BoxRec

and we thought self styled boxing historian colin hart was bad......listen to these pearls of wisdom from jeff powell of the daily mail (another hard drinker from fleet streets golden age in the early 70s) in regards to the froch-johnson battle.

"the japanese calculation of 114-114 was outrageous, and the other two judges were less than generous to froch with 116-112 and 117-111, i gave johnson just one round the first scoring it 119-110 in froch's favour"

funny that although im frochs biggest fan but eveni thought he only nicked it by 2 rounds. I wouldnt have been shocked if some scored it for him by 1 round or 3 rounds tops but to say froch won it by 9 rounds is a bloody joke and not a funny one to the gallant johnson who made it a typically very hard fought froch fight.
Johnson was brutally strong with superior hand speed and froch once again showed this inate and almost in this day and age unique ability to adapt to his mans style and find a way to win.

Jeff also annoyingly refers to froch celebrating afterwards with his wife "rachel cordingley" why the fornicate is she always refered to by her full name!

To be honest, Jeff Powell is usually pretty good. He's way, way better than Colin Hart imo.

Jeff Powell adores Froch! Every single Daily Mail article he practically wants to have his babies!

Close fights can still be scored that wide

sweetscience wrote:Close fights can still be scored that wide

Yup true, although I do not agree with his interpretation.

Froch won but not nearly as wide as that, imo.

It was a very subjective fight.

Johnson was the aggressor, Froch was on the back foot.

Froch was landing more but many were blocked on Johnson's gloves.

Johnson seemed to land the bigger shots but they didn't seriously hurt Froch.

I thought Froch won by 2/3 rounds but the draw is a plausible scorecard, as is Powell's.

Johnson winning only 1 round is clear fantasy.

Nothing wrong with that card. Johnson was outlanded in just about every round. When Johnson landed well, Froch fired back. Plenty of rounds were close, but Froch ahd the edge throughout.

gobbles wrote:Nothing wrong with that card. Johnson was outlanded in just about every round. When Johnson landed well, Froch fired back. Plenty of rounds were close, but Froch ahd the edge throughout.

Did make me laugh when Froch replied with slaps - something he and his fans often criticise Joe Calzaghe for.

Maybe Froch learn't something from Joe.

I scored 5 rounds for Johnson and 4 of them were close. Powell's card doesn't reflect the competivness of the bout and he obviously gave Froch every benefit of the doubt, but I can see how 119-110 was possible. I don't, however, agree with him when he says that the judges who scored it 117-111 and 116-112 were being less than generous to Froch; in that respect Powell reminds me of Kevin Mitchell (one of the most biased writers in boxing), who didn't have Haye losing a single round agaist Valuev and acted like all of the cards turned in were out of line.

WelshDevil wrote:Johnson winning only 1 round is clear fantasy.

Yeah, in reality he won 2 or 3.

Newport Daz wrote:To be honest, Jeff Powell is usually pretty good. He's way, way better than Colin Hart imo.

First time I have ever heard old Jeff Powell described in a positive way

Definite pattern here. A lot of the ringside press, plus the Showtime team, saw a wider fight. The Sky team, also ringside had it closer, as do a lot of posters on here, myself included. Now we're no fools, we know what we're looking at and, by and large, we don't have an agenda. But were we led to some degree by the Sky commentary? Doubtless Showtime's was more enjoyable, but I agreed with a lot, not all, of Sky's opinions too. For instance, they didn't go big on Frochy's Calzaghe bursts, a lot of which looked good but in actuality appeared, to me at least, to be mainly blocked and therefore not clean scoring punches. Either the ringsiders, bar Sky, bought into these bursts or possibly they had a better view, I don't know. Weird one.

I had a close fight and I watched it on mute, but I do find that commentary often plays a significant role in influencing public opinion. Considering that most people seem to complain about impartial commentating and what not, I'm surprised that there aren't more people who decide to turn off the sound.

As far as Froch's accuracy goes, I thought he was missing with most of the punches he threw in those bursts, although he started landing more later on. I always find it interesting to watch a fight with sound on after originally viewing it on mute; in most cases the commentary seems to go wild over stuff that seemed like absolutely no big deal when I watched the fight the first time.

mugabi wrote:and we thought self styled boxing historian colin hart was bad......listen to these pearls of wisdom from jeff powell of the daily mail (another hard drinker from fleet streets golden age in the early 70s) in regards to the froch-johnson battle.

"the japanese calculation of 114-114 was outrageous, and the other two judges were less than generous to froch with 116-112 and 117-111, i gave johnson just one round the first scoring it 119-110 in froch's favour"

funny that although im frochs biggest fan but eveni thought he only nicked it by 2 rounds. I wouldnt have been shocked if some scored it for him by 1 round or 3 rounds tops but to say froch won it by 9 rounds is a bloody joke and not a funny one to the gallant johnson who made it a typically very hard fought froch fight.
Johnson was brutally strong with superior hand speed and froch once again showed this inate and almost in this day and age unique ability to adapt to his mans style and find a way to win.

Jeff also annoyingly refers to froch celebrating afterwards with his wife "rachel cordingley" why the eff is she always refered to by her full name!

Yeah rediculous card IMO. I had it Froch by 2 maybe 3. I personally thought thats the maximum it should have been. Johnson's 42 year old legs and engine let him down, down the stretch as it has done a few times previously.

I'm baffled by them always calling Rachel by her full name. I realise they are not married, so I guess that must be part of the reason. Although commentators and reporters frequently reffered to Joe Calzaghe's ex girlfriend only as Emma. The BBC build up and post fight made several references to her - each time by the full name.

Is she in some soap or something and we are all supposed to know who she is? Go on Glyn, in BM's article of the fight just one time don't reference her by her full name... I dare you!

Now we know why Mugabi is such a know-nothing dummy...he reads The Mail!
To think I used to to try and listen, consider and reply to this idiot. I feel better now. Why would anybody on a Boxing Forum admit to reading Powell in the Mail?
It's like asking Simon Cowell about Yemen!

Adios.

before you get you your knickers in a twist bunce fyi i dont read the daily mail per se. i am not a paying reader. i was in a doctors surgery where i had taken my son and picked it up in the waiting room.

Therefore to quote your own words you are the "no nothing dummy" mate

instead of hurling insults for no reason off topic try and make positive contributions to this board.because the few times u do post its either to advertise some obscure radio show your doing in shitbroke vale, west london or its to troll knowledgeable members whose opinion you disagree with. if you used to "listen, read and respond to me" whoopeee but i wasnt aware of it and im not concerned with it....i dont post here for your exponential consumption.

Asking you to express a interesting opinion on boxing these days is like asking alex reid about libya! Lol

You ask too much Stu, it's mandatory. Right now I have a team of investigative reporters working on whether Ms C has any middle names we can use without fail

Jeff powell referred to rachel cordingley as frochs wife for what its worth.........hell im doing it now calling her by her full name!lol

Buncey wrote:Now we know why Mugabi is such a know-nothing dummy...he reads The Mail!
To think I used to to try and listen, consider and reply to this idiot. I feel better now. Why would anybody on a Boxing Forum admit to reading Powell in the Mail?
It's like asking Simon Cowell about Yemen!

Adios.

Buncey who do you prefer Gareth A Davies or Jeff Powell. ;;-)

Did Froch's bird get moved away from ringside?

What where the actual punch stats for the fight?

You'll find Jeff Powell sometimes publishes articles with incorrect information. I will endeavor to find some examples!

Lol I like Jeff, he's a nice guy whenever I talk to him. I think some of our press can be too patriotic.

Ron Lewis of The Times is another nice guy and also more balanced when judging.