You guys really think?

It's common knowledge that KP had a 101 degree fever the day before the BHop fight, and the elbow injury is well documented. KP at 100% would have made it a good, possibly great fight. Hopkins 116-112, something like that.

Don't mean to be touchy about the Froch thing. It just seems obvious to me that Froch would take a beating from any heavy handed guy with good fundamentals because he doesn't keep his hands up.

 

sp_immortal. please head but your keyboard and break it. you talk utter bollox.

 

he would need an excuse after his embarrasing performabnce against an "over the hill" hopkins.

 

Mate, you really need to wake up and face reality. He lost 12-0 because of styles and not having the neccessary attributes.

A fever didn't cut his work-rate into a third when he wasn't even tired. That is when you are worried about counters and you are confused.

 

You should be banned for your stupidity. :blood

 

If you are 101 degrees and ill, you would fail your pre-fight medical, so don't start with this bull****.

If you have a cold or flu a couple of weeks out that affects your training, them fair enough, but stop talking out of your ass.

 

Yeah I know that you were making some lame excuse for Froch not taking out Pascal but if your excuse were in any way true then that would mean that Froch actually lost the fight. That is the consequence of your stupid ****ing opinion.

Or are you some defense lawyer that wants to plead the alternative?

 

Why do boxing fans find facts so terribly unsettling? Mention the facts, and you guys damn near go into anaphelactic shock. Trying to claim that illness and injury have no effect on someones performance is just assinine. Ever go to work with a bad cold? Were you 100%? Now imagine boxing at world class level.

 

You have 231 posts in two and a half years.

You can't watch much boxing, can you?

It is possible for one fighter to dis-arm another and still lose, comprende?

:hi:

 

u mad?:yep

 

It must be you talking out your ass, since the facts are well documented. I thought you followed boxing. guess I was wrong.

 

Nah, don't think so.

I like Pavlik - but the guy got completely owned.

Just the usual bull**** excuses.

 

No I actually have a life and don't spend hours a day on some message board. You should try it some time.

I do.

Please elaborate on how this is possible, in a way that conforms with the events of Froch-Pascal.

 

What in the holy **** are you talking about?

What I said was a very simple opinion that should be easy to comprehend for a human being with a superior functioning brain to that of a squirrel. I don't think Froch landed as cleanly as he did against lesser opponents. Possibly due to the things Pascal did well, and some of the things Froch did poorly such as telegraphing and being a bit slow.

That is no reflection on him deserving to win the fight. He still did the better work overall, especially with his jab.

 

As a reminder, here is what you wrote:

I think anyone that gave an honest reading to that would come away thinking "Hmmm. Froch wasn't terribly effective was he? I mean, his shots were mostly blocked or rolled, and he didn't land cleanly too often."

Now put that together with the fact that Froch was smashed around quite a bit, as I and just about everyone else thinks, and the logical conclusion is either 1) Froch was less effective than Pascal and actually lost the fight or 2) your assessment of Froch's effectivness in landing is bull****.

So, which is it?