indeed it is, but i've done quite well, considering i've had little to deal with besides abuse, emoticons and you debating a point i didn't make.
Mate you have zero knowledge of boxing the fact you consider ploughing forward with your eyes closed in the blind hope of trapping someone against the ropes, as tactical boxing ends any form of debate we can have.
then why didnt forch just knock him out in the first round .... never troubled him is nonsense he did still land a few heavy shots .... Froch defo was the one of the tow more in control of the fight yes but to see Groves was no trouble to him or didnt trouble him just sounds like fanboyism IMO
****ing doughnut you really are. Froch was wary of his power the whole fight and was sent flying with a left hook im putting you on ignore you absolute pub grub div
dear me, terry, talk about self ownership. i'd feel embarrassed for you if you hadn't behaved such a tit in this exchange.
stupid question. there's a world of difference between being troubled by an opponent and not knocking him out.
You said that Groves was troubling Froch at all .... so in your opinion Froch had won every round and Groves barely laid a finger on him ?? really, your saying Groves had nothing to bother Froch at all... Well if that was the case Froch is talkin $hit when he claim that to be one of his best achievments in the sport.
so you're moving your goalposts. froch had an easy night, and showed conclusively who was the better man with both at their peak. i'm happy to accept we have different definitions of troubled, but i have no interest in having words put in my mouth.