Carl Froch Plans To Punish Jermain Taylor in April

[Dave Rado]

Good ones!

Still I always prefer brain over brawn. Should be a very interesting fight.

Froch's brain in the ring is often underestimated, IMO. He's more skilled and strategic than most people give him credit for.

His brain when he's not in the ring is a different matter, of course.

[BattlingNelson]

Froch's brain in the ring is often underestimated, IMO. He's more skilled and strategic than most people give him credit for.

His brain when he's not in the ring is a different matter, of course.

I admit I've only seen highlights of Froch besides the Pascal fight. I wasn't impressed with his brains in that fight. He's a bit to easy to hit for my liking.

[Dave Rado]

I admit I've only seen highlights of Froch besides the Pascal fight. I wasn't impressed with his brains in that fight. He's a bit to easy to hit for my liking.

In the first half of the fight he neglected his jab, and admitted later that he got carried away with wanting to be crowd pleasing. In the second half he used his jab much more, and IMO he won the second half very easily.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

In the first half of the fight he neglected his jab, and admitted later that he got carried away with wanting to be crowd pleasing. In the second half he used his jab much more, and IMO he won the second half very easily.

While still being very hittable.

Kessler would break that chin, and I like Carl a lot.

[Zmlacksz]

Taylor gets no credit for winning this, Froch is a hype job. 22 real bums. His best win against part time Canadian policeman Pascal.

[dstew]

As I said in the end he had to take the fight as he had no where else to go but if he had another route he would have taken it.

Simple man.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Not only did Taylor have anouther route, he almost took it by fighting Alan Green. They actually had a verbal agreement. Then FROCH wisened up, realized he needed Taylor more than Taylor needed him, and basically accepted an offer that was made to him back in December. Taylor's not the one who changed his mind to make this fight happen; Froch was.

Quote from Lou DiBella:

"Back on December 20th last year, I offered Hennessey a deal that he refused. But now, six weeks later, he has accepted what is basically the same deal. The only difference is he will be getting $50,000 more! So I'm really laughing at why he has done this and still talked all that crap in the news! Why has he changed his mind when it's almost an identical deal? Why has he said we didn't want the fight, when he has now accepted the original deal (plus an additional $50,000) I put on the table weeks ago? This fight has never been waiting on us, it's only been waiting on him [Hennessey].

I feel bad for Allan Green, who I also promote. I told him verbally he would be fighting Jermain and he's even started training camp. He will now fight on the under-card if the fight goes down. "

from east side boxing dot com

[Dave Rado]

While still being very hittable.

Kessler would break that chin, and I like Carl a lot.

Kessler, absolutely, but Taylor-Froch is a pick 'em fight, IMO.

[NakiFan]

I like how when someone says Froch can beat Taylor, someone says Kessley would Ice Froch, that has nothing to do with anything, and on the note of Kessler, what is it with this division?

Kessler, Mundine, Calzaghe, all of them are duckers, ok calzaghe is retired now but still...

[Kris Silver]

I like how when someone says Froch can beat Taylor, someone says Kessley would Ice Froch, that has nothing to do with anything, and on the note of Kessler, what is it with this division?

Kessler, Mundine, Calzaghe, all of them are duckers, ok calzaghe is retired now but still...

Calzaghe wanted Taylor:





"I'm just hoping he doesn't take up any more fights against blown-up welterweights and instead gives the fans what they want to see - and that's a fight against a champion.

"I'll go anywhere to find the big fights. I saw somewhere that Taylor wants in the region of $6million to fight me," he said.

"If I was offered that I'd go to his back garden and let his mum be the referee.



So does Kessler:

[WESS]

After the first fight:

:

Taylor won the first fight by controversial split decision but was unhappy with his performance and has vowed to do better the second time around. In contrast, Hopkins - who gave away too many early rounds in their first meeting - was satisfied with his performance and insists he was robbed.

Vegas oddsmakers view the rematch as a virtual tossup after Taylor's controversial victory five months ago ended Hopkins' division-record streak of 20 successful title defenses

In their first bout, on July 16, Taylor won a controversial split decision to hand Hopkins his first defeat in 12 years and take over the championship belts.

After the second fight:


krikya360.com

In need of a clear, decisive win to cement his identity, Taylor’s rematch with Hopkins was twelve rounds more of the same – the same tentative performance, the same mechanical and mental flaws, the same unanimous decision going his way while a majority of informed observers filled their cards out in favor of the forty-year-old.

Sometimes controversy is as clear as things will ever get.

Jermain Taylor and Bernard Hopkins could fight all they want and it would probably always be close and disputed. That's not to say it would always be thrilling. Taylor successfully held on to his middleweight title, but if you listened to the people from ringside to rafter at Mandalay Bay arena whether he proved to be the better fighter tonight is still highly debatable.

All judges (Dave Moretti, Chuck Giampa, Patricia Morse Jarman) saw it at 115-113 for the defending champion.

The result was less clear to the rest of us. An informal exit poll showed equal support for each side. Maybe the question is whether or not Hopkins did enough to take the unified belts. The intangible edge said to favor a champ may have been the only margin of victory Taylor had. Such an edge is not actually supposed to exist on the scorecards.

Did you ever stop and think that the JT fight was controversial because Hop hadn't lost a fight in 10 years at that point and time and was the favorite? My point is between Joe's ugly "pitty pat" "slaps" (which would be killer in olympic scoring) and Hops precise but few shots made it tough to score. Which leads to controversy. Do you give the guy who hits you almost every time but doesn't throw a lot or the guy that swings at most anything nonstop but lands every once in a blue moon? Now I know Calzaghe landed more punches than anyone has ever landed on Hop but is that really something to brag about when "According to COMPUBOX numbers, after untidy 12 rounds, Calzaghe landed 232 punches compared to Hopkins’ 126".

"But whilst Calzaghe was busier and forced the pace throughout, he found it virtually impossible to catch Hopkins cleanly with the knuckle part of the glove on the target area. Flurries of cuffing punches hitting arms, legs and on occasions, below the beltline, may have looked impressive but they shouldn’t have counted. In contrast, when the veteran Hopkins did land, it was usually **** on the button, typified by the impeccably timed right hand which dropped Calzaghe in the opening minute of the fight".

This explains why IMO it was controversial and hard to score because Joe hits legs, arms, shoulders, ring posts, fans, refs, everything in sight with the desperate (i'm losing the fight) sloppy "wind mill" attempts. Which Hopkins again points out. Ugly fight but I would watch them go at it again.

I took a second and did a search for the Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins fight and this is was I got, and what do you know its a British website. So not being biased about it right? I mean I'm American and since Prince Hamed is one of my ALL TIME FAVORITES (I love the fact Khan "beat" Barrera) that makes me biased right? Not really.

Anyway I didn't take more than a few seconds and this is what came up. The guy points out key points on why it was controversial and or difficult to score and ultimately points out that he thinks Joe won. So again not a "biased" link.

.

Hops CLEAR precise shots and Joe's "wind milling" away at everything and you have a tuff controversial score. More controversial than JT, of course I'll have to say IMO because its not a fact but it makes more sense.

Anyway of course all the ESPN's and TIME magazines etc. would have headlines like that about JT's win(s). Its because as stated before Hop hadn't lost a fight for nearly 10 years. Controversial? More like a shock of Hopkins losing to THE "NEW GUY".

Definition-
Controversy: An American fighter VS a British fighter. That's controversy in its own. lol That settles it once and for all!

Anyway you have a solid point with the HEADLINES but like I said only reason JT's win(s) were a big deal was because he was the new guy that "beat" the old vet who hadn't lost in nearly 10 years...... my opinion but i'm sticking to it. JT deserved his win(s). He looked a hell of a lot better beating Hop (twice) than Joe Calzaghe did.

Anyway you'll have to excuses the typing. I'm at work and in a hurry! Yes I know its SUNDAY! Who works on SUNDAY?


Note: This is a lot longer than originally planned. My bad!

and I also still have JT beating Froch.