Comments Thread For: Calzaghe: It's Mad, I'm Still Living in Froch's Head After All These Years!

[DreamFighter]

Lol, you see words but not the meaning. Was I talking about my own pasta (prepared from base ingredients from finest local sources, mind you) or someone else's?

mastering pasta cooking is for students, most of us get pasta that a long time ago

[DreamFighter]

Lol, you see words but not the meaning. Was I talking about my own pasta (prepared from base ingredients from finest local sources, mind you) or someone else's?

mastering pasta cooking is for students, most of us get pasta that a long time ago.
u dig.

[DreamFighter]

Lived through it myself sunshine, 2004 was when WBC (they of the 3 "world champs" within same division and inventors of the "franchise champ") recognised the WBO, plenty of others recognised it earlier. Or were the likes of both Klitschko's, Johnny Nelson, Eubank Snr, Collins, Benn, McClellan, Winky Wright, Judah, DLH, Prince Naz, Barrera and Jorge Arce all plastic champs in your eyes?

when they won non plastic titles, they were not plastic champions.

you seem to have difficulty working out that no matter how long you make a list, the same rule stands.

[Adamsc151]

when they won non plastic titles, they were not plastic champions.

you seem to have difficulty working out that no matter how long you make a list, the same rule stands.

And you seem to have a problem realizing that your view is not the only valid one, on pretty much anything. I'd shudder to think of the carnage you'd cause given any sort of authority over other people.

[DreamFighter]

And you seem to have a problem realizing that your view is not the only valid one, on pretty much anything. I'd shudder to think of the carnage you'd cause given any sort of authority over other people.

ah the old, "i am entitled to a point of view just like you". Lets see who else is entitled it one....do you extend your questioning that validity to the WBA, WBC and IBF, who are the ones actually rejected WBO until 2004?

or am I solely to blame for their collective choice, in your esteemed point of view? yes its my fault they chose to! I run them all apparently!

[Adamsc151]

ah the old, "i am entitled to a point of view just like you". Lets see who else is entitled it one....do you extend your questioning that validity to the WBA, WBC and IBF, who are the ones actually rejected WBO until 2004?

or am I solely to blame for their collective choice, in your esteemed point of view? yes its my fault they chose to! I run them all apparently!

Of course that's not your fault, the mistake wasn't yours in the 1st place. One could argue that none of the alphabet titles truly has any worth since the initial split.
However, let's rewind to the initial issue; you claimed that Froch didn't avoid a mandatory against DeGale by chasing bigger fights and retiring, while Calzaghe did just that to Froch.
DeGale was IBF mandatory challenger while Froch held the belt, only for Froch to vacate due to DeGale being "less interesting" to him than realizing his dream of a high profile fight in Vegas or the Garden before he hung up his gloves.
The only difference between the way Calzaghe and Froch retired was that Calzaghe got his 2 dream fights where Ward, GGG even Chavez Jnr mugged Froch off.
Now I'm not saying that Froch was not a great watch or even that he was not a great fighter, he just had his limitations against slick boxers. He thought a fight with Calzaghe would play out like his ones with Taylor or Groves, where he would eventually have gotten to the man out boxing him. I like the majority of fight fans believe that it would have played out more like his fight with Ward, or even Calzaghe's fight with Lacey.

[DreamFighter]

Of course that's not your fault, the mistake wasn't yours in the 1st place. One could argue that none of the alphabet titles truly has any worth since the initial split.

I dont need to argue anything, its the other bodies who disregarded fake ones at the time. They do it for me.

Its you who needs to find an argument,which is probably why you want to get back to another argument.


[quote[However, let's rewind to the initial issue; you claimed that Froch didn't avoid a mandatory against DeGale by chasing bigger fights and retiring[/quote] nope, I didnt ever once say that, I said he didnt fight after Groves, Calzaghe DID twice.

Let me illustrate the difference more clearly for you - Froch and Calzage both are boxers since they fight, and you arent a boxer, you dont fght, you sit at a keyboard.

See the difference between fighting and not fighting now?

[Adamsc151]

I dont need to argue anything, its the other bodies who disregarded fake ones at the time. They do it for me.

Its you who needs to find an argument,which is probably why you want to get back to another argument.


[quote[However, let's rewind to the initial issue; you claimed that Froch didn't avoid a mandatory against DeGale by chasing bigger fights and retiring

nope, I didnt ever once say that, I said he didnt fight after Groves, Calzaghe DID twice.

Let me illustrate the difference more clearly for you - Froch and Calzage both are boxers since they fight, and you arent a boxer, you dont fght, you sit at a keyboard.

See the difference between fighting and not fighting now?[/QUOTE]

My point being that once you start off being wrong people don't tend to think you can be right, first impressions and all that.
And turning it to "you're not a fighter you're a keyboard warrior", lol you are scraping the bottom of the barrel there sunshine. I never claimed to be a pro boxer, are you a pro boxer oh great sage?
The fact that you seem to be picking arguments with multiple people on this thread suggests you are nothing more than a troll, so maybe try something a bit more worthwhile.

[DreamFighter]

nope, I didnt ever once say that, I said he didnt fight after Groves, Calzaghe DID twice.

thats my point, stop playing silly buggers. You have to argue against it,not steal it off me!

[DreamFighter]

My point being that once you start off being wrong people don't tend to think you can be right, first impressions and all that.
And turning it to "you're not a fighter you're a keyboard warrior",

well you took that the wrong way - the point was the difference between fighting and not fighting is the same as the difference between a boxer and a non boxer.

why did you deliberately miss the actual point and invent a fabricated one?

let me know why you ducked it by pretending it was something else.