Page 2 of 2
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 06:56
by dondada
The Dark Destroyer wrote:dondada wrote:JLP wrote:As soon as this topic was posted and the first response made, the article had achieved it's objective.
What, holding up the 'author' to sustained ridicule and, by extension, the chap he promotes?
This one is so unjustifiable it's embarrassing.
What's unjustifiable? Calling for the fight?
Well, partly. But that's more the embarrassing end.
Mainly suggesting Froch 'swerves' a 'challenge'.
Would you agree that is an unjustifiable and ludicrous suggestion?
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 07:19
by binipop
JamieMcDonnell
Jermaine Taylors punch resistance and stamina were never that good and Bute always had a questionable chin which was brutally exposed by Carl. I'm not saying he has no power, he obviously hits very hard but he doesn't have one punch KO power at world level in SMW division and it would be even less so at LH also, as i already stated, Clev has a good chin. However it's his leaky defence that would cost him against Carl.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 07:21
by dondada
The Dark Destroyer wrote:Suggesting he swerves a challenge is ridiculous, but you know what he's upto when he's saying these things, and people acting like he's an idiot and thinking he believes these things is just as ridiculous in my opinion.
As for the fight, I have no problem with them calling out Froch. He's being lauded as the best fighter in the country, and rightly so, so why shouldn't they try to challenge him? People who say Cleverly isn't worthy are mad, Froch is the third best SMW in the world, fighting the fifth/sixth best LHW for a title isn't some bizarre step down, especially when you're being offered a career high pay day. His last fight was absolutely meaningless against a boiled down LHW, so people shouldn't be acting like he's above fighting Cleverly.
That's an interesting take on it!
I know 'it's the game' but it's the way he does it - belittling Froch's achievements whilst not yet delivering top level fights at LHW when Clev is a 'world' champion becomes laughable rather than achieving the objectives, IMO.
Then again, that's only for us anoraks. Most Sun readers won't know any different so it probably helps a bit, generally.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 09:01
by jonp
Is it Frochs biggest ever payday?I genuinly don't know but if it thats shocking seeing as hes had big super six fights over in the states?
If it isnt then it holds absolutly nothing for him really except risk and maybe loss of name.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 09:34
by JLP
dondada wrote:JLP wrote:As soon as this topic was posted and the first response made, the article had achieved it's objective.
What, holding up the 'author' to sustained ridicule and, by extension, the chap he promotes?
This one is so unjustifiable it's embarrassing.
I'm sure he is well used to sustained ridicule on boxing message boards by now. No, even when the anoraks are slaughtering a proposed match, or notion of a match, the general reader will be weighing it up much more favourably. I find the best approach is to ignore his column entirely. All it has ever been is a vehicle for him to drive his own interests.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 12:21
by spudder56
If Carl takes the fight is he going to get paid ?
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 12:59
by reggaereggae
Surely everyone knows to ignore what allegedly says
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 13:01
by palooka
JLP wrote:dondada wrote:JLP wrote:As soon as this topic was posted and the first response made, the article had achieved it's objective.
What, holding up the 'author' to sustained ridicule and, by extension, the chap he promotes?
This one is so unjustifiable it's embarrassing.
I'm sure he is well used to sustained ridicule on boxing message boards by now. No, even when the anoraks are slaughtering a proposed match, or notion of a match, the general reader will be weighing it up much more favourably. I find the best approach is to ignore his column entirely.
All it has ever been is a vehicle for him to drive his own interests.[/quote]
The exact same as every other columnist?
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 16:06
by RJP
Cleverly would be better calling out Tony Bellew - now that's a relevant fight right now.
He needs to earn a shot at Froch.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 01 Jan 2013, 16:09
by JLP
palooka wrote:The exact same as every other columnist?
Yes.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 01 Jan 2013, 16:23
by Khaosai-Galaxy
JLP wrote: All it has ever been is a vehicle for him to drive his own interests.
ummmm, yes, and?
He has been the most successful promoter in the UK for what, 25 years?
And the reason for that is that he actually promotes his fighters. Only a complete and utter moron would
not use their column in a national newspaper to promote their fights.
Stop the presses! Boxing promoter attempts to promote boxing.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 01 Jan 2013, 16:34
by JLP
Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:JLP wrote: All it has ever been is a vehicle for him to drive his own interests.
ummmm, yes, and?
He has been the most successful promoter in the UK for what, 25 years?
And the reason for that is that he actually promotes his fighters. Only a complete and utter moron would
not use their column in a national newspaper to promote their fights.
Stop the presses! Boxing promoter attempts to promote boxing.
That's the point I'm making. I agree.
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 01 Jan 2013, 17:30
by Bard of Boxrec
I like how Froch has dealt with this so far - he has said little to nothing.
Warren is trying to get some interest going (ok, that's his job, and he has little to work with in Cleverly so he has to be a bit outspoken), but Froch isn't making it easy for him at all.
The sad thing is that Warren has the bigger platform to shout from in that column of his, so the masses who read the Sun will likely be swayed into thinking 'that Froch is ducking Cleverly innit?'
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 01 Jan 2013, 17:39
by Khaosai-Galaxy
Riddick Blowe wrote:I like how Froch has dealt with this so far - he has said little to nothing.
Warren is trying to get some interest going (ok, that's his job, and he has little to work with in Cleverly so he has to be a bit outspoken), but Froch isn't making it easy for him at all.
The sad thing is that Warren has the bigger platform to shout from in that column of his, so the masses who read the Sun will likely be swayed into thinking 'that Froch is ducking Cleverly innit?'
Anyone remember Froch and Hennessey's hilariously inept attempt at luring Calzaghe out of retirement a few years ago?
Re: Allegedly the best revisionist history I've ever read...
Posted: 02 Jan 2013, 08:34
by ILikeBeer
That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever read.
I know Fwank monitors this site, and is always threatening to sue. But, sod it. That's just complete nonsense. He sues websites because he doesn't like people saying bad stuff about him, then he comes out with stuff like that? He obviously doesn't believe it, because who would? Bigging up your prospects is one thing. But there's not a word of truth in that article, and anybody who knows anything about boxing knows it.