BoxRec

leforge wrote:Imagine how negative that fight would be!

I am depressed enough, I'd rather not.

Horse wrote:

leforge wrote:Imagine how negative that fight would be!

I am depressed enough, I'd rather not.

BUt after Bute who does he fight? What next for Carl who still has lot to offer.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Take a bit of time off and chase Kessler for the rematch, provided he beat Stieglitz. Froch would want it.

I agree. Go after the winner of Kessler vs Stieglitz.

Doesn't anyone else think Froch took an awful lot of heavy shots in that one, his legs were definitely wobbly a few times but the commentary crew didn't mention it. Hopefully he can get a nice couple of big money fights out of his success in the super6. Done us proud, even in defeat.

Well Froch just lost to a better fighter, no excuses from him which was good to see.
He looked like he was trying to load up a bit to much on his punches, but Ward kept the distance and knew when to get involved close in. I though Ward was excellent without being exciting, he kept to his gameplan from start to finish.

Old bones Ian wrote:Well Froch just lost to a better fighter, no excuses from him which was good to see.
He looked like he was trying to load up a bit to much on his punches, but Ward kept the distance and knew when to get involved close in. I though Ward was excellent without being exciting, he kept to his gameplan from start to finish.

Effective yes "excellent" no.

what score did people have? I had it 117-111

willardx wrote:Doesn't anyone else think Froch took an awful lot of heavy shots in that one, his legs were definitely wobbly a few times but the commentary crew didn't mention it. Hopefully he can get a nice couple of big money fights out of his success in the super6. Done us proud, even in defeat.

Watt did mention on a few occasions that Froch is being surprised by Wards sharpness.

Clear win, fantastic performance. Froch looked a weight division bigger than Ward tonight, but Ward was slippery. Defensively so sound - his inside work is fantastic defensively, in some ways it reminded me of Terry Marsh's world title win - Froch couldn't get any rhythm.

There will be options for Froch for sure. Perhaps at his age he might want to look at British options for more money. Cleverly maybe? Groves/Degale possibly.

willardx wrote:Doesn't anyone else think Froch took an awful lot of heavy shots in that one, his legs were definitely wobbly a few times but the commentary crew didn't mention it. Hopefully he can get a nice couple of big money fights out of his success in the super6. Done us proud, even in defeat.

Well spotted mate, I noticed his legs were not good when he was going back to his corner a few times also.

He also looked very discouraged very early in the fight and that big conk of his looked very red!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:what score did people have? I had it 117-111

118-110.

Gave Froch the last two. Could have gave him the fifth as well.

Thought the scoring by the judges was yet again very strange, 2 of them had it 115-113 . Just think if they had scored 1 more round to Froch we would of had a draw!!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote: 118-110.

Gave Froch the last two. Could have gave him the fifth as well.

Thought the scoring by the judges was yet again very strange, 2 of them had it 115-113 . Just think if they had scored 1 more round to Froch we would of had a draw!!

That would have been a travesty. According to Boxrec it was the British judge, John Keane that had it the widest too.

Craig Metcalfe 113-115 | judge: John Keane 110-118 | judge: John Stewart 113-115

Old bones Ian wrote: Thought the scoring by the judges was yet again very strange, 2 of them had it 115-113 . Just think if they had scored 1 more round to Froch we would of had a draw!!

Got to be honest, I had it there as well - as I've said elsewhere, looking at the fight as a whole, it was clear who the winner was but scoring the rounds as 12 individual events, Froch clearly won three (5,11,12) and there were a couple where, for me and I suspect for the two American judges, his willingness to come forward and "make" the fight won over Ward's largely defensive work. Admittedly, I wouldn't have a massive issue with those two being scored 10 each or even for Ward, but I don't see those cards as controversial!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:That would have been a travesty. According to Boxrec it was the British judge, John Keane that had it the widest too.

What would be the chances of that happening in reverse, American judge British fighter?

What a class performance by Ward, I could actually watch him all night! I had it 119-109 with Froch getting the last round. Ward dictated the pace throughout and controlled the range sublimely. When Froch stepped in he would step back and land a solid jab or left hook or if Froch wanted to mix it he would oblige and push him back landing in combinations to head and body. Froch's defence was poor he didn't get out of the way of Ward's jab. What really impressed me about Ward was his ability to counter in close, he kept calm slipped a Froch swing and came back with a superb combination

I must admit, I don't find Ward boring to watch at all.
He is a clever fighter, lots of little subtle touches that I enjoy seeing.

One of the judges gave Froch 4 of the first 5 rounds

Sometimes wonder what they are watching.

mkirkhope wrote:One of the judges gave Froch 4 of the first 5 rounds

Sometimes wonder what they are watching.

Two, very closely, at most...but if he had four out of the first five and clearly won the last two, surely...a draw!!!

mkirkhope wrote:One of the judges gave Froch 4 of the first 5 rounds

Sometimes wonder what they are watching.

That is very strange indeed because I thought Froch won the last 2 (and think the majority will score those 2 rounds to Froch.) I'm in the camp that had it widish at 117-112 (I think) but could see how they gave him 115-113, unusually tho had they given a draw it would have been a diabolical one, strange how such small swings in scoring can take you from 'I can see how they gave that score' to 'diabolical.'

jameswilson wrote: That is very strange indeed because I thought Froch won the last 2 (and think the majority will score those 2 rounds to Froch.) I'm in the camp that had it widish at 117-112 (I think) but could see how they gave him 115-113, unusually tho had they given a draw it would have been a diabolical one, strange how such small swings in scoring can take you from 'I can see how they gave that score' to 'diabolical.'

And thats the problem with the ten point must, isn't it? I do genuinely think 7-5 was about right, but at least five of the seven were won clearly, whereas only one (the 12th) was a wide Froch round. Yet it really was close enough *with this system* that one round the other way would have swung it. And that feels sort of wrong.

Its also interesting that the American judges saw the early rounds that way - they really do favour blind aggression, don't they?

Old bones Ian wrote:what score did people have? I had it 117-111

116-112 although I appreciate that score probably included a bit of sentimentality on my behalf. I think John Keane was probably spot on with his score of 118-110.

Who is this we Ward keeps referring too? We were too fast, we hurt him etc

Final round wrote:Who is this we Ward keeps referring too? We were too fast, we hurt him etc

His team?

Final round wrote:Who is this we Ward keeps referring too? We were too fast, we hurt him etc

Probably his Saviour Lord Jesus Christ. His Dad, apparently.

jameswilson wrote:

mkirkhope wrote:One of the judges gave Froch 4 of the first 5 rounds

Sometimes wonder what they are watching.

That is very strange indeed because I thought Froch won the last 2 (and think the majority will score those 2 rounds to Froch.) I'm in the camp that had it widish at 117-112 (I think) but could see how they gave him 115-113, unusually tho had they given a draw it would have been a diabolical one, strange how such small swings in scoring can take you from 'I can see how they gave that score' to 'diabolical.'

I gave the first 4 to Ward and the 5th to Froch

Old bones Ian wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

mkirkhope wrote:One of the judges gave Froch 4 of the first 5 rounds

Sometimes wonder what they are watching.

That is very strange indeed because I thought Froch won the last 2 (and think the majority will score those 2 rounds to Froch.) I'm in the camp that had it widish at 117-112 (I think) but could see how they gave him 115-113, unusually tho had they given a draw it would have been a diabolical one, strange how such small swings in scoring can take you from 'I can see how they gave that score' to 'diabolical.'

I gave the first 4 to Ward and the 5th to Froch

Had it 118-110 myself.

Surely if he scored the first five rounds 4-1 to Froch, he would score the last two rounds to Froch aswell. Thus having at least a 6-6 Scorsecard?

He's either Incompetent or Corrupt imo.