Page 3 of 3
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 11:20
by knockout
KOJOE90 wrote:neil r wrote:As for Duke and Jim - they made some classic blunders.
Adamu faught Vitali Klitchko - yes, according to Jim.
Jim also seemed to think Mark Krence was Mark Prince.
i always wondered what happened to Mark Prince after his loss to D-Man.
didnt realise he had changed his surname, had the same skin treatment as Michael Jackson and grown 4 inches in height.....
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 11:25
by bennie
knockout wrote:didnt get to see the fight, was working...
but from what i have read one has to seriously think that Froch would have lost if Adamu hadnt fought less than 2 weeks earlier.
A 12 round fight takes a lot of you, especially if you have a style like Adamu...
Adamu must have clocked up a few miles travelling over the past few weeks, again extrememly draining.
I notice Adamu weighed in 4lbs under the limit???? whats all that about???
I put it down to the dicky scales at first, but according to Kieran they were weighing heavy! So I, like you, found that weight very strange indeed. It would be interesting to know what he weighed against Typsko 13 days earlier!
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 11:31
by bennie
He weighed 11st 11lbs for Typsko. Adamu should squeeze down to middle. Could be a force there.
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 11:50
by knockout
he was pretty light for Barney too....
he weighed in in socks, pants and two t shirts apparently for the Froch fight
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 11:56
by Kilburn
And they say there's too many weight divisions...
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 11:57
by bennie
knockout wrote:he was pretty light for Barney too....
he weighed in in socks, pants and two t shirts apparently for the Froch fight
And Jim Neilly said (hardly the most reliable source granted), Froch really struggled to get down to 12st, which I found strange, given Froch had been in hard training for the Dodson biggie.
I really feel they need to find a more established trainer for Froch. The Adamu fight was a warning that needs to be heeded.
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 12:05
by Loftgroov
bennie wrote:knockout wrote:he was pretty light for Barney too....
he weighed in in socks, pants and two t shirts apparently for the Froch fight
And Jim Neilly said (hardly the most reliable source granted), Froch really struggled to get down to 12st, which I found strange, given Froch had been in hard training for the Dodson biggie.
I really feel they need to find a more established trainer for Froch. The Adamu fight was a warning that needs to be heeded.
I don't rate Rob McCracken hugely as a trainer... likewise I have concerns for David Haye staying with Adam Booth.
I'm not saying they "can't train" ...but when you have hot property, its a shame to waste it.
Imagine Haye & Froch getting on the phone to Freddie Roach and joining his set-up...
*cha-ching* ...
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 13:23
by knockout
i have been surprised at how heavy Froch was weighing in in his early fights, 12 stone 4 etc...
his amateur fights were at 11stone 11 (75kg) which were same day weigh in.
if anything i thought froch may have turned pro as a middle weight!!!!!
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 18:29
by Southpaw Stylist
"I don't rate Rob McCracken hugely as a trainer"
Nor do I.
"Imagine Haye & Froch getting on the phone to Freddie Roach and joining his set-up..."
I'm surprised more British fighters don't do this. Haven't they learnt anything from previous champs?
Posted: 15 Mar 2004, 19:24
by bigynzing
Ding_Ding wrote:The BBC boys had a bit of a nightmare.
The "Mark Prince" comments had me getting all confused and I'm sure somebody said that Adamu had lost to Vitali KLITSCHKO,
I heard that also....hmmmm
Re: So what did you make of Carl Froch's performance?
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 05:02
by hitman_hatton1
how times change.
remember thinking froch was not much of a prospect around this time.
european class and not much more.
i'll eat me hat then.
Re:
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 05:05
by hitman_hatton1
adamiw wrote:he won by 1 round imo. He did well to pull out the victory, it was hard to see how he would turn it around after 6 rounds. He's far to easy to hit and i cant see him progressing far beyond domestic level.
Re: So what did you make of Carl Froch's performance?
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 08:58
by Ezzard
Classic.
We're all guilty...
Re: So what did you make of Carl Froch's performance?
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 09:21
by Chambers2
hitman_hatton1 wrote:how times change.
remember thinking froch was not much of a prospect around this time.
european class and not much more.
i'll eat me hat then.
DD
DD
Re:
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 12:09
by Final round
bennie wrote:He's certainly not the next coming of Joe Calzaghe. Too easy to hit.
Bloody hell Bennie that comment has haunted Carl ever since.
Re: So what did you make of Carl Froch's performance?
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 13:02
by SamWise72
We still do this to every prospect :) We have our favourites, and the people we write off; it would be interesting to see who gets it right the most, though.
Re: So what did you make of Carl Froch's performance?
Posted: 11 Jun 2013, 17:51
by DMA1987
SamWise72 wrote:We still do this to every prospect :) We have our favourites, and the people we write off; it would be interesting to see who gets it right the most, though.
I was thinking the same thing. I hope in a few years nobody pulls up an old thread of todays prospects I have dismissed. If DeGale makes it i'm finished.