Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carl Froch > Bernard Hopkins P4P

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    you opinion.

    you pfp list must suck though

    Comment


    • #22
      Yeah I never understood why it was such an "amazing feat" for Soapy to beat a guy that Froch outboxed a couple years ago.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by prinzemanspopa View Post
        Thing is,Carl Froch has no talent.Unlike Hopkins,who thoroughly dominated Pascal,Carl Froch was forced to go life and death with him - and Pascal will still relatively green on the world stage at that point.



        And why does Carla get extra brownie points for losing a clear decision to Andre Dirrell? Hopkins hasn't been beaten decisively in over seventeen years
        NO talent??
        I love the so called gifted fighters like Dawson.
        Then,why Dawson lost to Paascal??I guess a "gift" was missing that nIght.

        And no,Dirrell didn't beat CLEARLY Froch.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Joe Pesci View Post
          Well thing is. Carl Froch didn't beat Dirrell, any dumbass could see that was a hometown decision. I'll agree that Froch beat Pascal more clearly... but Hopkins schooled Pascal, and if it weren't for those knockdowns it would have been a way more impressive win than Froch's.
          I agree with you to a point but you nullify it by stating the obvious...the knockdowns. These are important points of that fight therefore you cannot dismiss them by saying other than the knockdowns etc.

          Other than the fact Frank Bruno was stopped by Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith and Lennox Lewis he would have won those fights as he was ahead late on points........

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Joe Pesci View Post
            Even though Froch lost to Kessler, his resume is still way better. Kessler was good but his resume compared to other elite fighters ain't much, in other words a typical euro fighter. Andrade was a good win... But Sartison who? That win shouldn't even be mentioned, Sartison is a euro bum.
            Yeah but Holt,Campbell and Peterson are US bums!!lol

            If you doubt for campbell,watch his two "legendary'" loses against Rob Peden!!
            Especially the funny ko.

            ****ing yanks!!lol

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by BattlingNelson View Post
              Froch has a very impressive run that's for sure. Regarding Kessler consider this:

              Siaca, KO'ed (WBA champ)
              Mundine, UD in Sydney (future WBA champ)
              Lucas, KO'ed (former WBC champ)
              Beyer, KO'ed (WBC champ)
              Andrade, UD (undefeated no.1 contender)
              Sartison, KO'ed (undefeated future WBA champ)
              Froch, UD (undefeated WBC champ)

              Not bad.
              True, it's not that bad but it's not very good either. I'd say mediocre.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by BillyBoxing View Post
                Yeah but Holt,Campbell and Peterson are US bums!!lol

                If you doubt for campbell,watch his two "legendary'" loses against Rob Peden!!
                Especially the funny ko.

                ****ing yanks!!lol

                IDK where you are getting at. Holt, Campbell and Peterson are all way better p4p speaking than Sartison. If Sartison was american, he'd never have a world title, he'd be a borderline journeyman.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by MickyHatton View Post
                  I agree with you to a point but you nullify it by stating the obvious...the knockdowns. These are important points of that fight therefore you cannot dismiss them by saying other than the knockdowns etc.

                  Other than the fact Frank Bruno was stopped by Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith and Lennox Lewis he would have won those fights as he was ahead late on points........
                  True, I get what you are saying. yeah Froch's win over Pascal was obviously better since it was clearer and got the decision. But Hopkins schooling a guy young enough to be his son was pretty damn impressive and if he would have gotten the decision that would have been the performance of the year... a 45 year old guy rising from 2 knockdowns to school a guy who is like 28 in his own hometown....

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    I didnt think Hopkins beat Pascal. I thought the draw ruling was correct.

                    Froch beat Pascal by a margin of 2 or 3 rounds. And he didn't get dropped.

                    Froch > Hopkins

                    end of discussion.

                    to be honest I am not even a Froch fan. Just being honest.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Pascal was green when he fought Froch and he lost in a shady UK style decision like Dirrell did.

                      Hopkins fought a prime Pascal coming off a great win against Chad Dawson. Hopkins was a massve underdog.

                      Hopkins at 45 years old, was given one unfair knockdown and one fair knockdown, he was able to rally and beat and dominate Pascal from round 4 and onwards, it was truly a boxing master display

                      Froch best wins are Dirrell and Pascal, two questionable home town decisions

                      Hopkins > Froch

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP