By Scott Gilfoid: Carl Froch was one of many boxers that thought that WBA heavyweight champion David Haye would beat IBF/WBO heavyweight champion Wladimir Klitschko last weekend, and now Froch has to eat a plate full of crow after Wladimir schooled Haye in a lopsided 12 round unanimous decision at the Imtech Arena in Hamburg, Germany. Froch appears to have smelled the coffee because he’s openly acknowledging that the reason why Wladimir beat Haye wasn’t because of Haye having a broken toe.

Here is what Froch said to talksport.com on the Haye-Klitschko mismatch: “Everybody could see what was going off in there so maybe he [Haye] shouldn’t have mentioned it [his broken toe] but he just felt he’d let people know about it. You can see why the fans are almost thinking what is he talking about, why has he even mentioned it. I can see that side of it. I don’t think it was a deciding factor in the outcome of the fight.”

You think? Of course Haye’s so called broken toe wasn’t the deciding factor in the fight. Just look at Haye stumble around the ring all night long throwing wild hayemaker shots off target. You can see that he didn’t have the skills immediately. Compared to some of the other fighters that Wladimir has beaten in recent years like Eddie Chambers, Chris Byrd, and Ruslan Chagaev, Haye looked like a bumbling amateur. Heck, even Samuel Peter had more composure and a better game than Haye showed, even in the second fight with Wladimir. It was bad enough that Haye got whipped so bad by Wladimir, but then to come up with a pathetic excuse about his toe after the fact made him the laughing stock. Haye was better off keeping his trap shut after the fight instead of coming up with a story about his toe being broken. It may have been broken, swollen or whatever, but that’s not why he lost.