BoxRec

Spud - you know him and have come across him ( don't think like that) lots of times; you have a different experience to the man. As a viewer I have to say that he does come across as overly arrogant and full of himself - I recognise that a top level boxer needs some of that to succeed but he has had more than a full share of it. He comes across badly though is a top competitor and very tough, (his boxing technique has slipped terribly though).

i think froch has started to believe his own hype , i find froch more of a dick than say broner who seems to act stupid for publisity where as froch is being himself . you need confidence at the top but froch has become very arrogant and for me his inability to just admit that groves done well proves to me that froch is a good fighter but a horrible human being.

stevedoc wrote:i think froch has started to believe his own hype , i find froch more of a dick than say broner who seems to act stupid for publisity where as froch is being himself . you need confidence at the top but froch has become very arrogant and for me his inability to just admit that groves done well proves to me that froch is a good fighter but a horrible human being.

He has said loads of times that Groves was great and will be world champion.

DMA1987 wrote:

stevedoc wrote:i think froch has started to believe his own hype , i find froch more of a dick than say broner who seems to act stupid for publisity where as froch is being himself . you need confidence at the top but froch has become very arrogant and for me his inability to just admit that groves done well proves to me that froch is a good fighter but a horrible human being.

He has said loads of times that Groves was great and will be world champion.

only after 20,000 people boo'd him ,and everything i've read since has froch saying that he won easily which wasn't the case

palooka wrote:Spud - you know him and have come across him ( don't think like that) lots of times; you have a different experience to the man. As a viewer I have to say that he does come across as overly arrogant and full of himself - I recognise that a top level boxer needs some of that to succeed but he has had more than a full share of it. He comes across badly though is a top competitor and very tough, (his boxing technique has slipped terribly though).

I can get my head round what you are saying but I look at boxers and what they have achieved rather put the main bulk of my opinion on the personality.

Spud wrote:

palooka wrote:Spud - you know him and have come across him ( don't think like that) lots of times; you have a different experience to the man. As a viewer I have to say that he does come across as overly arrogant and full of himself - I recognise that a top level boxer needs some of that to succeed but he has had more than a full share of it. He comes across badly though is a top competitor and very tough, (his boxing technique has slipped terribly though).

I can get my head round what you are saying but I look at boxers and what they have achieved rather put the main bulk of my opinion on the personality.

I think his resume speaks for itself and the issue of his personality becomes of interest because it allows him to present a view very different to what (most of us) have just seen. I understand that he is an intelligent man and it is not difficult to at least appear to be 'a sportsman' by giving due credit to others and acknowledging that there are still aspects of his boxing to work on. I can imagine in retirement he will be very well respected but not loved and he does make it more difficult for people to 'like' him by being so surly.

I'm glad that you have more energy than you had and hope things are going well

Spud wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

Spud wrote:There are some really harsh posts concerning Carl.

Its so easy to be like this after the fight last Saturday.

For his boxing exploits alone he warrants respect.

In addition a point I dont think anyone has made thus far - before Groves/Froch happened some of you moaning ****s were stating it didnt warrant PPV billing yet it probably will end up as one of the fights of 2013.

Both fighters, Fast Car Eddie and Sky had to work hard to get people to buy their PPV - they succeeded and it was well worth the money, yet Froch is lambasted for a mistake by the Referee when in reality he should be applauded for dragging himself back into the fight after a one sided beating. I think its one of the best comebacks I have seen.

The main event was great but as a show, it shouldn't have been ppv. Whilst the public don't care so Eddie doesn't need to spend the money doing so, I'm a firm believer that a PPV should have a strong undercard. Apart from the main event, the standard of the card was poor.

Its easy to say a show was worth the ppv fee based on one fight in hindsight but if Froch hadnt got back up in round 1, everyone would have said it was a rip off. A strong undercard at least gives some value if the main event is quick/poor.

I fully understand I am in the minority but in my view PPV is all about the headline fight - the undercard is merely a bonus.

So if Froch had not got back up in round 1, would you have still been happy paying for the ppv?

Short answer is YES.

As a boxing fan when you get PPV you take that chance.

I look at the headline fight decide purely on that whether I am going to shell out the money.

F*ck me ... if Froch hadnt got up, we would have been discussing one of the biggest shocks ever.

Spud,

First of all, nice to hear that you are keeping well and are in good spirits.

On whether this was a good PPV or not. I've bought every PPV that has been available (even Bennett vs Earl).

However this is the first time I have truly felt dissapointed and close to call Sky asking for some compensation.

Only decent fight on the bill and it ends on a horrible note with a refereeing mistake. I feel very short changed - what happened in the previous 8 rounds doesn't matter - feel very short changed.

I would have rather seen a Froch or Groves 1st round KO. As long as it was conclusive.

Worst PPV since Khan vs McKloskey - Dire undercard and inconclusive main event - feel really short changed.

stujones wrote:Only decent fight on the bill

You thought that Froch-Groves was a 'decent' fight? I thought it was fantastic.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

stujones wrote:Only decent fight on the bill

You thought that Froch-Groves was a 'decent' fight? I thought it was fantastic.

It was a fantastic fight, the thing is it could have ended very quickly and there wasn't anything really on the undercard to sustain interest if that happened; a PPV undercard should be competitive - it is a showcase of the very best of boxing isn't it?

palooka wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

stujones wrote:Only decent fight on the bill

You thought that Froch-Groves was a 'decent' fight? I thought it was fantastic.

It was a fantastic fight, the thing is it could have ended very quickly and there wasn't anything really on the undercard to sustain interest if that happened; a PPV undercard should be competitive - it is a showcase of the very best of boxing isn't it?

Of course it should be mate, but promoting boxing is like a minefield. Injuries, pull outs, contract disputes etc etc.

stujones wrote:Spud,

First of all, nice to hear that you are keeping well and are in good spirits.

On whether this was a good PPV or not. I've bought every PPV that has been available (even Bennett vs Earl).

However this is the first time I have truly felt dissapointed and close to call Sky asking for some compensation.

Only decent fight on the bill and it ends on a horrible note with a refereeing mistake. I feel very short changed - what happened in the previous 8 rounds doesn't matter - feel very short changed.

I would have rather seen a Froch or Groves 1st round KO. As long as it was conclusive.

Worst PPV since Khan vs McKloskey - Dire undercard and inconclusive main event - feel really short changed.

So Audley v Haye was worth it to you? How about Haye v Klitscho? I felt far more satisfied after this PPV that the aforementioned. Then Khan v Salita, Khan v McCloskey, etc. There really has been so so so sooooo much worse.

It was a fantastic fight, the thing is it could have ended very quickly and there wasn't anything really on the undercard to sustain interest if that happened; a PPV undercard should be competitive - it is a showcase of the very best of boxing isn't it?[/quote]

Of course it should be mate, but promoting boxing is like a minefield. Injuries, pull outs, contract disputes etc etc.[/quote]

You've a point there and there have been some very good PPV events and that is not just down to luck, the fights need to be scouted and agreed before the PPV is announced - they will kill the golden goose.

The reason why Froch is coming across so arrogant is because of the way he changed his tune.

When the whole stadium was booing him, what did he say? "If the ones want it, we'll have a rematch".

Now that he's out of there, he's just dismissed it. He's doing himself zero favours.

palooka wrote:It was a fantastic fight, the thing is it could have ended very quickly and there wasn't anything really on the undercard to sustain interest if that happened; a PPV undercard should be competitive - it is a showcase of the very best of boxing isn't it?

Of course it should be mate, but promoting boxing is like a minefield. Injuries, pull outs, contract disputes etc etc.[/quote]

You've a point there and there have been some very good PPV events and that is not just down to luck, the fights need to be scouted and agreed before the PPV is announced - they will kill the golden goose.[/quote]
I agree mate. I sign up for the fight that's advertised and anything decent on the undercard would be a bonus. I do wish have different commentary options. Jim Watt is far too biased for my liking.

Doews anyone remember in the late 90's they had stacked undercards, and all the PPV's had a theme, like 'War of the Worlds' or 'Land of the Giants'?....quality was certainly higher then as a whole

thepocketrocket wrote:Doews anyone remember in the late 90's they had stacked undercards, and all the PPV's had a theme, like 'War of the Worlds' or 'Land of the Giants'?....quality was certainly higher then as a whole

I do progress eh!?

palooka wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:Doews anyone remember in the late 90's they had stacked undercards, and all the PPV's had a theme, like 'War of the Worlds' or 'Land of the Giants'?....quality was certainly higher then as a whole

I do progress eh!?

Glad there is an old fella like me!

The PPV was more like an event back then, you would sit down from the word go, and watch some real good quality title fights.

Now it is just sold off one fight and then filler....give Warren his due, he gave us 'events'

DMA1987 wrote:

stujones wrote:Spud,

First of all, nice to hear that you are keeping well and are in good spirits.

On whether this was a good PPV or not. I've bought every PPV that has been available (even Bennett vs Earl).

However this is the first time I have truly felt dissapointed and close to call Sky asking for some compensation.

Only decent fight on the bill and it ends on a horrible note with a refereeing mistake. I feel very short changed - what happened in the previous 8 rounds doesn't matter - feel very short changed.

I would have rather seen a Froch or Groves 1st round KO. As long as it was conclusive.

Worst PPV since Khan vs McKloskey - Dire undercard and inconclusive main event - feel really short changed.

So Audley v Haye was worth it to you? How about Haye v Klitscho? I felt far more satisfied after this PPV that the aforementioned. Then Khan v Salita, Khan v McCloskey, etc. There really has been so so so sooooo much worse.

Keith,

I meant decent fight on paper - fantastic fight, but horrible conclusion. I would have rather seen a conclusive finish, even if it meant the decent fight on paper was also quick. As Spud rightfully says, had Groves KO'd Froch in the first it would have been one of the greatest upsets in a British ring - and a bit of history.... had Froch KO'd Groves in the first we'd be hailing it as a master display and really calling for Froch in terms of P4P and super fights with Ward, Stevenson etc.

Haye vs Harrison - horribly sold as a competitive fight yes, but if you expected it to be anything other than a one sided stinker of a fight then I am sorry for you. Horrible to say this but I bought it cause I wanted to see Haye do a number of Audley - fully expected it.

Tyson vs Etteine, did I buy that thinking its going to be a fight of the year classic, no - I bought it wanting to see if Tyson can still make a mark following the Lewis fight.

Haye vs Klitchsko - Okay.... thats a close one, really dissapointed in Haye - but that one was an "event" - I wouldn't say Froch vs Groves was one before hand.... even Eddie never mentioned Froch vs Groves as a PPV less than a year ago.

Khan vs McCloskey - mentioned - worst than this one.

Khan vs Salita - again depends on if you wanted to watch it. If you bought any hype that this was anything other than a dominant Khan victory then sorry. I cannot say either man dissapointed or I was pissed off with the referee in that one.... Salita wasn't in Khan's league and most of us knew that before hand. I agree it shouldn't have been a PPV, but I don't feel short changed - thats what I was expecting, am I a mug - probably.... but didn't feel short changed.

Haye vs Klitchsko, Khan vs McCloskey and this one I feel let down - either by Haye or by the official.

When the promoter says the ref has robbed us of a conclusive outcome then you've got to feel short changed. Thats why I got aggrivated about the outcome, people assumed I am a Groves fan or a Froch hater - no, not the boxers fault at all, but all of those amazing 8 rounds will be forgotten about now.... rematch - sure sign me up.... going to be an event now Klitchsko vs Haye esque.... but the fight itself might not be as good and we'll never know who was going to win the gripping, fantastic, first encounter.

observer1 wrote:The reason why Froch is coming across so arrogant is because of the way he changed his tune.

When the whole stadium was booing him, what did he say? "If the ones want it, we'll have a rematch".

Now that he's out of there, he's just dismissed it. He's doing himself zero favours.

& he's even saying what a great fighter chavez jr is, who got a lucky decision in his last fight, a fight he didn't even try to make weight for.

DMA1987 wrote:

stujones wrote:Spud,

First of all, nice to hear that you are keeping well and are in good spirits.

On whether this was a good PPV or not. I've bought every PPV that has been available (even Bennett vs Earl).

However this is the first time I have truly felt dissapointed and close to call Sky asking for some compensation.

Only decent fight on the bill and it ends on a horrible note with a refereeing mistake. I feel very short changed - what happened in the previous 8 rounds doesn't matter - feel very short changed.

I would have rather seen a Froch or Groves 1st round KO. As long as it was conclusive.

Worst PPV since Khan vs McKloskey - Dire undercard and inconclusive main event - feel really short changed.

So Audley v Haye was worth it to you? How about Haye v Klitscho? I felt far more satisfied after this PPV that the aforementioned. Then Khan v Salita, Khan v McCloskey, etc. There really has been so so so sooooo much worse.

Its easy to be wise after the event.

To answer your question - Harrison v Haye yep I brought and was thoroughly happy with that fight because David won.

Klitschko v Haye - I didnt buy that one because I was ringside and was thoroughly p*ssed off with the weather, the result of the fight and the endless stream of ****s I had to kick out of inner ringside who shouldnt have been there. Another thing that p*sses me off about that fight is people just focus on Hayes performance rather than giving Manny and Wladimir an immense amount of credit for carrying out the perfect fight plan for beating David.

Anyhow back to the thread title ... Pocket in response to your thread its a bit like pot calling kettle ... your an arrogant ***t so how can you call others!!

Can't we all just be friends?

palooka wrote:Can't we all just be friends?

F*ck no way

These forums are far better with the rucks - Pocket is "fringe world class" at annoying me!!

palooka wrote:Can't we all just be friends?

If you're that scary man in that picture, I will never be your friend.