Froch Wants The Ward Fight In Nottingham

by **hampo17** Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:30 pm

First topic message reminder :

Carl Froch wants to the Andre Ward fight in Nottingham, does home field advantage make a difference?

http://tinyurl.com/n8k793g

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:06 pm

Fact he got stopped with the first heavy shot he took in his next fight backs up the theory he was drained.

And backs it up very, very strongly.

by Scottrf Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:09 pm

Herman Jaggery wrote:Fact he got stopped with the first heavy shot he took in his next fight backs up the theory he was drained.

And backs it up very, very strongly.

Yeah, scientists love evidence based on a single event with no direct and obvious cause and effect and a range of other influencing factors. The fact that he was the biggest puncher he'd faced I think we can safely ignore.

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:16 pm

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

If you think that was a healthy Dawson against Ward, all I can say is good luck to you.

You need help...

by **ShahenshahG** Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:20 pm

Just caught cold I thought, both of them just throwing looseners until stevenson exploded into action.

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:23 pm

I don't want to see this fight to be honest if Froch has to go to America. He's already done that.

Fed up with Ward's diva behaviour already.

by Rowley Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:29 pm

What should not be forgotten is Froch needs Ward more than Ward needs Froch. If the fight does not happen again Froch retires with the caveat attached to his record that whilst he has much to be admired in his career he was always second best to Ward. On the flipside if it doesn't happen Ward still retires regarded as the best supermiddle of his generation. Ward knows this and deep down Froch and Hearn know this. The negotations will be carried out with this in mind, irrespective of Hearn's bluster to the contrary.

by Hammersmith harrier Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:31 pm

This thread has taken 606v2 to depths I didn't think were possible, baffling stupidity and naivety on display. Those talking sense are being drowned out by idiots to put it mildly, was distancing myself from the arguments but th3 blindingly obvious needed saying.

by Derbymanc Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:37 pm

Put them across then Hammer, in bullet points if you think it will help.

As far as I can tell, there's a bit of a split regarding Wards victory over Dawson.
A lot of us would like to see Ward move out of his comfort zone to fight
Some people think it's fine for Ward to be inactive, others would like to see him fight again.
There seems to be little options for him at SMW considering he's cleaned up the division, so what next for him?

@Rowley,

I honestly don't see this going ahead for that reason, Froch must know deep down that Ward had/has his number all day long and won't want to go out on a (potentially) devastating loss, especially at the City Ground. The big question is on who's side will the WBA come down on, especially if Eddie manages to win the purse bid. (Although could see Roc Nation paying big bucks for it)

by Scottrf Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:40 pm

Derbymanc wrote:Put them across then Hammer, in bullet points if you think it will help.

As far as I can tell, there's a bit of a split regarding Wards victory over Dawson.
A lot of us would like to see Ward move out of his comfort zone to fight
Some people think it's fine for Ward to be inactive, others would like to see him fight again.
There seems to be little options for him at SMW considering he's cleaned up the division, so what next for him?

I don't think that's really the position anyone is taking.

We'd all like to see him fight. But there are mitigating factors. That's all. And I think a lot of the comments about his character are unnecessarily harsh.

by Guest Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:47 pm

I think Froch should retire and allow Rachel to take up modelling (preferably topless)

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:48 pm

What are you saying Hammer?

That Dawson was t drained for Ward?

Dear oh dear picard

by Hammersmith harrier Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:53 pm

Derby, there have been numerous comments explaining why you amongst others are taking a very naive view of things and are showing no recognition of the history of the sport. What you are saying is both disrespectful to a fine champion and lacking a solid foundation of truth, you can't clean out a division then be accused of showing no ambition.

I assume way back in 1931 Tony Canzoneri didn't beat the worlds number one Light Welterweight and then in turn Barney Ross didn't beat the number one at 140lbs either?

by Derbymanc Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:58 pm

It's not 1931 Hammer, it's 2015.

Ward has been inactive for over 2 years (not all his own fault of course)
During the super 6 he fought everyone on his own ground
Fighting Dawson, he fought him at Wards optimum weight not at Light Heavy
Do you think he's showing ambition at the moment? and if so explain why.

Who is there left to really test him at SMW and if so why is he not trying to get that fight made now?

I don't discredit his victory over Dawson as much as others but I don't see how you can call it beating the no.1 Light Heavyweight when it wasn't at that weight. You won't change my mind on that one as I won't change yours so we can leave that to the side.

As i've stated before, I'm quite happy to have someone convince me differently but shouting that Ward beat Dawson isn't gonna cut it.

by **88Chris05** Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:59 pm

If only there had been some way that Dawson could have said no to the fight being at 168 if it was so painfully obvious that it would kill him....

As I said earlier, I'd have much preferred to see the fight at Light-Heavy. But based on all the evidence, does anyone seriously think it would have altered the outcome? Maybe Ward was just good enough to make Dawson look even less 'healthy' than he actually was? He is a better figher than Bad Chad, after all.

Why does it always have to be extremes? If someone refers to it as a good win and another person disagrees, then it just has to be to the biggest extreme possible - in fact, it's a nothing win, a joke, if you disagree then you need help etc. It's like people don't want to give any ground or acknowledge that there's an element of truth to what the other guy is saying because it makes it look like they've 'lost' the debate.

Not a single soul would deny that Ward's win over Dawson would carry more weight (ba-dum bum) if it'd been at 175 - but that doesn't mean it's still not a good win in its own right. Dawson looked ok early doors in that fight - maybe the weight was partly the reason why Ward started dropping and bullying him in the third, but to argue that it had nothing at all to do with Ward just being better and putting on a superb performance (arguably his best so far) is a bit off-base.

Does Dawson getting sparked by Stevenson in a round next time out prove he was drained and incapacitated for Ward? Maybe, but maybe it just shows that he got caught cold against a massive puncher before we'd really seen what kind of nick he was in, as the fight was over before he'd even had a chance to show anything. His form has been miserable since, but maybe that's because the absolute chasing he got off Ward (and the knockout against Adonis) has ruined him as a fighter and wrecked his mindset, ala Lacy-Calzaghe. It happens. But it's not as if Ward had a crystal ball before he fought Dawson which allowed him to see how badly he was about to deteriorate and fall away.

by milkyboy Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:02 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This thread has taken 606v2 to depths I didn't think were possible, baffling stupidity and naivety on display. Those talking sense are being drowned out by idiots to put it mildly, was distancing myself from the arguments but th3 blindingly obvious needed saying.

Really? I think we've been here before. Most days. Which team are the idiots? Or if i have to ask, does that mean i'm first name on the team sheet of the idiots 11?

In all seriousness. Is not the consensus that:
- ward has proven himself a very very good fighter, perhaps not yet great due to his inactivity, but clearly the best super-middle on the planet.

- the defeat of froch was clear enough to negate the need of a rematch. However, if Froch is still the number 2, and ward isn't looking to change weights which appears to be the case, then a rematch is not a ridiculous proposition

- such a re-match would probably make more money in the uk... and would be seen as potentially a little more competitive with home advantage for froch. i.e. its not a far fetched proposition and it would sell.

- despite that, having clearly trounced froch, ward has no obligation to either fight him again or come to the uk if he does... but it might be a financially attractive option for him

- ward has been entrenched in contract wrangles that he may or may not have been of his own making and which he may or may not have been able to resolve earlier with a more pragmatic approach. He considered it a battle of principle so had he put 'legacy' ahead of principle, he probably could have been more active. It has caused his career to stagnate, much to the annoyance of fight fans, and most likely to him also.

- his win over dawson comes with the very same caveat that any fight, where one fighter cuts weight, does. No more no less.

- he's a smug c*nt

Everything else is conjecture.

by Hammersmith harrier Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:05 pm

Are you not computing that he's had contract issues or are you being deliberately obtuse, go back to arguing with D4 on JA606, it appears to be more your level.

Whether it's 1931 or 2012 or 1988 makes no difference to you fundamentally being wrong, Dawson simply was the no.1 Light Heavyweight in the world, that doesn't change because he's fighting at a different weight.

LaLonde and Berg both defended and lost their world titles at the weight below, you are also factually wrong because 168lbs is within the bounds of Light Heavyweight, the only difference being Dawson didn't put his title up for grabs.

Light Heavyweight= -175lbs not 168.1lbs-175lbs.

by Rowley Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:05 pm

If you're going to try and be even handed and post with such common sense Milky I may have to ban you.

This is no place for such posts.

by TopHat24/7 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:06 pm

milkyboy wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:This thread has taken 606v2 to depths I didn't think were possible, baffling stupidity and naivety on display. Those talking sense are being drowned out by idiots to put it mildly, was distancing myself from the arguments but th3 blindingly obvious needed saying.

Really? I think we've been here before. Most days. Which team are the idiots? Or if i have to ask, does that mean i'm first name on the team sheet of the idiots 11?

In all seriousness. Is not the consensus that:
- ward has proven himself a very very good fighter, perhaps not yet great due to his inactivity, but clearly the best super-middle on the planet. Agreed

- the defeat of froch was clear enough to negate the need of a rematch. However, if Froch is still the number 2, and ward isn't looking to change weights which appears to be the case, then a rematch is not a ridiculous proposition Agreed

- such a re-match would probably make more money in the uk... and would be seen as potentially a little more competitive with home advantage for froch. i.e. its not a far fetched proposition and it would sell. Agreed

- despite that, having clearly trounced froch, ward has no obligation to either fight him again or come to the uk if he does... but it might be a financially attractive option for him Agreed

- ward has been entrenched in contract wrangles that he may or may not have been of his own making and which he may or may not have been able to resolve earlier with a more pragmatic approach. He considered it a battle of principle so had he put 'legacy' ahead of principle, he probably could have been more active. It has caused his career to stagnate, much to the annoyance of fight fans, and most likely to him also. Agreed

- his win over dawson comes with the very same caveat that any fight, where one fighter cuts weight, does. No more no less. Agreed

- he's a smug c*nt Agreed

Everything else is conjecture.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:08 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This thread has taken 606v2 to depths I didn't think were possible, baffling stupidity and naivety on display. Those talking sense are being drowned out by idiots to put it mildly, was distancing myself from the arguments but th3 blindingly obvious needed saying.

Post of the day..

by Derbymanc Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:09 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Are you not computing that he's had contract issues or are you being deliberately obtuse, go back to arguing with D4 on JA606, it appears to be more your level.

Whether it's 1931 or 2012 or 1988 makes no difference to you fundamentally being wrong, Dawson simply was the no.1 Light Heavyweight in the world, that doesn't change because he's fighting at a different weight.

LaLonde and Berg both defended and lost their world titles at the weight below, you are also factually wrong because 168lbs is within the bounds of Light Heavyweight, the only difference being Dawson didn't put his title up for grabs.

Light Heavyweight= -175lbs not 168.1lbs-175lbs.

And you go back to calling people names because they don't agree with you, better yet, go sit in the corner have a good cry and get it out your system that your not that great and not everyone is going to agree with you.

I know he's had contract issues, I mentioned it in lots of posts

It makes a big difference that he didn't fight at the weight.

Doesn't that also make flyweight technically in Light Heavy weight.

by TopHat24/7 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:12 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Whether it's 1931 or 2012 or 1988 makes no difference to you fundamentally being wrong, Dawson simply was the no.1 Light Heavyweight in the world, that doesn't change because he's fighting at a different weight.

Changes the relevance of the fight and impressiveness of the result though, does it not?

Part of the reason Wilde is rated so highly (and other bygone era greats) is that their wins were against opponents significantly outweighing them, and therefore all the more impressive.

Bit of a strawman, but if GGG (consensus #1 at 160) boiled down to 147 to ensure a Floyd fight could happen, would Floyd winning be as impressive and as relevant as it would if Floyd came up to 160 to win? Or, heaven behold, fought GGG at 154 where he's meant to be the world champ anyway.

by milkyboy Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:12 pm

Rowley wrote:If you're going to try and be even handed and post with such common sense Milky I may have to ban you.

This is no place for such posts.

Sorry my bad. Normal service will be resumed shortly.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:15 pm

milkyboy wrote:
Rowley wrote:If you're going to try and be even handed and post with such common sense Milky I may have to ban you.

This is no place for such posts.

Sorry my bad. Normal service will be resumed shortly.

I started this 6 pages ago but I didn't mean it to become the free for all.... It has finished up as....

I'm pacifistic in nature.....

But ban Milky anyway...

by Hammersmith harrier Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:17 pm

milkyboy wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:This thread has taken 606v2 to depths I didn't think were possible, baffling stupidity and naivety on display. Those talking sense are being drowned out by idiots to put it mildly, was distancing myself from the arguments but th3 blindingly obvious needed saying.

Really? I think we've been here before. Most days. Which team are the idiots? Or if i have to ask, does that mean i'm first name on the team sheet of the idiots 11?

In all seriousness. Is not the consensus that:
- ward has proven himself a very very good fighter, perhaps not yet great due to his inactivity, but clearly the best super-middle on the planet.

- the defeat of froch was clear enough to negate the need of a rematch. However, if Froch is still the number 2, and ward isn't looking to change weights which appears to be the case, then a rematch is not a ridiculous proposition

- such a re-match would probably make more money in the uk... and would be seen as potentially a little more competitive with home advantage for froch. i.e. its not a far fetched proposition and it would sell.

- despite that, having clearly trounced froch, ward has no obligation to either fight him again or come to the uk if he does... but it might be a financially attractive option for him

- ward has been entrenched in contract wrangles that he may or may not have been of his own making and which he may or may not have been able to resolve earlier with a more pragmatic approach. He considered it a battle of principle so had he put 'legacy' ahead of principle, he probably could have been more active. It has caused his career to stagnate, much to the annoyance of fight fans, and most likely to him also.

- his win over dawson comes with the very same caveat that any fight, where one fighter cuts weight, does. No more no less.

- he's a smug c*nt

Everything else is conjecture.

That isn't what's being said though is it Milky, all of what you've said there makes sense but each point is being taken to the extreme.

Ward lacks ambition- fairly absurd for someone who cleaned out a strong division within 5 fights then took on the no.1 175lber at the weight Dawson wanted and then took on the decent Rodriguez. Rodriguez isn't a Quigg type defence, the guy has talent and it's not beyond the realms that he'll go on and win an alphabet title at some point.

Ward has to travel- Divisional number ones rarely travel, hell Pascal dictated terms to Hopkins which does help when i'm the old mans only fan but he ho. Did anyone expect Mayweather to fight Hatton in Manchester or did their fight show the marked difference in ability that venue wouldn't make a difference. America has and probably always will be the home of Boxing, you'll have the odd exception like Froch or Wlad but even they tried making it over the pond.

Dawson wasn't the no.1 175lber- despite the fact he was, trying to manipulate the actuality so that the win means less and somehow again shows a lack of ambition.

There's nothing wrong with an even handed retort but those who are constantly saying the same old drivel are not being even handed, hell even I know Froch stands no chance whether it's in Atlantic City, Oakland or Nottingham.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:20 pm

In fairness though it's Derby and then the usual idiots...

Like I said it's like a bang to rights defendant's counsel chucking mud and hoping some sticks...

by Derbymanc Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:23 pm

Dunno whether to say thanks for that Truss Smile

I think both sides have points, and Milky kinda made my points better than I did (obviously)

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:30 pm

Bottom line- Ward's win over Dawson is decent and only decent.

Nothing more...

by TopHat24/7 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:30 pm

Hammer accuses others of 'baffling stupidity' but then also doesn't seem to understand what the word 'since' means...... chin

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:33 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Hammer accuses others of 'baffling stupidity' but then also doesn't seem to understand what the word 'since' means......

Give it a rest.. Rolling Eyes

by Hammersmith harrier Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:36 pm

'Since' doesn't change the past or are you struggling to grasp that Toppy?

Ward has still fought and beaten Kessler (no.1 168lbs), Froch (no.2 168lbs), Dawson (no.1 175lbs) and four top ten ranked contenders in Green, Bika, Rodriguez and Abraham.

What he should have done though is walk away from his contract, pay the damages and then carry on boxing. Ignoring that those damages would probably be more than he'd earn in a single fight, if Burns is paying 200k in the UK then Ward would pay significantly higher as a bigger earner in the US.

It would have shown ambition though to effectively box for nothing but lets ignore the fact he has to earn a living and in reality isn't going to fight when it costs him money to do so.

by Steffan Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:40 pm

I'm fed up of all the stupid comments I have read on this thread

People should see sense and realise that...Ward is a contender...Froch is a tomato

by milkyboy Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:40 pm

Hammy i appreciate that. I wasn't referring to consensus on this thread. I was stating what was consensus in the real world... with all else being conjecture.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:42 pm

milkyboy wrote:Hammy i appreciate that. I wasn't referring to consensus on this thread. I was stating what was consensus in the real world... with all else being conjecture.

You were playing mind games............You're the Sir Alex of 606 Boxing..

by Mr Bounce Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:53 pm

3 things I have learned with this thread:

1. Ward-Dawson appears a lot more controversial now than when they fought (I thought Ward fought an almost perfect fight at the time).

2. Froch has as much likelihood of fighting Ward in Nottingham as me (and I haven't made 168 since about 1994...)

3. This is probably the most publicity that Ward has ever had in Britain.

by milkyboy Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:54 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:Hammy i appreciate that. I wasn't referring to consensus on this thread. I was stating what was consensus in the real world... with all else being conjecture.

You were playing mind games............You're the Sir Alex of 606 Boxing..

ouch...you know how to twist the knife in a leeds fan

by Guest Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:55 pm

I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.

Why the f*ck are you lot still debating this subject? I've covered everything that needs to be covered and discussed everything that needs to be uncovered (Rachel's breasts)

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:56 pm

DAVE667 wrote:I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.

Why the f*ck are you lot still debating this subject? I've covered everything that needs to be covered and discussed everything that needs to be uncovered (Rachel's breasts)

You've not covered Rachel yet !!!!!!!!

she's still topless !!

by Mr Bounce Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:57 pm

DAVE667 wrote:I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.

Why the f*ck are you lot still debating this subject? I've covered everything that needs to be covered and discussed everything that needs to be uncovered (Rachel's breasts)

Come on Dave - it's Rachael, not Rachel. That's why she's not returning your calls Yahoo

by Steffan Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:58 pm

DAVE667 wrote:I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.

We finally agree on something. Although I'd like to see her in a bit of porn as well (without Froch in the video)

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:58 pm

Mr Bounce wrote:3 things I have learned with this thread:

1. Ward-Dawson appears a lot more controversial now than when they fought (I thought Ward fought an almost perfect fight at the time).

2. Froch has as much likelihood of fighting Ward in Nottingham as me (and I haven't made 168 since about 1994...)

3. This is probably the most publicity that Ward has ever had in Britain.

Nothing controversial about the win for me, just that it comes with caveats, as Chris' post confirms.

by Guest Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:00 pm

Mr Bounce wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.

Why the f*ck are you lot still debating this subject? I've covered everything that needs to be covered and discussed everything that needs to be uncovered (Rachel's breasts)

Come on Dave - it's Rachael, not Rachel. That's why she's not returning your calls

If she spells her name like that, then I'll have to give serious consideration to not stalking, abducting and molesting her....right, considered it and it's something I can live with but I'm still gonna call her Rachel and if it upsets Froch then so much the better. Hope when they get married she doesn't take Carl's name as she'll be know as Rach Froch...eeeuugghhh!!!!!!!!

by Guest Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:01 pm

Steffan wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.
We finally agree on something. Although I'd like to see her in a bit of porn as well (without Froch in the video)

Yeah, no-one wants to see her using Froch's nose as a dildo

by **ShahenshahG** Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:06 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
Steffan wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:I've already said Froch loses to Ward wherever they fight and that Rachel should take up topless modeling.
We finally agree on something. Although I'd like to see her in a bit of porn as well (without Froch in the video)
Yeah, no-one wants to see her using Froch's nose as a dildo

Especially if it goes in through her fanny and out through her arse

by Herman Jaeger Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:09 pm

Carl does the best 69 in the business, he can eat and nosefrak at the same time.

by TopHat24/7 Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:17 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:'Since' doesn't change the past or are you struggling to grasp that Toppy?

Ward has still fought and beaten Kessler (no.1 168lbs), Froch (no.2 168lbs), Dawson (no.1 175lbs) and four top ten ranked contenders in Green, Bika, Rodriguez and Abraham.

What he should have done though is walk away from his contract, pay the damages and then carry on boxing. Ignoring that those damages would probably be more than he'd earn in a single fight, if Burns is paying 200k in the UK then Ward would pay significantly higher as a bigger earner in the US.

It would have shown ambition though to effectively box for nothing but lets ignore the fact he has to earn a living and in reality isn't going to fight when it costs him money to do so.

Since my last birthday, I've been 31. Before my last birthday I was 30.

Are you trying to tell me I'm still 30? Or 29 or 28 even? As that's how you're interpreting the word in your world.

'Since' doesn't change the past, it quite specifically, by definition, is only relevant to the period AFTER which it refers. SINCE Ward cleaned up, he's demonstrated minimal ambition. Everything BEFORE that point, is not being referred to therefore.

Would you like someone to draw you a picture??!

by TopHat24/7 Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:18 pm

milkyboy wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:Hammy i appreciate that. I wasn't referring to consensus on this thread. I was stating what was consensus in the real world... with all else being conjecture.

You were playing mind games............You're the Sir Alex of 606 Boxing..

ouch...you know how to twist the knife in a leeds fan

The David O'Leary of 606 boxing then?? Erm

by Hammersmith harrier Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:19 pm

You are actually struggling with this whole concept aren't you Toppy, i'll leave you to continue discussing the irrelevant 'since' on your own as everything else seems beyond you.

by TopHat24/7 Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:19 pm

Pathetic.

by Guest Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:30 pm

Since you've all decided to continue arguing I shall continue to bombard this thread with unsavoury comments about Carl's fiancée in the hope that the unsettling nature of my comments gets this thread locked and we can all get back to discussed the spittle moistened fingers of Miss Cordingley as they slowly caress her swollen...

by **ShahenshahG** Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:32 pm

DAVE667 wrote:Since you've all decided to continue arguing I shall continue to bombard this thread with unsavoury comments about Carl's fiancée in the hope that the unsettling nature of my comments gets this thread locked and we can all get back to discussed the spittle moistened fingers of Miss Cordingley as they slowly caress her swollen...

Testicles

by Sponsored content