Showtime Staredown- Ward v Froch

dirrell has no heart, ward is mentally as strong as anyone in the game, i've only read this one post of yours in the whole thread but your wrong

 

Isn't that pretty much what I was saying...?

 

in that case you are totally correct, ward mentally is as hard as they come, all that believing in god **** isnt my thing but if thats what motivates him power to him

 

Oh, and not to court controversy, but I do enjoy the hypocrisy in you, who called Ward ''cowardly'' only a few days ago, agreeing with that.:yep

 

classic PK, surprised it didn't get picked up on earlier.

Please tell me that's a pun . If not atsch

My two pence worth anyway, and that's not 'siding' with anyone in this argument, is that Froch lost handily vs Dirrell. All this 'but he was the champion and Dirrell didn't do enough to take his belt' that I hear from some people doesn't wash with me. Basically that translates as 'if it wasn't a title fight, then maybe Dirrell would have won'.

I do admire and respect Froch and hope he wins vs Ward but I can't ever use the Dirrell fight when praising him.

 

Precisely JFT, the whole ''you have to take the title'' is ludicrous. It's like saying you've won, but you've not won by a great enough margin so we're not giving you the belt. I don't care how uninspiring he was, you cannot just invent your own scoring criteria on the night because you don't like the performance of Dirrell.

And that's not pedantry, that's the reality, and people should deal with it and take the sand out of their vaginas.

 

Nothing hypercritical about agreeing to his last statement.. :good

 

what an arrogant *******, gtfo

 

:rofl

 

Reading comprehension etc, was not me that brought up the tedious intelligence ****.

I just can't stand posters like yourself that as soon as someone doesn't agree with you, you either say that they don't know how to score a fight or that in some way they are interlectualy (fair enough my spelling is ****) inferior to yourself.

People have different opinions on fights, they have done for the last hundred yeard and they will do for the next. This place would be a boring cheerleading site if we all agreed.

I don't agree with the whole Froch won coz he is the champion thing either. I thought he won the fight on workrate, ring control and agression. Was it a good performace? No. The bottom line is do I feel Froch did enough in comparrison to Dirrell to win that fight? And my answer is yes. As you have clearly demonstrated you disagree but hey ho thats life.

 

both Ward & Froch are super inteligent people in & outside the ring. :good

 

Sorry, but you did. When I first said reading comprehension, it was a response to you saying people would think you don't think Ward was a good fighter, and I said nobody would think that if they understood what you were saying. That's not slagging you off in the slightest, that was me saying that it's easy to understand what you were saying. I didn't bring it up, you did.

You are the one who insulted my intelligence, not the other way around. Don't try to play innocent and act like you didn't because apparently I'm ''pedantic'', because you know and I know that you did. I was discussing Ward, you started trying to be petty, which is clear for all to see.

When did I say you were intellectually inferior? You're making stuff up now. I can't stand posters who say the same old tired cliches about Andre Ward, they're just lazy and untrue for the most part. Yeah, whatever, after the initial post you said you meant the Super Six, but literally nobody could tell that because you said ''every'' fight.

I don't think I said you don't know how to score a fight either, I questioned what criteria someone would use to somehow come to the conclusion that Froch won, because under normal scoring criteria Dirrell did what needed to be done and Froch didn't. Like TFFP said, clean effective punching, effective aggression, defence, ring generalship are the criteria you must follow. Dirrell landed the only decent punches, showed better defence, showed the only effective aggression in the fight. You posted punch stats, but that's irrelevant under the correct criteria, which is why I questioned how someone could have Froch winning.

It's effective aggression though, not just aggression on it's own. That's what I'm saying, Froch for the most part walked forward and flailed with extremely poor, technique-lacking punches that mostly missed, which isn't effective in the slightest. I can't understand why people who think Froch deserved the win use that as a reason, because it's not just aggression that you score.

If you agree that this is merely a difference of opinion then I don't see what your problem is exactly. Generally when people have varying opinions they aren't swayed on it, so why you're complaining about me not seeing your things from your point of view is odd. You've misinterpreted a lot of what I said, you seem to think I've insulted you in some posts which I really haven't done at all.

 

Give it a rest jpab. You're coming across as an awful ****

 

By doing what, exactly? Sorry, but I'd like the guy to realise that I didn't insult him when he thought I did, because I'd hate for someone to think I abused them for no reason, which is essentially what he's saying. He misinterpreted something I said, I'm just letting him know I didn't mean what he thinks I did, the rest is Froch-Dirrell related, which is something you apparently agree with incidentally, so I don't know what your problem is.