Put it this way jack. Lets say there was only 1 belt per division. Do you think there would be any British champions? Do you see Khan beating BRadley and Alexander at JWW? Do you see Froch beating Ward, Abraham or Kessler(not counting Dirrell who he already lost to), do you see Haye beating any of Klitsckos?
Carl Froch vs Muhammad Ali in Nottingham? Who do you think wins? Per British rules Froch is allowed to bring a sledge hammer into the ring and Ali has both hands tied behind his back. The fight starts...Carl Froch clumsily tries to hit Ali with a sledge hammer, Ali ducks out of the way, Froch trips over his feet and smashed his face into his own hammer and knocks himself out. The European judges are confused, end up awarding Froch a split decision victory. European fans claim Ali is a runner because he didnt stand and trade. Massive controversy ensues.
Froch gets respect even from his haters for genuinely wanting to fight the best and for being as tough as old boots so that must say something for him. Bit of a daft question really as you don't beat fighters of the calibre of Pascal,Taylor and Dirrell if you're a fraud
That wasn't my point, but ok. I think Khan would outbox both Bradley and Alexander. The worry is always his chin but I do think he could avoid Alexander all night. His chin seems sturdier now and he's hard to hit clean. On his form against Malignaggi, Hatton would be horrible for Bradley, but he's probably shot now. It's hard to say. I reckon Bradley isthe stand out but he has flaws. He isn't the next great fighter he's been made out to be but he should beat Khan. I think Froch will beat Kessler and Abraham. The Kessler fight will be good though and probably not too dissimilar to the Pascal fight because Kessler will trade. I doubt he wins that type of fight. Abraham will be a good fight, sure, but his early passiveness and Froch's toughness should leave it to the jdges and that one will be close. As for Ward, to me, he's not proven yet, so who knows? He's never been in a tough fight, so there's question marks. Maybe, like Dirrell, he has no heart? Maybe he has a glass chin? Who knows? At 168lbs, there's no clear best fighter. Yet. As for Haye, he would beat any American heavyweight since 2000, and every American cruiserweight since Holyfield, which I thought this was about. As for the Klitschko's, he can beat both - Using his power to beat Wlad and speed to beat Vitali. Despite being a massive Wlad fan, I think Haye beats him. Age is catching up to Vitali and if it's 8 months down the line, I would expect Vitali to be outboxed. Right now, Vitali wins but age and distractions are catching him up.
Yep. Saving for future reference. This will be good for the next year or so. Khan, Froch and Haye should all be sparked within that time frame. This will be about a years worth of you highlighting your stupidity. Thanks. :good
Wow your on a role. I must add very beautifully put, it must have taken you some time to come up with that. But if you have read that I said I havent a score card from Froch vs Dirrell (It was some time ago and you would have to be a real fan of one of them to watch that one to often) then you must have read what I wrote, so obviously couldnt come up with a sensible answer, except to once again try and offend with insults. Great arguement . I read the reports in Boxing News and The Ring where they made Froch a winner, I dont have to find it to show you, ive got no reason to lie. You can always find it yourself, though it might pain you too much to read . Websites, newspapers, and mags you quote but not The Ring or Boxing News 2 of the biggest trade magazines . The fighter this title was about is Carl Froch and I havent noticed Frochs glass chin, though I did notice Dirrell out cold in his last fight (strange as Froch comes from a country of glass chinned fighters). And Froch is such a bad fighter, but when Dirrell stepped up against him.... He lost :good. You will have to teach me how to quote as its something I havent learnt on here and for you to comment about it on a boxing website it must be earth shatteringly important. Ive got so little to do with my time.:hi:
Only Froch fans say the fight was horribly enough to never see again. Because they know their boy lost so just saying that it was bad and not capable of watching it is good enough. The fight wasnt that bad, save the 5-9 rounds, the rest were full of action. The fact that you wont rescore the fight or even have the balls to post a score shows where people should place your opinion. Somewhere arounds Froch's skills as a champion. :rofl I posted my score. You dont even have the balls to try and refute it. Brilliant argument. Are you at all educated? I wonder what looks I'd get if I turned a book report in and told my teacher "these are the facts, I dont need a source, I got no reason to lie" :rofl You're pathetic. I havent quoted Ring Mag or BN because your assertions are that they scored the fight for Froch. Its not up to me to prove your assertions lol. Like I said are you educated? Didnt you already admit you'd been lying about every journalist in the house scoring the fight for Froch, how do I know you arent lying about this? I think it might not be glass, but of something that is brittle. Taylor and Dirrell arent known for their power yet they both still cracked it. Hell Taylor couldnt knock out welterweights yet he put Froch on his ass. Hmmm. Dirrell got knocked by an illegal punch he wasnt ready for. British fighters tend to get sparked out in less then 2 rounds. I.e Khan and Hatton. :rofl We've been over this. He lost because the fight was in Britain. You guys have your own rules over there. See Hatton vs Tszyu. Considering you dont know how to back up your assertions, you should be trying to get an education. That should be whats holding up the bulk of your time.
You are a proper Anglo-phobe aren't you? MichiganWarrior is the acceptable face of casual racism, somehow I don't find any of it offensive, there is a certain charm in it, something warm and inviting about your keyboard manner.
There's a core of American fans on here, who are the same. Look out for those guys who only support the black or white fighters. They aren't hard to find.
How can I be telling lies when I said openly that the bit about journalists in the house was something I read on here?:think But what I have said is in the reports I read in Boxing News and The Ring they both scored to Froch. Just in case you werent sure, Your not a teacher that I report to. Its a shame you think id lie to you about it, or would find it something worth not telling the truth about to someone I dont know. But hey if it gives you that glimmer of hope its not true, you hang on to it, a matter of fact for you we'll say it was a misprint in those magazines :yep. Yep Froch got hit on his brittle chin in the fights you mentioned yet guess what.... He still won them . Didnt American legend Jones get sparked in 2 rounds :huh. Yes im sure we have our own rules, just look at the headbutts guys like Hopkins use and the low blows. The thing is ive never said I think Froch beat Dirrell or that I think Dirrell beat Froch, just it was a close fight, which the journalists in the mags I mentioned favoured Froch, so hardly a robbery. You enjoy watching that fight, Im sure Dirrell appreciates his biggest fan :smh.
Puerto Rico definetly does produce great fighters. I have no problems admitting that they produce better fighters than Britain, both numerically and pound for pound. However, as far as rough estimates go, America has around 6 times the population of Britain and the funding that goes towards boxing over there is more than 6 times the amount we get here. If you think that Britain produces fewer good boxers in relation to country size, then you're wrong. Looking at The Ring ratings, which often favour American fighters because of justifiable reasons, and: - There are 3 British champions and 9 American champions. If America produced better fighters, then there would be 18 American champions, twice the amount there currently is. It shows that despite the lack of skills you think British boxers show, there are more champions per person being produced over here. - There are 9 British contenders/top fighters and 22 American contenders/top fighters. Again, if there was a correalation between elite fighters and population, then America should have 6 times as many as Britain, and would then have 54 top fighters. As it stands, there is less than half that. If you were right and America did produce better fighters than Britain, then there would be far more American champions. Yes, you produce more but a disproportionately low amount, disproving your idea that the American style is more effective. The idea of being good pure boxers can be disproved at amatuer level too. Assuming, as you did, that Britain only produces come forward, rugged fighters, then we outshone the Americans at the last Olympics, claiming three medals to none from America. If we had 6 times the population, we would have claimed 18 medals, including 6 gold. This is what America should be doing, if, as you say, American's are better boxers. You can have your xenophobic attitude all you want, but the facts prove you wrong. I'm not watching a tedious fight to please you. We'll only disagree, anyway, so it would be pointless.
Fraud!! he is far worst than what people think he is... but soon he will be exposed. this guy shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence as Bute or Ward... he dont belong in their league