Who would win?
Printable View
Who would win?
Hungry, fresh and strong Froch would wipe out De Gale but this current one may not be bothered to fight him.
Froch digs deep, still wins it.
War Froch War!
King Carl eat Calzones for breakfast ;) every day of the week, bitches!Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
I think this is one fight too far for Froch. Degale's just too quick and awkward for me. Precisely the style of fighter Froch struggles with. If it happens I'm thinking a close decision for Degale who's really impressed me in his last few outings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1-hit Wonder
^^ Could be right there.
In a pig's eye .;DQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustKing Carl eat Calzones for breakfast ;) every day of the week, bitches!Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
Froch Clearly can't be bothered with the fight, but if it's made, he won't take Degale lightly , he learnt that lesson from the Groves fights to be fair. If the fight is made , Froch will win on points. To take the title on points , you have to win rounds pretty convincingly and I don't think Degale works hard enough for 3 minutes every round to do that. admittedly , his last 2 fights have been much better, but I'm not totally convinced. I'm not convinced Degale would beat Groves either, and within 18 months , Callum Smith will mop the lot up.
i hear what you are saying dude but is this not utter bollox reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Not sure what you mean, but you don't take the title from a champion by "shading" rounds or boxing for 1 or 1/2 minutes a round. Any doubt and the Champion gets given the round. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44i hear what you are saying dude but is this not utter bollox reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraNot sure what you mean, but you don't take the title from a champion by "shading" rounds or boxing for 1 or 1/2 minutes a round. Any doubt and the Champion gets given the round. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44i hear what you are saying dude but is this not utter bollox reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
but really its a myth (utter bollox)
plenty of people have nicked titles
its more true that you dont take a title from a fighter unless you win big because you are fighting in their back yard under their promotion
at times you can win big and still not win the title (ricky burns v raymund beltrum)
if a champion takes his title to another fighters back yard under the challengers promotion then the champion often has to win big (ricky burns v roman martinez)
in fact, if any fighter is fighting another fighter in their back yard under their promotion then they usually have to win big title or no title (prescott v Mclousky and many more)
i wont finish my post with "Clear?" because that would be gay :)
Ok , here we go again! :) "plenty of people have nicked titles" OK my Pedigree Chum (forgive me, if that's "Gay" ;), but Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraNot sure what you mean, but you don't take the title from a champion by "shading" rounds or boxing for 1 or 1/2 minutes a round. Any doubt and the Champion gets given the round. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44i hear what you are saying dude but is this not utter bollox reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
but really its a myth (utter bollox)
plenty of people have nicked titles
its more true that you dont take a title from a fighter unless you win big because you are fighting in their back yard under their promotion
at times you can win big and still not win the title (ricky burns v raymund beltrum)
if a champion takes his title to another fighters back yard under the challengers promotion then the champion often has to win big (ricky burns v roman martinez)
in fact, if any fighter is fighting another fighter in their back yard under their promotion then they usually have to win big title or no title (prescott v Mclousky and many more)
i wont finish my post with "Clear?" because that would be gay :)
I agree about fighters in their opponents back yard or on their promotion bill. The old saying" you have to knock him out just to get a draw " is relevant all around the World, including the UK.
an example of what I'm saying is Froch v Groves 1 . At least one Judge had the Rounds even (one point difference for the knockdown.) when it was clear to everyone that Froch only won one round out of 8! I don't believe that is just about the promotion or the location, that is about taking a World Title.
Having said that I believe we aren't very far away from each other in what we're saying, probably both spitting hairs a bit. CLEAR? ;D;D;D;D
you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a titleQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraOk , here we go again! :) "plenty of people have nicked titles" OK my Pedigree Chum (forgive me, if that's "Gay" ;), but Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraNot sure what you mean, but you don't take the title from a champion by "shading" rounds or boxing for 1 or 1/2 minutes a round. Any doubt and the Champion gets given the round. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44i hear what you are saying dude but is this not utter bollox reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
but really its a myth (utter bollox)
plenty of people have nicked titles
its more true that you dont take a title from a fighter unless you win big because you are fighting in their back yard under their promotion
at times you can win big and still not win the title (ricky burns v raymund beltrum)
if a champion takes his title to another fighters back yard under the challengers promotion then the champion often has to win big (ricky burns v roman martinez)
in fact, if any fighter is fighting another fighter in their back yard under their promotion then they usually have to win big title or no title (prescott v Mclousky and many more)
i wont finish my post with "Clear?" because that would be gay :)
I agree about fighters in their opponents back yard or on their promotion bill. The old saying" you have to knock him out just to get a draw " is relevant all around the World, including the UK.
an example of what I'm saying is Froch v Groves 1 . At least one Judge had the Rounds even (one point difference for the knockdown.) when it was clear to everyone that Froch only won one round out of 8! I don't believe that is just about the promotion or the location, that is about taking a World Title.
Having said that I believe we aren't very far away from each other in what we're saying, probably both spitting hairs a bit. CLEAR? ;D;D;D;D
i am saying the non promotional fighter has to win big to win, title or not
theres a massive difference
and i already gave an example of a challenger nicking a title in burns v martinez
and yes saying the words pedigree chum on a boxing forum is gay
as is capitalising stuff and putting stuff in quotes