Explore the BBC
Awesome fight!!! and a very close one!!I think hometown advantage and the greater workrate throught the 12 rounds from the Dane was key to the victory.Super 6 is wide open.
view all 120 comments
posted Apr 27, 2010
do i like froch - No. Am I glad he lost - not particulalry, but it proved what i always thought, that he would come unstuck against someone with a bit of savvy who could box.this wasnt even a great kessler, he was just better than froch. anyone who argues that froch was robbed is fooling themselves. 6 rounds is laughable but 3 IMO is realistic.as to froch calling out calzaghe - theres nowt wrong with that. its what boxers do. the guy on the way up always calls out the main man. it was however the manner in which he conducted himself that narked many people. he continued to bad mouth joe even after he retired. its not as if joe ducked him, he moved up in weight and went to the US and beat hopkins. was the fight close? no doubts but check out the official compubox stats for that fight.joe threw more and landed more punches than hopkins and in fact threw more and landed more punches than hopkins had ever been hit with in all his fights tracked by compubox. thats why he got the nod on the scorecards.lastly, in many ways i would have loved to have seen joe fight froch. they arent on the same planet, it would be jeff lacy all over again. however, joe is retired and i cant see him coming back. froch reminds me of junior witter in that they are both obsessed with their more successful/popular counterparts. froch does nothing to endear himself to the public and i think that, along with a rubbish promoter, is part of the reason why he has no real UK TV deal
add comment |
complain about this comment
Froch doesn't and did not throw enough punches for a start, he also did not capitalise on his successes.Also from watching his last 3 or 4 fights it has become apparent Froch has little or no defence. I can appreciate boxers with great speed and reflexes can keep their hands low, Froch has neither of these. Froch basically keeps his hands low, keeps himself out of punching range then bounds into range to throw punches with little or no head movement. It is no wonder he takes so many big head shots. However fair play to him as he definitely has a granite chin, as he has illustrated time and time and time again.
Have to disagree with that baresi concerning your defence comments.One of the good things that came out of this fight for Froch was how well he defended himself.He made Kessler miss an awful lot of punches by slipping parrying punvhes etc all with his arm low.Ok he's never going to be Floyd Mayweather, but it was better than what I expected from Froch on that front.
posted Apr 28, 2010
I think Carl Froch has met his match, he's a good boxer but not at great boxer, all this will Calzaghe, he's not in the same league as Joe and the same with home advantage ect, Calzaghe and Hatton to go to america and win, i think Froch has spat the dummy out, because he isn't as good as he thinks he is.
posted Apr 29, 2010
First of all... Calzaghe was NEVER beaten or even come close to being beaten in his whole career anyone who says he has doesn't have a clue about boxing. He has been caught a couple of time and rarley put on the floor but the fighter ALWAYS paided for doing it... Calzaghe was just a legend of boxing.As for Froch well... VERY disapointed in him. He's not what we all thought he is... Why should he quit the super six??? They are the best 6 fighter in the division and if he wants to be the best he has to beat them.... If he quits then he is just a LOSER... End off..The super six should be brought into the Mayweather and Pacman Division... Then them 2 should be forced to fight each other... Then if 1 backs out you know who the coward really is....
markowire (U8183820),Alot of people think Joe got beat by Reid and Hopkins.
JC has never really been beat up in a fight. He has come close to having lost. But has not been beat, to the point he should think about retiring.
Enlightened (U10784368)posted 2 Days AgoAndy (U10262866),Calzaghe was beaten by Robin Reid, Sakio Bika and Bernard Hopkins. Biased judging on these occassions saved him.Carl Froch, Ricky Hatton and Calzaghe all similar in standard. Its just that Calzaghe was very crafty with his management and ofcourse had incredible 'luck' to win 3 fights he should have lost (2 of them not even world beaters and the 3rd one a very old man)_______________What a bad post.First: the Reid fight was close but i think Joe deserved the win. Hardly biased judges (the fight was in England after all)Secondly: to say Bika won is not worthy of scrutinyThirdly: Bernard Hopkins lost fair and square but the "old man" tag doesn't wash because joe was 36 and also because BHop went on to smash Pavlik who was hailed as the next big thing at the time and because BHop is STILL in most top pound for pound lists... Froch was calling out BHop before the super 6.The fact is Froch isn't anywhere near the levelof Joe and let's face it- Dirrell and Pascal were on the wrong side of those decisions and Taylor was on top until the last 10 seconds. Also - every fight Froch is involved in - he gets pummelled. He never wins comfortably and how many fights like this can he take?Finally, last week the Froch lovers were banging on about how Froch will fight anyone anywhere... now we have the Abraham debacle. Thoughts?
Finally, last week the Froch lovers were banging on about how Froch will fight anyone anywhere... now we have the Abraham debacle. *Thoughts?*
posted May 4, 2010
Intelligent comment Bamber. Cheers. Just the kind of thoughtful, well reasoned and persuasive argument that makes me enjoy these boards so much...Maybe if you hadn't "lost interest" in boxing when it "went off normal tv" (in the late 1980's) you would have an idea about current boxing/boxers.Now jog on
average rating:4.31 from 13 votes