Froch's resume craps all over Cotto's

[New England]

Didn't the british commentary have it wider than the judges & US commentary? I seem to remember Sky saying that the fight wasn't close at all.

In truth, it was at best a 8-4 for Ward, more likely a 9-3.

british commentators greatly embellished the diea that ward was tiring, which is a narrative picked up by a lot of the ward detractors. one guy had to work hard, the other guy knew damn well he had an insurmountable lead on points.

i don't blame the british commentators to try and conjure up some drama and help save face for their guy, but the narrative that ward faded down the stretch is just bogus. there's a difference between recogizing that a guy has late round power and that you have a lead to protect, and tiring. just because you step off of teh gas it doesn't mean you're tiring or getting broken down. honestly, i gave ward the 12th. if you get a good quality feed you can see that a lot froch's punches are unclean and that ward is still timing froch with clean shots in the 12th.

[b00g13man]

Froch >>>>>> Cotto

[TOBYLEE1]

Froch was one of the best fighters to come from the UK. He had a string of top level opposition.

I thought he lost to Dirrel and had beaten Kessler in their first fight. On the Ward fight the only one that had it correct was the British judge that had it 118-110.

Don't know why the TS is comparing both fighters because they were never close in competing with each other or common opponents.

[frantic fighter]

How is that close?

It really isn't, Zab is a B level fighter, Martinez was a crippled and Oldsley was past his prime.

[Tomjas]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...-by-round.html

This R by R report from a British boxing scribe

Pretty reasonable