Carl Froch Calling Out Calzaghe For A Street Fight

your still a boring cu nt

come on connor you have been found out

daddy paying you to try and twist sh it to shine a good light on your dads reluctance not to travel and take meaningful challenges

your dad is bitter and your tweets to carls girl are sad

 

you make me laugh fighters boil down to face froch and yet you will not accept your dad dragged many a middle weight up to face him lol

your twisting and clutching is just to funny

 

Not as boring as someone trying to re-use the same failed insult atsch:yep.
By the way, its YOU'RE not YOUR. ****

 

are you seriously saying johnson ain't tough? jesus.

actually, you did claim froch wasn't joe's mandatory earlier in the thread.

 

Many a MW? There was Ashira that I recall. Nothing hard to accept about that, as it happened, but who else did he specifically drag up, who hadnt fought recently at SMW before facing him? Sobot maybe? Where are all the MANY?

 

i no

 

there you go.

 

That would be I KNOW atsch:hi:

 

There you go what?
Before Calzaghe beat Kessler, Froch wasnt his mandatory. Read what I wrote again.
Kessler was the WBC champ then. Not Calzaghe

After Calzaghe won the title, he chose not to defend the WBC title but to move up and go for a bigger fight.
What dont you grasp?

 

i no

joes first four fights three was against mw gtfoh


something i noticed he had a lot of blown up mw on his record and made many lhw boil down as you like to put it


and some of the guys he beat gtfoh they have 20 wins 25 losses at the end of there career and they fought the man as you put it

so what does that make the men that beat the men that held joe company

remember you use this theory constantly

now your still boring

ok

or /are

do you want

okay

:hi:

 

read what you responded to again, bails. you left yourself no wriggle room.

 

Im glad you have because I have read it again also and I cant see what you dont understand in what I wrote?

Maybe I wasnt completely clear enough for you, as it is known by most fans, (maybe not casuals) that if there is a mandatory challenger, they are still mandatory even if the title is won by someone else, similar to Groves being mandatory to Jack, as he was when Dirrell was champ, but before Jack had beaten Anthony Dirrell, Groves wasnt mandatory to fight Jack if Jack had of been holding a title.
Hope that explains that to you? I tend to find that when you guys get all tied in knots, you tend to look as a misunderstanding as some sort of victory for some reason.
Do you grasp it all now?


Look at post 130

As I wrote. No room for you to wriggle