Carl Froch as a Pundit

i like him and his new chompers

 

I agree , he brings an agenda.

What happened to this guy ??? Before he fought Groves I was a true fan , now he just comes across almost desperate for attention.

 

Smuff talks shyte week after week.

What is the point in Smuff - pumped easily by Groves and twice by King Arfur.

Why does the t osser not follow his own advice in fights?

Prefer listening to Watt and Froch above this scouse t urd as both ex World Champions and opinions have credibility.

Smuff never been there, never will and Sky should ditch this loser.

 

The fact he had no problem with Bellew's 'performance' yet slated Martin Murray says it all. The man is just unpleasant, took delight in predicting a beating for Frankie Gavin vs Kell Brook purely because Frankie gave an honest opinion on Twitter about the 'what if' Calzaghe vs Froch match-up. At least someone seems to have had a word and told him to stop mentioning Wembley stadium like he has tourettes.

Adam Smith really shouldn't be head of a department for a major sports broadcaster. Nick Halling is beyond words bad, Jonny Nelson isn't and never will be an anchorman, and Carl Froch brings an agenda that consists of backing his mates, being ridiculously harsh on anyone who has ever criticised him, and boosting his own ego at every opportunity.

 

People don't like the truth, Martin looked sloppy at times and has in a lot of fights. When you get a yes man, you complain, when someone tells it how he see's it, you complain.

 

The thing is some of you moan that Jim Watt is all to nice and always paising the brit, yet Carl Froch is too harsh on fighters just for speaking the truth? I mean is there anything that keeps any of you happy? Personally I do find Carl is biased when he commentates on fighters he has a history with but he generally isn't too bad, Watt is too nicey nicey in my opinion too and always talks up the favourite.

 

His arms are always out like he's about to hug you when he talks.

 

The Simon Cowell of Sky Sports Boxing.

 

Very biased and has an agenda.

Think he's missing the spotlight hence wouldn't be surprised if he announced his "comeback" summer next year

 

Thought he told it as it was with Martin Murray but in saying that his opponent should have been disqualified. Though I think Froch was being biased as Tony Bellew was bad too,but he is his friend so never got slagged. Fan of both Murray and Bellew but both put in poor performances, but not helped by shocking matchmaking.

 

It's beyond comprehension that Sky have hired a man who has admitted on camera that he doesn't actually like boxing and rarely follows it.

I'd much rather Jamie Moore was given his role. He follows the sport, clearly loves it and can call a fight a million times better than Big Nose.

 

Great fighter but zero insight or charisma as a pundit.

 

Happy to suck Tyson Furys **** when he knows he's sitting just behind him.

 

Froch is a diva. He'd have never forgiven a pundit for making those types of comments about him because that's the type of man that he is. Very good fighter - despite what looked like glaring limitations - but as a bloke comes across as a bit of a tool.

It's funny because as someone who constantly tries to present himself as a "man's man" he often comes across like an overly sensitive little b*tch. It'd be interesting to have seen what difference being an "international superstar" earlier in his career would have made, I meanIi hope then he wouldn't have said yes to every reality TV show out there desperately trying to get publicity.