Comments on: Mcguigan says that Froch didn’t deserve to get win over Dirrell – News

By: Will R

Will R — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:22:13 +0000

I bet back in the day instead of talented you would have called mcguigan overated.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:48:43 +0000

i thought ur gonna stop writing these rubbish articles now froch BEAT dirrell?

u better stick 2 ur words when ward gets a tanning of kessler!!

By: steve

steve — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:45:13 +0000

What i would like to know is if froch is so easy to hit and so weak a champion. Why is he undefeated , look at his last 3 opponents and explain ? Show me a fighter whose last 3 fights have been tougher matches .

By: mcshamus

mcshamus — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:59:57 +0000

Dirrell won the fight clearly. Froch was made to look very slow and one-dimensional. Froch must be near the top of sitting duck champions.

By: Richardtowersboxing.com

Richardtowersboxing.com — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:06:01 +0000

I think it was a decision that judges felt was right so we should resect that and move on. Nothing that any body writes can change the decision.hence it would be wise to concentrate on round two of supersix.

By: don@london

don@london — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:49:35 +0000

Just for the record if you look at Barry Mcguigan’s history of pre and post fight predictions and analysis’s he has always had a tendancy to get it horribly wrong! Im not really a fan of Froch and but i really felt he won but looked bad in doing so.

By: Johnson

Johnson — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:00:51 +0000

Just popped on to warn any new followers that anything this man comes out with is 100% BS…… try one of the other less-biased articles.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:50:12 +0000

Scot stop removing replies ( if only we could remove your rants ).

Like i said before, it was a close fight. If you go through every persons opinion and post the ones that agree with your own, you could write a repetitive boring book……….pretty much what you have been doing since the fight.

By: John.e

John.e — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:01:14 +0000

This has been removed once so i’ll say again Scott
your like a jack russell with a dead rat!! its f***ing dead now move on!!!ha ha.

By: Orlis Waxwood

Orlis Waxwood — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:40:47 +0000

McGuigan avoided Azumah Nelson. Nuff said!

By: Miguel Cotto

Miguel Cotto — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:43:02 +0000

Oi that 1st comment by leftie is so true.

By: JW

JW — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:21:55 +0000

agree with mcguigan! froch has not got a chance for the tourney hes 1 dimensional. wheres his boxing skills hes on about1 didnt see them in the dirrel fight.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:19:07 +0000

Dave Foulkes – Dirrell was the bigger boxer. And if you look at Dirrell’s new record you will see that he lost, accept it.

By: mark f

mark f — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:11:27 +0000

Froch won end of, Dirrell is a good boxer but not a good fighter, one thing really puzzled me was in round four froch slipped and was arched in a perfect position fro Dirrell to land a big left but he made four big steps back across the ring? Plus Frochs rabbit punches only came when Dirrell clinched.

By: Gav

Gav — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:41:36 +0000

come on now,that fights in the past but its very cute how much you love dirrel awww