Carl 'The Condradiction' Froch

First topic message reminder :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpq_ZAhbRwU

George Groves just tweeted this. Have to say, it is pretty funny and makes Froch look like a complete Muppet...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

azania wrote:Froch was gifted a decision imo.

To be honest i'm not at all surprised you say that, makes it far easier than to just say it was a close fight.

David Haye ran like a thief vs Wlad

But when someone else does it god forbid actually being consistent.

I dont care what those corrupt judges said. Dirrell was guy that won the Froch fight

Steffan wrote:I dont care what those corrupt judges said. Dirrell was guy that won the Froch fight

They scored it the same way as Calzaghe vs Hopkins.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Steffan wrote:I dont care what those corrupt judges said. Dirrell was guy that won the Froch fight

They scored it the same way as Calzaghe vs Hopkins

Not really. Calzaghe won because he threw more punches

Froch won because of hometown judging

Froch threw more than dirrell I imagine.

Steffan has it spot on.

Froch won because Dirrell ran and spoiled when he had it in the bag.

Have to agree.......I had it for Froch.........but then I like to wear Frochs at weekends..

Froch won because he was fighting at home

azania wrote:Froch won because he was fighting at home

He would quite possibly have won anywhere. Judges like the fight Froch was fighting a lot more than the 'fight' Dirrell was fighting.

Not saying Dirrell didn't deserve to win, but it's his fault he didn't.

azania wrote:Froch won because he was fighting at home

Not really a statement that can be substantiated,....

Not this cobblers again, Az.

Froch-Dirrell was a very, very close fight. Yes, you can make a case for Dirrell winning, no arguments there. But it's not a decisive case. Likewise, it's true that it ended up being so close as much because of Dirrell's mistakes as it was because of Froch's brilliance, but that doesn't change the fact that he made those mistakes and the margins of the fight narrowed accordingly.

If Dirrell had boxed throughout the fight the way he did in the final three rounds, for instance, then he'd have waltzed his way to a decision. But he blew it between rounds six and nine, big time. Clearly it was lost on Dirrell that making your opponent miss (usually by grabbing at every opportunity or ducking below the waist / simply moving so far out of range it's impossible for either man to hit the other, so basically out of the scoring zone) is all well and good, as long as you're actually trying to hit them from time to time. Dirrell was evading Froch's shots and making him look clumsy in missing alright, but at the same time he wasn't doing any fighting himself. Perfectly understandable that the judges would score those rounds in Froch's favour, regardless of where the fight took place.

Close fight, could have gone to either man, not at all guaranteed to go Dirrell's way in another city outside of Nottingham.

Again? What do you mean again? This board has not had the pleasure (yet) of my Froch analysis.

But for me Dirrell won that fight. Had it been in USA he would have won. Froch got the benefit of hometown scoring. Close fight mind. But Dirrell won more rounds.

It's a sensitive issue questioning froch on here az. Most of his family are admin.

The guy calls himself a massive international superstar. He's in denial about losing to Kessler. He slags off Calzaghe for doing a dance show, then does one himself.

Groves sends a link to a video making fun of the above, but according to some it's groves whose the t*sser.

Just accept that froch is a warrior, his only defeat doesn't count because ward was sneaky and stole the decision without actually fighting. He beats all comers despite being handicapped by trenchfoot.

Go back to slagging off Marciano, az. At least rocky doesn't have any family members on here.. Apart from ghosty/terror/hammersmith harrier, whatever he's called this week.

You keep saying he got the benefit of hometown scoring.........Which is an unsubstantiated opinion and not a fact.......

So say "In my opinion he got the benefit"........

Or maybe just give it up.........

milkyboy wrote:It's a sensitive issue questioning froch on here az. Most of his family are admin.

The guy calls himself a massive international superstar. He's in denial about losing to Kessler. He slags off Calzaghe for doing a dance show, then does one himself.

Groves sends a link to a video making fun of the above, but according to some it's groves whose the t*sser.

Just accept that froch is a warrior, his only defeat doesn't count because ward was sneaky and stole the decision without actually fighting. He beats all comers despite being handicapped by trenchfoot.

Go back to slagging off Marciano, az. At least rocky doesn't have any family members on here.. Apart from ghosty/terror/hammersmith harrier, whatever he's called this week.

Got a feeling milky doesn't like him..

The problem with the theory that Dirrell wins in America is the fact the american Hopkins didn't get the decision over Calzaghe in America.

Brodie-Jorrin ??

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The problem with the theory that Dirrell wins in America is the fact the american Hopkins didn't get the decision over Calzaghe in America.

Ohhh snap.

You know I never give up. Froch is a good fighter. But not as good as some claim him to be. Two guys have beaten him. Another lost a dubious decision and a fourth ran out of gas with seconds to go.

Credit for the Bute and Abraham wins though. But GG will surprise people with his talent and beat Froch by UD or late T/KO. Unless that is, Frochs takes it to the trenches where he is invincible.

I never slagged off Rocky. Just gave a critical appraisal of his talents and reign.

The fact we all agree.........Is even more proof in Az's eyes that he is right.......

Bless him If I was ever up for killing my Wife.......Which is a big possibility....Caught with my finger prints on the weapon and heard by witnesses screeaming take this b***h in between her screams.........

I'd love to have az as my lawyer.. he'd be convinced of my innocence and work tirelessly to get me off!!

azania wrote:You know I never give up. Froch is a good fighter. But not as good as some claim him to be. Two guys have beaten him. Another lost a dubious decision and a fourth ran out of gas with seconds to go.

Who doesn't acknowledge that? He's proven on a level above anything Groves has fought, and learnt from the fights he's lost.

azania wrote:Again? What do you mean again? This board has not had the pleasure (yet) of my Froch analysis.

But for me Dirrell won that fight. Had it been in USA he would have won. Froch got the benefit of hometown scoring. Close fight mind. But Dirrell won more rounds.

If you think he won, fair enough. I attended the fight and thought he'd maybe nicked it by a point on the night myself. That's not my issue. Seeing it again a little while back, I had it 114-113 to Froch (six rounds each with the point deduction costing Dirrell). It was that kind of fight.

If the fight had been in the States, it's entirely possible that Froch could still have got the nod, just as another set of judges could easily have come to Nottingham and given it to Dirrell by small margins. Do you really think that there was genuine, real disbelief from anyone when Froch got the verdict? Or that many people were saying at the final bell "Yep, Dirrell's won that, clearly" etc? I'd be surprised if there was, myself. I can tell you that in the stadium, the drunkards who were there for a punch up (horrible atmosphere that night, I have to admit) were all confident that Froch had bossed it (nonsense, I admit) while the ones who'd actually watched the fight properly were, in general, looking at each other with confusion, unsure of which way the decision would go.

Generally speaking a challenger would have hardly have fought at the same level as the champion. Groves has learnt from the fights he had issues in. He came through them with some style. He is rapidly improving.

Froch is probably believing his hype which will be his undoing.

BTW I do find the 'ran out of gas' excuse, as if only one person contributed to that, to be a bit of a cop out.

Most people go to shows to watch a punch up don't they........

Most non-drunkards prefer Hagler-Hearns to a whittaker fight.......

bit patronising that..

I wasn't there obvously, but after watching it on TV, I scored it to Dirrell even with the points deduction. Believe me when I say I was happy Froch got the nod.

Scottrf wrote:BTW I do find the 'ran out of gas' excuse, as if only one person contributed to that, to be a bit of a cop out.

He has a history of that. Nearly bombed out by Hop in both fights at the death. Got knackered against Pavlik in 7 rounds. He lacks stamina.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:It's a sensitive issue questioning froch on here az. Most of his family are admin.

The guy calls himself a massive international superstar. He's in denial about losing to Kessler. He slags off Calzaghe for doing a dance show, then does one himself.

Groves sends a link to a video making fun of the above, but according to some it's groves whose the t*sser.

Just accept that froch is a warrior, his only defeat doesn't count because ward was sneaky and stole the decision without actually fighting. He beats all comers despite being handicapped by trenchfoot.

Go back to slagging off Marciano, az. At least rocky doesn't have any family members on here.. Apart from ghosty/terror/hammersmith harrier, whatever he's called this week.

Got a feeling milky doesn't like him..

Bit like hatton truss. I used to not mind him, until I'd had my fill of his fanboys spouting their manlove. I also think froch has craved recognition so badly it's gone to his head. Respect his career and don't mind him when he 's not talking about himself.

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:BTW I do find the 'ran out of gas' excuse, as if only one person contributed to that, to be a bit of a cop out.

He has a history of that. Nearly bombed out by Hop in both fights at the death. Got knackered against Pavlik in 7 rounds. He lacks stamina.

Froch still had to win it?

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:It's a sensitive issue questioning froch on here az. Most of his family are admin.

The guy calls himself a massive international superstar. He's in denial about losing to Kessler. He slags off Calzaghe for doing a dance show, then does one himself.

Groves sends a link to a video making fun of the above, but according to some it's groves whose the t*sser.

Just accept that froch is a warrior, his only defeat doesn't count because ward was sneaky and stole the decision without actually fighting. He beats all comers despite being handicapped by trenchfoot.

Go back to slagging off Marciano, az. At least rocky doesn't have any family members on here.. Apart from ghosty/terror/hammersmith harrier, whatever he's called this week.

Got a feeling milky doesn't like him..

Bit like hatton truss. I used to not mind him, until I'd had my fill of his fanboys spouting their manlove. I also think froch has craved recognition so badly it's gone to his head. Respect his career and don't mind him when he 's not talking about himself.

The question is can you appraise him objectively.........If you can it's not a problem.......

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:BTW I do find the 'ran out of gas' excuse, as if only one person contributed to that, to be a bit of a cop out.

He has a history of that. Nearly bombed out by Hop in both fights at the death. Got knackered against Pavlik in 7 rounds. He lacks stamina.

Froch still had to win it?

And that he did. You can't win better than by KO. He did what he had to do. Credit to him for that. But it showed his limitations. A jab against him is an anathema.

azania wrote:And that he did. You can't win better than by KO. He did what he had to do. Credit to him for that. But it showed his limitations. A jab against him is an anathema.

I don't quite agree. Kessler has a decent jab, and Carl outjabbed/outboxed him for large periods of their fights.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Most people go to shows to watch a punch up don't they........

Most non-drunkards prefer Hagler-Hearns to a whittaker fight.......

bit patronising that..

No Truss, that's not what I meant - should have worded it differently. I mean the drunkards in the crowd who wanted to actually have a punch up themselves with other crowd members, of which there seemed to be a shed load in the stadium that night for whatever reason.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:It's a sensitive issue questioning froch on here az. Most of his family are admin.

The guy calls himself a massive international superstar. He's in denial about losing to Kessler. He slags off Calzaghe for doing a dance show, then does one himself.

Groves sends a link to a video making fun of the above, but according to some it's groves whose the t*sser.

Just accept that froch is a warrior, his only defeat doesn't count because ward was sneaky and stole the decision without actually fighting. He beats all comers despite being handicapped by trenchfoot.

Go back to slagging off Marciano, az. At least rocky doesn't have any family members on here.. Apart from ghosty/terror/hammersmith harrier, whatever he's called this week.

Got a feeling milky doesn't like him..

Bit like hatton truss. I used to not mind him, until I'd had my fill of his fanboys spouting their manlove. I also think froch has craved recognition so badly it's gone to his head. Respect his career and don't mind him when he 's not talking about himself.

The question is can you appraise him objectively.........If you can it's not a problem.......

I'm always objective with my subjective appraisals truss.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:And that he did. You can't win better than by KO. He did what he had to do. Credit to him for that. But it showed his limitations. A jab against him is an anathema.

I don't quite agree. Kessler has a decent jab, and Carl outjabbed/outboxed him for large periods of their fights.

GG has better all round skills, albeit still very raw and green, that Kess. Come fight night it will all click.

I like Froch for one reason and one reason only his willingness to fight everyone, I don't care much for him as a person but thankfully when he's fighting I don't have to listen to him much like Mayweather.

I have a lot of respect for Froch for his willingness to fight all comers. You can't fault him for his approach to boxing.

Do you hear May when he's fighting? There's a video of Floyd giving a running comentary or answering a question asked by the commentators during a fight.

He was talking to Jim Lampley about NFL I believe.

EDIT: Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaXwwpKIoi4

That's the one.

azania wrote:You know I never give up. Froch is a good fighter. But not as good as some claim him to be. Two guys have beaten him. Another lost a dubious decision and a fourth ran out of gas with seconds to go.

More like Two guys have beaten him one of which was razor close and of which he has since avenged, the other was against arguably the best boxer on the planet. Another won a close decision, it was not dubious in the slightest, just close, with parts of the fight where Froch was outboxed, other parts he was bossing it.... Dirrel is a good boxer and it was a close fight with no way Dirrell clearly winning it. And of course you sound like Groves would do better against him which of course the chances are he would also get a schooling from Dirrell.

And as for Taylor you act like Froch only done well in the 12, Froch was out boxed in the first 5 rounds and from the 6th started to impose him self and while he did eventually need the knock out, He did start to win rounds as the fight went on. But I fail to see how a 12 rnd knock out some how does not merit a victory? Ask your self what are Froches strengths and then ask if he applied them in that fight, then ask who won.

And if you want to go on about his close fights, then why not the fact Groves should have lost against Degale, where had it not been for a pro Groves crowd who were ecstatic that he was doing better than everyone thought, maybe the judges would have scored that one fairly as well and handed Groves his first defeat... not to mention the Anderson fight, where Anderson gassed, only having been conditioned for 6 rounds and hence losing in the 6th round...

Not watched it again since, but I did have good seats. I think I had Groves-DeGale wider than anyone, 116-112 if I remember correctly.

Johnson was finished when he fought Groves. He fought Froch as part of the Super Six which was a worthwhile venture and kept his career at the top alive. By Groves he knew he was a journeyman just paying the bills. The Contradiction was poor against Johnson but whipping Johnson didnt do much for Bute. Lets be honest, Georgie is going a similar way. Froch should go to light heavyweight iinstead of masquerading as a supermiddle champion. If Georgie is not worthy then he should test his chin and big nose against the bombs of Kovalov and Stevenson.

tunes666 wrote:

azania wrote:You know I never give up. Froch is a good fighter. But not as good as some claim him to be. Two guys have beaten him. Another lost a dubious decision and a fourth ran out of gas with seconds to go.

More like Two guys have beaten him one of which was razor close and of which he has since avenged, the other was against arguably the best boxer on the planet.  Another won a close decision, it was not dubious in the slightest, just close, with parts of the fight where Froch was outboxed, other parts he was bossing it.... Dirrel is a good boxer and it was a close fight with no way Dirrell clearly winning it.  And of course you sound like Groves would do better against him which of course the chances are he would also get a schooling from Dirrell.

And as for Taylor you act like Froch only done well in the 12, Froch was out boxed in the first 5 rounds and from the 6th started to impose him self and while he did eventually need the knock out, He did start to win rounds as the fight went on. But I fail to see how a 12 rnd knock out some how does not merit a victory? Ask your self what are Froches strengths and then ask if he applied them in that fight, then ask who won.

And if you want to go on about his close fights, then why not the fact Groves should have lost against Degale, where had it not been for a pro Groves crowd who were ecstatic that he was doing better than everyone thought, maybe the judges would have scored that one fairly as well and handed Groves his first defeat... not to mention the Anderson fight, where Anderson gassed, only having been conditioned for 6 rounds and hence losing in the 6th round...

Get the hell out of here. You sound like Froch himself. Ward schooled him. But it's pointless using that against Froch as Ward is special. The world champion with Froch being the best paper champ in the world.

Yes GG was in a close fight with JDG which could have gone either way. At the time I scored it for GG. But wouldnb't quibble if it went the other way. But to call the Ward b!tch slapping a razor thin win is a joke of revisionist proportions.

I love the way you insist that Groves lost to Degale Tunes despite almost everyone else agreeing it was a close fight that could have gone either way.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I love the way you insist that Groves lost to Degale Tunes despite almost everyone else agreeing it was a close fight that could have gone either way.

I did not say it was not a close fight, but every time I have watched it I have never been able to give it to Groves, bottom line is people dont like Degale very much... it was not a great fight and no one shone, but I would say if people think Dirrell beat Froch then there most certainly is a case for Degale beating Groves...

azania wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

azania wrote:You know I never give up. Froch is a good fighter. But not as good as some claim him to be. Two guys have beaten him. Another lost a dubious decision and a fourth ran out of gas with seconds to go.

More like Two guys have beaten him one of which was razor close and of which he has since avenged, the other was against arguably the best boxer on the planet.  Another won a close decision, it was not dubious in the slightest, just close, with parts of the fight where Froch was outboxed, other parts he was bossing it.... Dirrel is a good boxer and it was a close fight with no way Dirrell clearly winning it.  And of course you sound like Groves would do better against him which of course the chances are he would also get a schooling from Dirrell.

And as for Taylor you act like Froch only done well in the 12, Froch was out boxed in the first 5 rounds and from the 6th started to impose him self and while he did eventually need the knock out, He did start to win rounds as the fight went on. But I fail to see how a 12 rnd knock out some how does not merit a victory? Ask your self what are Froches strengths and then ask if he applied them in that fight, then ask who won.

And if you want to go on about his close fights, then why not the fact Groves should have lost against Degale, where had it not been for a pro Groves crowd who were ecstatic that he was doing better than everyone thought, maybe the judges would have scored that one fairly as well and handed Groves his first defeat... not to mention the Anderson fight, where Anderson gassed, only having been conditioned for 6 rounds and hence losing in the 6th round...

Get the hell out of here. You sound like Froch himself. Ward schooled him. But it's pointless using that against Froch as Ward is special. The world champion with Froch being the best paper champ in the world.

Yes GG was in a close fight with JDG which could have gone either way. At the time I scored it for GG. But wouldnb't quibble if it went the other way. But to call the Ward b!tch slapping a razor thin win is a joke of revisionist proportions.

You have misread my post, I did not say Ward fight was close, I said the Kessler fight was close, and a fight he avenged. I did say that Ward beat him and that Ward is arguably the best p4p fighter out there at the moment... Ward would beat Groves while eating a cheeseburger in one hand.

Judging is subjective and difficult when a fight is razor thin. The Dirrell fight and GG fight could have gone either way but for me the Dirrell fight was clearer.

The point isn't who has beaten a better caliber of opponent. Clearly that is Froch. But GG is improving. He hasn't reached his peak yet. But I feel he has enough to do a number on Froch. Also Froch isn't as good as some believe. I find him an ungainly boxer who relies on trench warfare and a battle of wills.

The Kess fight was close also. But Kess was a clear winner. He was the better fighter. Yes he avenged it but Kess has slipped. He took time out to let his injuries heal and got a beating from Ward.