Page 3 of 3

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 10 Feb 2009, 10:27
by DG.
hitman_hatton1 wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:Taylor's looking more confident at 12st than 11st 6lbs, his jab alone would outbox Froch. This fight has probably been on and off because of Hennessey's big ego.
no way would warren have let froch box taylor in america.
it would have been a case of england or nothing.
/quote]


ThennFwank wuldhave served up a domestic or nknown to fight Froch.

I would rather see Froch Vs No Intentions in the USA than Froch Vs Unknown South American.

:D

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 10 Feb 2009, 10:43
by hitman_hatton1
how long u been posting on here?

still can't quote stuff properly u senile old goat. :lol:

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 10 Feb 2009, 12:01
by nobby_nobbins
I have to say I'm delighted Froch-Taylor will be in the States. It'll be so much sweeter seeing Taylor dumped on his arse in his own backyard. And there's always the danger that if Froch were to win the fight elsewhere, the American fans could just pretend it hasn't happened. They can't ignore Froch if he's under their nose. Once he gets that kind of exposure he can bring Superfights to Nottingham.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 10 Feb 2009, 12:09
by Abbo
THEBUTCH wrote:If Froch goes to the US and beats Taylor, all the boxing politics talk go out the window.

What we'll have is an outstanding British world champion who won the best version of the world title in a classic against a worthy opponent and then, in his 1st defence, ventures to America to beat his mandatory challenger who also happens to be a huge name.

I wish Frochy the best of British, and when Carl retires from the game you won't have too many boxing fans saying he avoided boxer XYZ etc, like Calzaghe did. Joe has just retired and there seem to be negative comments than positive. Froch looks like he wants to avoid this happening and beating Taylor in the US is an excellent way of going about it.

As always, I'll believe this fight happens when I see Froch and Taylor in an American ring, but should this match materialise, answer me this :


How does a 1st defence in America against Jermain Taylor compare with Branco Sobot :?? :??
Amen to that brother. And given that the very attractive propositions of MSG (close and fun) or Florida (closer than Vegas, and lovely) have been put forward as likely locations I'm deffo going out there to support the Cobra.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 12:48
by Autobarn
DG. wrote:“First, it would have been one of the highlights of my career to be in the ring with a champion who has proven himself like Joe Calzaghe! The best always want to fight the best, and I wanted to fight Joe. As a fellow champion and warrior, I know the price we have to pay in the ring. Joe retired healthy, wealthy and with a Hall of Fame career. Although I am disappointed that we won’t face each other, I applaud his decision to leave on his own terms, and wish Joe the best of luck. As for Carl Froch, he is no Ray Leonard, and certainly no Joe Calzaghe, and can’t be mentioned in the same breath as those two great champions.Carl Froch never earned the right to be on the same canvas as Joe Calzaghe! Other than in his hometown, a bare few know the name Carl Froch, and how to spell it or pronounce it.”



Idiot.


:D
but Taylor earned the right to be on the canvas vs Froch

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 12:52
by Autobarn
Terry D wrote:Taylor: Hopkins x 2, D Winky Wright, Lacy, wins over Spinks and Ouma.
Froch: Pascal, Reid and Magee.


Clearly, Taylor is not afraid of Froch, he just wants more money, because he can ask for it on the basis of his wins/name. Froch's team need to wake up.
modify

Froch: Taylor, Pascal, Reid and Magee.

Taylor knew he was onto a hiding!

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 16:40
by hurlock
jones did test positive against harding,but harding also failed & the fight went ahead.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 16:48
by DG.
Autobarn wrote:
DG. wrote:“First, it would have been one of the highlights of my career to be in the ring with a champion who has proven himself like Joe Calzaghe! The best always want to fight the best, and I wanted to fight Joe. As a fellow champion and warrior, I know the price we have to pay in the ring. Joe retired healthy, wealthy and with a Hall of Fame career. Although I am disappointed that we won’t face each other, I applaud his decision to leave on his own terms, and wish Joe the best of luck. As for Carl Froch, he is no Ray Leonard, and certainly no Joe Calzaghe, and can’t be mentioned in the same breath as those two great champions.Carl Froch never earned the right to be on the same canvas as Joe Calzaghe! Other than in his hometown, a bare few know the name Carl Froch, and how to spell it or pronounce it.”



Idiot.


:D
but Taylor earned the right to be on the canvas vs Froch


Yes he did!

:D

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 18:17
by hitman_hatton1
hitman_hatton1 wrote:yep.

the man's arrogance needs taking down a peg or two.

love to see kessler come over to nottingham in the summer and box his ears off.

not sure taylor is the man to do it with his stamina issues. :shame:
good prediction from meself. :D

no way will hennessy make a kessler fight in the summer after that close shave. :o

a couple of hometown fights for him now.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 28 Apr 2009, 19:11
by josh fg
hitman_hatton1 wrote:
hitman_hatton1 wrote:yep.

the man's arrogance needs taking down a peg or two.

love to see kessler come over to nottingham in the summer and box his ears off.

not sure taylor is the man to do it with his stamina issues. :shame:
good prediction from meself. :D

no way will hennessy make a kessler fight in the summer after that close shave. :o

a couple of hometown fights for him now.
He doesn't seem to be the most safty first promoter or fighter... I think he could do with a couple of easier fights before Kesslar though... not taking the piss but Bika rather than Kesslar first then he should go for the unifications.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 07:54
by Chambers2
hitman_hatton1 wrote:
hitman_hatton1 wrote:yep.

the man's arrogance needs taking down a peg or two.

love to see kessler come over to nottingham in the summer and box his ears off.

not sure taylor is the man to do it with his stamina issues. :shame:
good prediction from meself. :D

no way will hennessy make a kessler fight in the summer after that close shave. :o

a couple of hometown fights for him now.
Hitman, I seem to recall you for years and years saying that Froch wouldn't beat a top-level fighter. Can you now publicly admit that you've been wrong about Froch for this last half of a decade? and admit that Froch is some sort of boxing demi-God?
Thanks

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 08:15
by THEBUTCH
:D

Yes, there was a number of posters who were adament Froch would lose to the first world class boxer he fought.

That's two in a row he's just beaten.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 08:29
by DG.
Chambers2 wrote:

Hitman, I seem to recall you for years and years saying that Froch wouldn't beat a top-level fighter. Can you now publicly admit that you've been wrong about Froch for this last half of a decade? and admit that Froch is some sort of boxing demi-God?
Thanks

Get in, CheeseMeister!

What say you,HitmanHatton1?


:lol:

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 08:34
by banjo
THEBUTCH wrote:That's two in a row he's just beaten.
Taylor yes, Pascal? Give me a break, Pascal lost to the first world class fighter he fought.

Check out his record - http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

More padding than a nuthouse.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 08:43
by Autobarn
banjo wrote:
THEBUTCH wrote:That's two in a row he's just beaten.
Taylor yes, Pascal? Give me a break, Pascal lost to the first world class fighter he fought.

Check out his record - http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

More padding than a nuthouse.
I think Pascal should have been in the world top 10. Certainly deserved it more than Allan Green, for example, or Denis Inkin. Pascal battered Kingsley Ikeke, gave Froch a good fight, and then KO'd Nievas (who'd gone 12 with Mundine for the WBA belt).

OK, Pascal is open to debate. But from the froch fight he had fast hands, and a decent dig, and good coordination. In shor,t he looked like a good fighter. Pascal lasted 12 with Froch, when Taylor didn't. We will know more about Pascal when he challenges WBC light heavyweight champ Adrian Diaconu, in what will be a big all Canadian battle.

cross your fingers that Pascal loses, HATEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR :lol:

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 08:50
by banjo
Autobarn wrote:
banjo wrote:
THEBUTCH wrote:That's two in a row he's just beaten.
Taylor yes, Pascal? Give me a break, Pascal lost to the first world class fighter he fought.

Check out his record - http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

More padding than a nuthouse.
I think Pascal should have been in the world top 10. Certainly deserved it more than Allan Green, for example, or Denis Inkin. Pascal battered Kingsley Ikeke, gave Froch a good fight, and then KO'd Nievas (who'd gone 12 with Mundine for the WBA belt).

OK, Pascal is open to debate. But from the froch fight he had fast hands, and a decent dig, and good coordination. In shor,t he looked like a good fighter. Pascal lasted 12 with Froch, when Taylor didn't. We will know more about Pascal when he challenges WBC light heavyweight champ Adrian Diaconu, in what will be a big all Canadian battle.

cross your fingers that Pascal loses, HATEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR :lol:
I'm not saying Pascal isn't good but lets put it in perspective shall we.

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 08:53
by Autobarn
Diaconu v Pascal

"The Fight for Perspectivvvveeeeeeeeee"

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 09:24
by Autobarn
It is a good record. I just felt he should have fought bigger guys sooner. Hopkins 2 was a worthy win, Wright was a worthy draw and a superb fight vs a fellow p4p'er DiBella should never have brought Spinks and Ouma in. Pavlik 1 was a thrilling fight, even in defeat, and rematch could have gone either way.



JT was too badly hurt last Sat, I don't think he had the sense to take a knee at the end. if he did he'd probably have been cunted out!

Jermain NEEDS Carl Froch, if he has any future in boxing :box:

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 09:37
by whiskey
Taylor is strange in the fact that his face registers no emotion when he's getting hurt, it's his legs that tell the picture..they just stand still and he backs up into the corner.

But the shots landed right before the bell, you could see him almost crying and turning away.

I like Taylor, he overcome a stutter and lot of early adversity in life to achieve what he has to date. He is a tremendous athlete, but is more of a sprint star than a marathon runner - and in boxing you need to be a bit of both to last the duration.

Does this picture look like they had the towel ready for him before the referee stopped it? it's kind of being waved around in this pic.

Image

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 09:39
by DG.
I think Taylor blacks out when hit really hard, against Pavlik he just sank to to the floor and against Froch he seemed to black out after one big shot towards the end and sank.

Not a natural survivor in the ring,imo.


:box:

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 09:42
by Autobarn
Terry D wrote:
Autobarn wrote:It is a good record. I just felt he should have fought bigger guys sooner. Hopkins 2 was a worthy win, Wright was a worthy draw and a superb fight vs a fellow p4p'er DiBella should never have brought Spinks and Ouma in. Pavlik 1 was a thrilling fight, even in defeat, and rematch could have gone either way.



JT was too badly hurt last Sat, I don't think he had the sense to take a knee at the end. if he did he'd probably have been cunted out!

Jermain NEEDS Carl Froch, if he has any future in boxing :box:
Is that the same as being pussy whipped?!

DiBella lined up the men, Taylor fought them, contrary to the daft claims that he was scared of Eastman, Taylor never once refused a fight, a rematch with Hopkins followed by Wright, no boxer would take those fights.

DiBella made him look bad, it was poor matchmaking.

As for the fight. I saw it coming in the 11th. When Taylor is in trouble he takes the shots and kind of sidles away from the opponent. Did so in the 11th, and then it happened a few times in the 12th. Too brave for his own good.

Taylor has no future in boxing, he should retire and have a bit of quiet time, maybe get himself dragged into the odd 'celebrity sex murder' scandal.
typo!

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 10:49
by hitman_hatton1
Chambers2 wrote:Hitman, I seem to recall you for years and years saying that Froch wouldn't beat a top-level fighter. Can you now publicly admit that you've been wrong about Froch for this last half of a decade? and admit that Froch is some sort of boxing demi-God?
Thanks
your misquoting me on this one chambers. :shame:

find the quote when i said he wouldn't be good enuff and i will kiss DG's arse. :oo

i said he'd fall short against the very best.

i class the very best as kessler, bute, dirrell.

that's the 3 best in that division right now. :>

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 10:53
by King Tubby
DG. wrote:“First, it would have been one of the highlights of my career to be in the ring with a champion who has proven himself like Joe Calzaghe! The best always want to fight the best, and I wanted to fight Joe. As a fellow champion and warrior, I know the price we have to pay in the ring. Joe retired healthy, wealthy and with a Hall of Fame career. Although I am disappointed that we won’t face each other, I applaud his decision to leave on his own terms, and wish Joe the best of luck. As for Carl Froch, he is no Ray Leonard, and certainly no Joe Calzaghe, and can’t be mentioned in the same breath as those two great champions.Carl Froch never earned the right to be on the same canvas as Joe Calzaghe! Other than in his hometown, a bare few know the name Carl Froch, and how to spell it or pronounce it.”



Idiot.


:D
When did he say this?

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 11:19
by Chambers2
hitman_hatton1 wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:Hitman, I seem to recall you for years and years saying that Froch wouldn't beat a top-level fighter. Can you now publicly admit that you've been wrong about Froch for this last half of a decade? and admit that Froch is some sort of boxing demi-God?
Thanks
your misquoting me on this one chambers. :shame:

find the quote when i said he wouldn't be good enuff and i will kiss DG's arse. :oo

i said he'd fall short against the very best.

i class the very best as kessler, bute, dirrell.

that's the 3 best in that division right now. :>
:roll:

You class the unproven Dirrell and reasonablly unproven Bute as the very best, but not Taylor :confused:

Hitman just admit that you've been wrong about Carl Froch from day one and that you're old mucka Chambers is right about all things boxing (except Audley)

:DDD :DDD :DDD

Re: Jermain 'No Intentions' Taylor on Calzaghe and Froch

Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 14:05
by Counter-puncher
ownage from chambers. up the yammers