How I correctly predicted that Carl Froch would beat Jermain Taylor...

[S A M U R A I]

I might spend the whole day sucking my own **** I think.

LOL. Green K.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

[Butterball]

God bless brother.

[Butterball]

................

[Butterball]

[bsrizpac]

.. you might remember in a poll thread (which I can't find on search) I gave Froch a 52.1% chance of victory and predicted he would win the fight.

Over the last two-three years I've only got THREE fight picks wrong - none of which involved UK boxers.

Naturally, of course, in picking Froch I was a "homer" and not objective like the American posters (Drewwoodside, I'm looking at you) who picked the American to win.


Here's how I did it, this is how I break it down:



1. Mental Attitude.

I always start a fight pick with this. The mental fortitude is where the fight always begins and ends, within reason. Some fights you can even tell who the winner is before they've entered the ring - Jones-Tarver II and Calzaghe-Lacy being two recent examples.

The major difference between Froch and Taylor is that Taylor is a professional sportsman, Froch is a natural fighter. That's the difference. Taylor calls himself "bad intentions" but it's Froch that has the "dog" in him. Taylor has shown in the past that he can be stopped and not recover, and also lose focus, whereas Froch has the hunger. Jermain has shown that not only is he prepared to lose (Pavlik II), but that when pressed he will capitulate.

I concede that this was slightly off in this fight, given that Taylor showed more fortitude than I'd expected (when it was going his way, at least) and Froch showed more doubt.

But look at when Froch got decked, and the round right after - he's trying to make the fight. The final thirty seconds of round three, post-KD, were Froch pressing forward. That's the "X Factor" I was using to calculate my pick for this fight.



2. Physical Equipment.

Taylor's the faster one, the better boxer, Froch arguably has the edge in power. But - and this is crucial - Taylor has a leaky gas tank. This is what I've always said from DAY ONE. The guy has a (I'll concede, not THAT pronounced tonight) stamina issue. This was a VITAL FACTOR in my fight pick. I'd reasoned that Froch - who was decked for the first time today, amateur or pro - would be able to last the distance. But expecting Jermain to go twelve long rounds with Froch and stay on his feet against a noted ****er was expecting a lot.

People would tell me that my pick was a "biased" (or "bias") one, as Taylor was clearly the better boxer. But I wasn't picking Carl to win a boxing match, I was picking him to win a FIGHT. I can't comment too closely on my scorecard as the stream I was watching kept dropping out, so it was anyone's guess for close rounds. But regardless, Froch needed a least a couple of KDs.

People seem to forget that Taylor was beaten TWICE by a boxer who's even more upright, just as slow (maybe?) and even more one-dimensional than Froch can be. When people talk about what a great boxer Taylor is - and he IS a very good boxer - they seem to forget that he's, at best, a nine round fighter. This is a guy that was backed up by Cory Spinks and Kassim Ouma, and Froch is fully-fledged supermiddle.



3. Experience.

This is where the doubt set in, and why Taylor got a 48.9% chance from me. Carl has never - THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN - had the opportunity to step up this far before. Could he make the leap? Just because he hasn't, doesn't mean he can't, but there's no way of knowing until he did.

Conversely, people talk a lot about Jermain's experience, even though he went 2-1-2 in those "big five" fights (and 1-0-4 on my card).

People mention opponents like Winky Wright, and while Winky is an excellent technical boxer, HE CAN'T **** AT MIDDLEWEIGHT. People seem to think that Winky being P4P top ten means that he carries that "P4P" up with him through the rankings. HE DOESN'T. He's not a proper MW, he's certainly NOT A LHW (or catchweight). He's a smaller guy, so Winky putting on 7lbs and calling himself a middle doesn't make him a fully fledged middle.

Let's get this straight before it gets out and some idiot tries to deliberately misunderstand my point - I AM NOT saying that Froch is a better boxer than Wright. The fact that he was getting beaten to the punch all night while I had Wright beating Taylor attests that.

What I AM saying is that Wright doesn't win fights by stoppage. He's NOT a puncher. Gas out against Wright late (as, surprise, Taylor did) and all you'll get is a black eye. Gas out against Froch late and ... well, you saw.




YET AGAIN I was right with a fight pick. Jesus, it gets boring sometimes.

Drewwoodside, you owe me an apology for accusing me of being a homer.

Like I said, Froch would WIN. I DIDN'T say he would outbox Taylor, I said he would win the fight.


Here's my video:

Great post. And good analysis style. The mental aspect always gets ignored.

However Lacy vs. Joe doesn't count. Joe won that because Lacy is pure **** that was never any good to begin with. **** mentality, that dude just plain sucks my left nut.

[Butterball]

Great post. And good analysis style. The mental aspect always gets ignored.

However Lacy vs. Joe doesn't count. Joe won that because Lacy is pure **** that was never any good to begin with. **** mentality, that dude just plain sucks my left nut.

Fair play, though my point was that as soon as I saw Lacy's face in his ringwalk (esp. after seeing Joe's in his dressing room beforehand) I said to myself "****, Joe's won this. He's going to beat Lacy." I suspected he might - possibly by controversial decision - but that settled it for me.

I wouldn't spend so much time (tongue-in-cheek) sucking my own **** about fight picks if I didn't have to listen to all this "Brit" **** all the time. Granted, it doesn't help that fairweather fans stink the place up. When I joined this site there was only me and about six other guys, and they could all master putting two sentences together. But then Calzaghe vs Lacy, Hatton vs Tsyzu, now this... it's dragged in too many "boxing fan for five minutes" posters.

What was I talking about? Oh yeah, in my original fight pick thread, I got called a homer by two individual people. They were talking to me like I was the thickest **** in the world for not realising that Taylor was a much better boxer. Obviously I knew he was, but he's just a gas out ****er there for the taking after ten rounds.




Oh yeah, another thing about Lacy. When I saw him against The Sandman, I saw him miss like crazy, give the Sandman about 5000 countering opportunities with a slow, wide open stance, get a not-that-great KD and then saw the Sandman just sit down and clearly take a dive (not in a paid off way, just in a "**** it, I only turned up for the $$$$" way) and stay sat down. Then I logged on to read how it was a devasting KO and Lacy was P4P material. That's the kind of difference leading up to the 2005 events I saw. Most of these ****ers don't use their EYES, of course.

[Butterball]

[S.G.]

my record ain't too bad either.....

back slaps and circle jerks for everyone who predicted Froch would get the win

[Easy-E]

.. you might remember in a poll thread (which I can't find on search) I gave Froch a 52.1% chance of victory and predicted he would win the fight.

Over the last two-three years I've only got THREE fight picks wrong - none of which involved UK boxers.

Naturally, of course, in picking Froch I was a "homer" and not objective like the American posters (Drewwoodside, I'm looking at you) who picked the American to win.


Here's how I did it, this is how I break it down:



1. Mental Attitude.

I always start a fight pick with this. The mental fortitude is where the fight always begins and ends, within reason. Some fights you can even tell who the winner is before they've entered the ring - Jones-Tarver II and Calzaghe-Lacy being two recent examples.

The major difference between Froch and Taylor is that Taylor is a professional sportsman, Froch is a natural fighter. That's the difference. Taylor calls himself "bad intentions" but it's Froch that has the "dog" in him. Taylor has shown in the past that he can be stopped and not recover, and also lose focus, whereas Froch has the hunger. Jermain has shown that not only is he prepared to lose (Pavlik II), but that when pressed he will capitulate.

I concede that this was slightly off in this fight, given that Taylor showed more fortitude than I'd expected (when it was going his way, at least) and Froch showed more doubt.

But look at when Froch got decked, and the round right after - he's trying to make the fight. The final thirty seconds of round three, post-KD, were Froch pressing forward. That's the "X Factor" I was using to calculate my pick for this fight.



2. Physical Equipment.

Taylor's the faster one, the better boxer, Froch arguably has the edge in power. But - and this is crucial - Taylor has a leaky gas tank. This is what I've always said from DAY ONE. The guy has a (I'll concede, not THAT pronounced tonight) stamina issue. This was a VITAL FACTOR in my fight pick. I'd reasoned that Froch - who was decked for the first time today, amateur or pro - would be able to last the distance. But expecting Jermain to go twelve long rounds with Froch and stay on his feet against a noted ****er was expecting a lot.

People would tell me that my pick was a "biased" (or "bias") one, as Taylor was clearly the better boxer. But I wasn't picking Carl to win a boxing match, I was picking him to win a FIGHT. I can't comment too closely on my scorecard as the stream I was watching kept dropping out, so it was anyone's guess for close rounds. But regardless, Froch needed a least a couple of KDs.

People seem to forget that Taylor was beaten TWICE by a boxer who's even more upright, just as slow (maybe?) and even more one-dimensional than Froch can be. When people talk about what a great boxer Taylor is - and he IS a very good boxer - they seem to forget that he's, at best, a nine round fighter. This is a guy that was backed up by Cory Spinks and Kassim Ouma, and Froch is fully-fledged supermiddle.



3. Experience.

This is where the doubt set in, and why Taylor got a 48.9% chance from me. Carl has never - THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN - had the opportunity to step up this far before. Could he make the leap? Just because he hasn't, doesn't mean he can't, but there's no way of knowing until he did.

Conversely, people talk a lot about Jermain's experience, even though he went 2-1-2 in those "big five" fights (and 1-0-4 on my card).

People mention opponents like Winky Wright, and while Winky is an excellent technical boxer, HE CAN'T **** AT MIDDLEWEIGHT. People seem to think that Winky being P4P top ten means that he carries that "P4P" up with him through the rankings. HE DOESN'T. He's not a proper MW, he's certainly NOT A LHW (or catchweight). He's a smaller guy, so Winky putting on 7lbs and calling himself a middle doesn't make him a fully fledged middle.

Let's get this straight before it gets out and some idiot tries to deliberately misunderstand my point - I AM NOT saying that Froch is a better boxer than Wright. The fact that he was getting beaten to the punch all night while I had Wright beating Taylor attests that.

What I AM saying is that Wright doesn't win fights by stoppage. He's NOT a puncher. Gas out against Wright late (as, surprise, Taylor did) and all you'll get is a black eye. Gas out against Froch late and ... well, you saw.




YET AGAIN I was right with a fight pick. Jesus, it gets boring sometimes.

Drewwoodside, you owe me an apology for accusing me of being a homer.

Like I said, Froch would WIN. I DIDN'T say he would outbox Taylor, I said he would win the fight.


Here's my video:

dont pretend you had any idea that Tarver would beat Jones in their second fight.
Threads like this are real easy to write after the fight has already happened.

[Butterball]

dont pretend you had any idea that Tarver would beat Jones in their second fight.
Threads like this are real easy to write after the fight has already happened.

I do actually see red when I get called a liar, son. It's not polite, is it?

I'm not saying I envisaged a second round KO from Tarver, but considering that you could make a very strong argument that he won the first fight, and certainly won it as a fight, if not a boxing match, then it was far from inconceivable that he'd win the second.

When Tarver walked in, he had a look of absolute certainity on his face, whereas you saw the doubt in Roy's eyes. Boxers KNOW.


Don't call me a liar again, son. Give me some credit.

Threads like this are real easy to write after the fight has already happened.

Yeah, the fact that I was saying several months BEFORE the fight that I picked Froch to win, in a thread linked to in this one, does rather call "bull****" on your sass, doesn't it? :wank: