, he's probably being overrated a little. Diaconu aint nobody. Like I said if he manages to in 4 rounds against Chad Dawson without being KO'd I'd say he is a good fighter.

As for PAscals reach. It had a big impact on the fight. He couldnt comfortably outbox Froch from the outside. He's only 5'11 with a 70 inch reach. He's small for that weight class. Which is a big advantage for Froch. Pascal through the first 5 rounds was the better fighter, then it looked like he just fell off, like he was tired. And thats why he lost to a fighter like Froch.


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.

Dirrell's best win is better then Pascals best win. How does that make Pascals resume better dumby? :rofl

Post a video of Dirrell out right running. Contrary to Brit bum belief, you are allowed to use every inch of the ring. Dirrell used his legs to get out of the way from most of Froch's shots. Froch's lumbering dullard abilities resulting in his inability to cut off the ring was what allowed Dirrell to get out of danger whenever he wanted to. If Froch had been a better fighter, he probably gets knocked out, but instead his own terribleness actually saved him lol. :rofl

1. Even
2. Froch
3. Froch
4. Dirrell
5. Dirrell
6. Dirrell
7. Dirrell
8. Froch
9. Dirrell
10. Even
11. Dirrell
12. Dirrell

Nows where's yours simply jack?

He cant punch. In the 6th or 7th I cant remember Dirrell is complaining to the ref because Froch is hitting him behind the head.

Froch throws like 3 punches that land flush on Dirrell while he's complaining to the ref. Dirrell barely even notices.

Froch cant punch for ****. He beats fighters on accumulation. He doesnt have one punch KO power like an Abraham.

Muh huh. Ok whatever *****. Dont forget to post your scorecard though.

"You are quickly becoming the worst poster on this forum"

That had me rolling when I was giving it to you in your other thread. What poster jumped in and said that about you?

Proves that skill 99% of the time overcomes will. Its a perfect example of Britains talent level, and America's. You produce Ricky Hattons and Carl froch's we produce Mayweathers and Dirrells.

The most popular fighters in the sport all-time financial wise. Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Oscar De La Hoya, Floyd Mayweather.

4 of the 5 were boxers. 3 were fighters that used the entire ring to their advantage. Hell watch Leonard vs Duran 2. Leonard clowned, boxed, through 1 punch at a time, and generally refused to mix it up. Made Duran quit, he couldnt deal with it. Ali almost never brawled. Even though he had the hieght and reach advantage, he never really mixed it up. Later in his career when his legs were gone he would actually punch then hold all the time.

Boxers will always be more viable then brawlers. Why? Because brawlers have a short shelf life. They most likely will never make it to elite status. There are exceptions of course.

But in reality comparing the likes of Duran and Hagler to drunken bums like Froch and Hatton is blasphemy. Duran and Hagler did like to mix it up from time to time, but they were also skilled boxers who can slip punches, cut off the ring, and box if they had to.

Carl Froch blocks punches with his face. Even comparing those 2 caliber of fighters to him should get you slapped like a hoe.

Not really. At first boxing was a brutish sport. Hell Tunney was hated. How can you be an educated intelligent fighter? But he set the stage, now everyone wants to emulate the Ali's, Leonards, Mayweathers ect. Nobody wants to emulate the Hattons and Froch's lol. Those guys are a dime a dozen, and most wouldnt make it through American amatuer circuit fighting like that.

Not really. Walking through is taking ever punch the guy throws at you, and just walking through it and knocking him out.

In contrast Froch missed every big shot he threw, was made to look like a bum(notice the poll I made about who'd win in a rematch, more people picked Dirrell by KO, then picked Froch to win :rofl), Dirrells stock is now at an all-time high, Froch is considered nothing more then a bum, and the only one who was actually hurt in the fight was Froch.

Again you got it wrong son. Wouldnt be the first time though would it? :rofl

No it shows how stupid you are and how nobody should take your opinion seriously.





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.[/quote]

 

Yeah im not gonna answer anymore of your silly posts until you learn to quote. its not hard dummy. :rofl

 

This content is protected

 

Perhaps you have had a bit of time to think of decent answers now

 

Decent answer to what?

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Your silly arguments are not important enough for me to take the time to copy and paste then seperate out your words from mine.

Retype what you wrote so I can quote it and respond easier and then I'll destroy it like I always do.

:good

 

Like im going to be bothered to retype, its not like I havent got anything better to do myself.
I guess #87 will be the one that you didnt or obviously couldnt destroy.
See you on the next thread I expect :hi:

 

Carl Froch sucks. British fighters by an large are inferior to American fighters. The super six is 2 American prospects beating up on Eurobums. If you're man enough post your scorecard for Froch vs Dirrell.

Did I miss anything?

 

Unless you don't get his sense of humour, I see no reason at all to dislike Froch.

His style of fighting might not appeal to everyone - and I guess that's fair enough, but come on..... he's willing to fight anyone, anywhere.

Surely fighters like that should be considered good for the sport, with all the ''I'm not giving him a payday'' or ''Why should I travel to ......'' types in boxing these days.

It's a shame Froch is so badly managed, he ought to be a massive star in the UK.

 

New you couldnt resist writing something, and still not an answer to #87.
I havent got a score card for Froch - Dirrell, id have to watch the fight again to get an acurate one (not the most compelling way to spend my time, but will do so at some time im sure). What I did point out was how Boxing News and The Ring magazine (known reliable boxing mags) had Froch a winner, someone else wrote on here that Boxing monthly did also, but I cant vouch for that one. Whilst you pointed to USA Today (dosent sound to patriotic) claiming them to be reliable, something anyone can say.
You seem to forget Dirrell didnt beat Frochatsch, This is something you would have liked to have seen but it didnt happen. You also seem to forget that your more established American fighter has also left the super 6.

 

Pretty sure anything I just wrote could be applied to your silly little post.

Of course you dont. Its easier to say something instead of actually having to come up with the goods. Which is why nobody should take your opinion seriously.

I posted about 4 publications that had Dirrell the winner wide. Where is your link to the ring and boxing news round by round?

Its like Whitaker vs Ramirez, or Martinez vs Cintron, the scorecards say one thing the majority of observers say another. Again it was in England, shady **** happens there all the time. If it was a nuetral location or in America, Dirrell wins wide.

Taylor is shot. Has nothig to do with American prospects beating up on Eurobum veterans.

 

michigan warrior needs to get his **** out of dirells ass... he's got some serious man love issues with his home boy.

:smh

 

It's either going to be Ward or Froch who wins the tournament. Ward will win if he beats Green because I don't think anyone can beat Ward in a boxing match.

 

It may be. But he is right :deal

Except the idiocy about British fighters being inferiour to American fighters. That is bull****.