@glasagusban 's?
Ok so. In the last 25 years name 3 other not technically skilled fighters who have been world champions in WBC, WBA or IBF.
is it true when he goes home at the weekend he asks her to shove a parsnip up his hole?
Youâre wrong, youâve been shown up, and you look like a fool. Endlessly replying with more and more desperate responses just makes you look like more of a fool. Same thing did to yourself with that girl. Let it go now.
Thereâs a difference between being technically skilled and having rudimentary technical skills. I could be here all night naming fighters who had pretty basic skills.
Your exact words were Froch has âsuperb techniqueâ which was nonsense, his technical skills are pretty rudimentary. Above all the things you could have highlighted to praise Froch technique would be down low on the list. Defence is the most basic technique you can have in boxing and Frochâs was poor on a relative level. Look at the problems he had with the likes of Johnson, Kessler, Taylor, Groves, Dirrell and Ward. These were fights his power, chin and endurance got him through as he was made look crude, one dimensional and cumbersome in all those fights.
His greatest quality was he could wear his opponents down both mentally and physically, not with great skills.
[QUOTE=âIl Bomber Destro, post: 1082402, member: 2533â]Thereâs a difference between being technically skilled and having rudimentary technical skills. I could be here all night naming fighters who had pretty basic skills.
Your exact words were Froch has âsuperb techniqueâ which was nonsense, his technical skills are pretty rudimentary. Above all the things you could have highlighted to praise Froch technique would be down low on the list. Defence is the most basic technique you can have in boxing and Frochâs was poor on a relative level. Look at the problems he had with the likes of Johnson, Kessler, Taylor, Groves, Dirrell and Ward. These were fights his power, chin and endurance got him through as he was made look crude, one dimensional and cumbersome in all those fights.
His greatest quality was he could wear his opponents down both mentally and physically, not with great skills.[/QUOTE]
So thatâs a no so? You canât name any.
Grand
No. You have continuing on a path of disengaging or deflecting from the comment you made. Iâm merely attempting to bring you back to that debate but your fear of doing so is tangible.
[QUOTE=âcaoimhaoin, post: 1082405, member: 273â]So thatâs a no so? You canât name any.
Grand[/QUOTE]
Well seeing as you were asking me to name fighters in a catch all phrase that you invented then, no.
If you want me to list champions who I believe only had a basic level of skill then fine, I can do that.
Get off Conorâs page with your backward sport⌠In fact, fuck off to the 19th century with it⌠Where it belongs
[QUOTE=âIl Bomber Destro, post: 1082412, member: 2533â]Well seeing as you were asking me to name fighters in a catch all phrase that you invented then, no.
If you want me to list champions who I believe only had a basic level of skill then fine, I can do that.[/QUOTE]
No I want 3 technically deficient world champions from the last 25 years.
I can think of one straight away, but he was caught cheating. But I think youâll struggle to find them. Especially seeing as all you see is ringside once or twice a month.
[QUOTE=âcaoimhaoin, post: 1082423, member: 273â]No I want 3 technically deficient world champions from the last 25 years.
I can think of one straight away, but he was caught cheating. But I think youâll struggle to find them. Especially seeing as all you see is ringside once or twice a month.[/QUOTE]
I never said Froch had no technical skills. I just picked up on a remark you made about him being technically superb and that in relativity, his technical skills were quite ordinary. You have made an idiot out of yourself defending this remark rather than having the decency to put your hands up send admit your boxing knowledge is weak.
I have made rational and educated arguments on my reasonings on Frochâs ability and I have pointed to the fights against Taylor, Kessler, Ward, Dirrell and Johnson where his technical skills (or lack of) were exposed.
For a world champion boxer, Frochâs technical skills were not good, never mind superb and how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion while appointing themselves as a forum expert is risible.
Let us not forget that you had a right go at me for claiming that Macklin was robbed against Sturm as well, coming out with all sorts of nonsense as to why Sturm won the fight fairly and how I knew nothing and was biased. This was despite the fact that German TV had Macklin beating their hometown fighter by 4 cards. You donât like people bringing your history of spoofing up.
fuckâs. Sake. All this one upmanship drivel. Can we go back to when Runt called him a cuntflap (a top, top word) and go from there?
Iâm not deflecting. Iâve highlighted how stupid your statement was, Iâm moving on now and shanât be replying to your nonsense any more. You should know how that works by now.
No, you havenât. You have out with analogies that bear no relevance to the context. Because Froch is ranked in the top 10 P4P in the world is nothing to do with his technical skills. The same way Gatusso was the 14th best player in the world in 2006 was nothing to do with his technical ability.
You also compared Froch with Pacquiao for some bizarre reason.
[QUOTE=âIl Bomber Destro, post: 1082433, member: 2533â]I never said Froch had no technical skills. I just picked up on a remark you made about him being technically superb and that in relativity, his technical skills were quite ordinary. You have made an idiot out of yourself defending this remark rather than having the decency to put your hands up send admit your boxing knowledge is weak.
I have made rational and educated arguments on my reasonings on Frochâs ability and I have pointed to the fights against Taylor, Kessler, Ward, Dirrell and Johnson where his technical skills (or lack of) were exposed.
For a world champion boxer, Frochâs technical skills were not good, never mind superb and how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion while appointing themselves as a forum expert is risible.
Let us not forget that you had a right go at me for claiming that Macklin was robbed against Sturm as well, coming out with all sorts of nonsense as to why Sturm won the fight fairly and how I knew nothing and was biased. This was despite the fact that German TV had Macklin beating their hometown fighter by 4 cards. You donât like people bringing your history of spoofing up.[/QUOTE]
You point out fights that he won, some against high level opponents with great technical skills. I donât think you even believe your argument yourself.
You still are avoiding the question and that is also a massive back track.
Sturm out boxed Macklin that night, pretty clearly.
[QUOTE=âcaoimhaoin, post: 1082482, member: 273â]You point out fights that he won, some against high level opponents with great technical skills. I donât think you even believe your argument yourself.
You still are avoiding the question and that is also a massive back track.
Sturm out boxed Macklin that night, pretty clearly.[/QUOTE]
I point out to fights where he had to rely on his conditioning, power and chin to get him through.
He was down on all three scorecards with Taylor before a last round KO.
The Dirrell fight was a robbery, he was beaten by Kessler and Ward comprehensively. He skidded over the line against a 40+ Johnson, again relying on his conditioning. He was in all kind of bother against Groves but his power got him through.
His technical skills which you lauded him for has consistently been exposed against good opponents and it has taken his heart, fitness, chin and power to get him to the level he is at. They are not technical skills and you referencing his tactical acumen in a way to defend your earlier comments just shows how clueless you are.
As for Sturm beating Macklin fairly, you were defending the result at the time despite only seeing half the fight. You continued to defend the result which had Sturm winning by 4 rounds despite the fact German, American and British TV analysts all had Macklin winning, German by 4 rounds, American by 3 and Sky 2. Bild called the result a disgrace, if Iâm not mistaken.
Imagine a boxer using his Conditioning to win a fight. Astonishing.
That Conditioing of course allows his technical skills to be maintain throughout the fight where some other flashier busy fighters slow down.
Whatâs abundantly clear is you mistake style for technical ability, something many who havenât boxed or been to fights would miss. So I shouldnât expect you to know really.
[QUOTE=âcaoimhaoin, post: 1082504, member: 273â]Imagine a boxer using his Conditioning to win a fight. Astonishing.
That Conditioing of course allows his technical skills to be maintain throughout the fight where some other flashier busy fighters slow down.
Whatâs abundantly clear is you mistake style for technical ability, something many who havenât boxed or been to fights would miss. So I shouldnât expect you to know really.[/QUOTE]
You wouldnât expect me to know? Thatâs a bit arrogant of a person who has no clue on boxing. Just because you went to a few trainings doesnât make you more informed. For what itâs worth I boxed throughout my youth at a boxing club that produced a Commonwealth medalist this year, I did it for about 8 years in total and took part in a few tournaments across the country.
I donât think that qualifies my opinion over yours, what I do think qualifies my opinion over yours is that I would never come out with anything as outlandish as you did re those incidents on Froch and Macklin.
Froch was in trouble in those fights as when energy levels were on a par his actual boxing ability was shown up. He relied on being able to take punches without damage, he was able to maintain a high pressure throughout his fights and he had the power.
He didnât have great footwork, he didnât throw great combinations and his defence was very open. Technically he was ordinary and thereâs no getting around it. The sheer arrogance of you not to admit not knowing what youâre talking about is startling given the depths of ignorance you are putting forth.
[QUOTE=âIl Bomber Destro, post: 1082518, member: 2533â]You wouldnât expect me to know? Thatâs a bit arrogant of a person who has no clue on boxing. Just because you went to a few trainings doesnât make you more informed. For what itâs worth I boxed throughout my youth at a boxing club that produced a Commonwealth medalist this year, I did it for about 8 years in total and took part in a few tournaments across the country.
I donât think that qualifies my opinion over yours, what I do think qualifies my opinion over yours is that I would never come out with anything as outlandish as you did re those incidents on Froch and Macklin.
Froch was in trouble in those fights as when energy levels were on a par his actual boxing ability was shown up. He relied on being able to take punches without damage, he was able to maintain a high pressure throughout his fights and he had the power.
He didnât have great footwork, he didnât throw great combinations and his defence was very open. Technically he was ordinary and thereâs no getting around it. The sheer arrogance of you not to admit not knowing what youâre talking about is startling given the depths of ignorance you are putting forth.[/QUOTE]
âWhen energy were levelâ 
I stop reading then.
[QUOTE=âcaoimhaoin, post: 1082524, member: 273â]
âWhen energy were levelâ
I stop reading then.[/QUOTE]
Why are you quoting something I never said.
I said when energy levels on a par. This is stating the obvious but when you get tired you make mistakes and boxing is probably the sport where this is punished the most. Your guard drops you leave yourself open and Froch has done this well in his career, he was worn his opponents down and he has punished them with his power. This has nothing to do with technical ability and you continue to jump from pillar to post to escape your initial comment.