Carl Froch vs. James DeGale.

[tiptv]

Good fight that

[Primo Carnera]

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 really

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?

dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lot

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?
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?

you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a title

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

TomAto, Tomato , PotAto, Potato, my furry friend. oops....... cue the Homophobic anger management classes.
Capitalising "stuff" (I think I put it in Bold and "putting Stuff in quotes is merely to accentuate my point and for the purpose of Clarity.
ps. you didn't originally say Burns nicked it vs Martinez, you said Martinez didn't win it Big. there is a difference , but you probably won't see it cos it's GAY!

[erics44]

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 really

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?

dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lot

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?
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?

you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a title

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

TomAto, Tomato , PotAto, Potato, my furry friend. oops....... cue the Homophobic anger management classes.
Capitalising "stuff" (I think I put it in Bold and "putting Stuff in quotes is merely to accentuate my point and for the purpose of Clarity.
ps. you didn't originally say Burns nicked it vs Martinez, you said Martinez didn't win it Big. there is a difference , but you probably won't see it cos it's GAY!

Apples and Carrots

but burns nicking it or martinez not winning it big is like tomato tomato

just to confirm tho, its more gay saying someone is gay for not seeing something that they clearly saw and when actually it was you yourself who didnt see it

in fact thats gay lord levels - or whatever the gayest you can be is

[Primo Carnera]

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 really

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?

dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lot

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?
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?

you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a title

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

TomAto, Tomato , PotAto, Potato, my furry friend. oops....... cue the Homophobic anger management classes.
Capitalising "stuff" (I think I put it in Bold and "putting Stuff in quotes is merely to accentuate my point and for the purpose of Clarity.
ps. you didn't originally say Burns nicked it vs Martinez, you said Martinez didn't win it Big. there is a difference , but you probably won't see it cos it's GAY!

1.Apples and Carrots

2.but burns nicking it or martinez not winning it big is like tomato tomato

3.just to confirm tho, its more gay saying someone is gay for not seeing something that they clearly saw and when actually it was you yourself who didnt see it

4.in fact thats gay lord levels - or whatever the gayest you can be is

1. What?
2. Well I did say you wouldn't be able to see the difference , and you proved me right! Cheers for that.
3. I suppose that heap of bollocks makes sense in your World.
4. Very good. So what else did you learn at school today? Your times tables or that Babies don't get delivered by Storks!
Fucking priceless!

[erics44]

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 really

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?

dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lot

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?
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?

you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a title

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

TomAto, Tomato , PotAto, Potato, my furry friend. oops....... cue the Homophobic anger management classes.
Capitalising "stuff" (I think I put it in Bold and "putting Stuff in quotes is merely to accentuate my point and for the purpose of Clarity.
ps. you didn't originally say Burns nicked it vs Martinez, you said Martinez didn't win it Big. there is a difference , but you probably won't see it cos it's GAY!

1.Apples and Carrots

2.but burns nicking it or martinez not winning it big is like tomato tomato

3.just to confirm tho, its more gay saying someone is gay for not seeing something that they clearly saw and when actually it was you yourself who didnt see it

4.in fact thats gay lord levels - or whatever the gayest you can be is

1. What?
2. Well I did say you wouldn't be able to see the difference , and you proved me right! Cheers for that.
3. I suppose that heap of bollocks makes sense in your World.
4. Very good. So what else did you learn at school today? Your times tables or that Babies don't get delivered by Storks!
Fucking priceless!

It's also very gay numbering sentences and using the - are you still at school joke, you'll be calling me a troll next or saying I don't know anything about boxing

Anyway, fact is its utter bollox when people say the challenger has to win the rounds big to win the title

[Primo Carnera]

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 really

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?

dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lot

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?
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?

you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a title

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

TomAto, Tomato , PotAto, Potato, my furry friend. oops....... cue the Homophobic anger management classes.
Capitalising "stuff" (I think I put it in Bold and "putting Stuff in quotes is merely to accentuate my point and for the purpose of Clarity.
ps. you didn't originally say Burns nicked it vs Martinez, you said Martinez didn't win it Big. there is a difference , but you probably won't see it cos it's GAY!

1.Apples and Carrots

2.but burns nicking it or martinez not winning it big is like tomato tomato

3.just to confirm tho, its more gay saying someone is gay for not seeing something that they clearly saw and when actually it was you yourself who didnt see it

4.in fact thats gay lord levels - or whatever the gayest you can be is

1. What?
2. Well I did say you wouldn't be able to see the difference , and you proved me right! Cheers for that.
3. I suppose that heap of bollocks makes sense in your World.
4. Very good. So what else did you learn at school today? Your times tables or that Babies don't get delivered by Storks!
Fucking priceless!

It's also very gay numbering sentences and using the - are you still at school joke, you'll be calling me a troll next or saying I don't know anything about boxing

Anyway, fact is its utter bollox when people say the challenger has to win the rounds big to win the title

Well you seem an expert on what's "gay" and what isn't and you seem very insecure worrying about me calling you things or thinking I will question your pugilistic knowledge.
Your entitled to your opinion , but what do they say about opinions being like assholes-everyone has one. Well, yours is starting to smell a bit.

[erics44]

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 really

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?

dude, again i hear what you are saying and i hear people say that a lot

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?
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?

you are saying a challenger has to win big to win a title

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

TomAto, Tomato , PotAto, Potato, my furry friend. oops....... cue the Homophobic anger management classes.
Capitalising "stuff" (I think I put it in Bold and "putting Stuff in quotes is merely to accentuate my point and for the purpose of Clarity.
ps. you didn't originally say Burns nicked it vs Martinez, you said Martinez didn't win it Big. there is a difference , but you probably won't see it cos it's GAY!

1.Apples and Carrots

2.but burns nicking it or martinez not winning it big is like tomato tomato

3.just to confirm tho, its more gay saying someone is gay for not seeing something that they clearly saw and when actually it was you yourself who didnt see it

4.in fact thats gay lord levels - or whatever the gayest you can be is

1. What?
2. Well I did say you wouldn't be able to see the difference , and you proved me right! Cheers for that.
3. I suppose that heap of bollocks makes sense in your World.
4. Very good. So what else did you learn at school today? Your times tables or that Babies don't get delivered by Storks!
Fucking priceless!

It's also very gay numbering sentences and using the - are you still at school joke, you'll be calling me a troll next or saying I don't know anything about boxing

Anyway, fact is its utter bollox when people say the challenger has to win the rounds big to win the title

Well you seem an expert on what's "gay" and what isn't and you seem very insecure worrying about me calling you things or thinking I will question your pugilistic knowledge.
Your entitled to your opinion , but what do they say about opinions being like assholes-everyone has one. Well, yours is starting to smell a bit.

You know what also they say about arseholes?

[brocktonblockbust]

how did this turn into a GAY thread? Lets get back to it boys: KING KONG KARL FROCH SMOKES DEGALE IN 6 GOOD ROUNDS. KING KARL, YEAH, HE'S THE MAN @Dia bando and make no calzones about it! bwahahaha

[erics44]

how did this turn into a GAY thread? Lets get back to it boys: KING KONG KARL FROCH SMOKES DEGALE IN 6 GOOD ROUNDS. KING KARL, YEAH, HE'S THE MAN @Dia bando and make no calzones about it! bwahahaha

you could have at least continued the huge quoting

[Primo Carnera]

how did this turn into a GAY thread? Lets get back to it boys: KING KONG KARL FROCH SMOKES DEGALE IN 6 GOOD ROUNDS. KING KARL, YEAH, HE'S THE MAN @Dia bando and make no calzones about it! bwahahaha

you could have at least continued the huge quoting

Nah, that would be Gay!

[Master]

how did this turn into a GAY thread? Lets get back to it boys: KING KONG KARL FROCH SMOKES DEGALE IN 6 GOOD ROUNDS. KING KARL, YEAH, HE'S THE MAN @Dia bando and make no calzones about it! bwahahaha

you could have at least continued the huge quoting

Nah, that would be Gay!

Also spoiling my enjoyment of reading your posts.

[GAME]

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.

Yeah I get what you're saying and it would be my main concern for james in this fight. As impressive as he was vs Gonzales and periban there were still moments where he took his foot off the gas & went on walkabout. He needs to stay focused on the gameplan & not get distracted cuz he's be in with a real shout given his superior speed. George did well early in the 1st froch fight when he stood his ground but he is chinny and fades. Degale doesn't suffer from that although he does need abit more experience before he's thrown to carl.

I'd put james in with dirrel tomorrow. Abraham would be a valuable experience too. Carl at this stage is abit risky. Id say 50-50 but in 6 months I'd favour james to beat the Nottingham legend

[johnsebastianmiran]

This fight would be close for only one reason, Froch wanted a fight on American soil in Vegas, remember? Money has been known to affect enthusiasm and at this point in Froch's career, cash is like smelling salts used to be in the corners, an eye opener that brings you back to life.