Which fighter do you rate that nobody else does?

Yeah Dirrell's another one I like but everyone else seems to hate.

Regarding the Froch performance, personally I thought it was a close fight, BUT a clear win for Dirrell i.e. he didn't win that many more rounds than Froch, but the ones he did win, he won clearly. I also thought there were a couple of 10/10 rounds in that fight which should not have been given to either fighter as there was nothing to seperate them.

Overall though Dirrell was making him miss all night, not landing much himself, but when he did land, they were cleaner, harder shots than what Froch was landing. If boxing is the art of hit and not be hit, then Dirrell gave him a lesson. Like Teeto said, it's annoying for Froch to try and redefine what the sport is all about. He was complaining because Dirrell did not stand in the middle of the ring and just trade shots?

As for the points deductions, I've seen much, much worse holding where the ref did nothing. Your average heavyweight fight probably has more holding but the ref does **** all. IMO Dirrell's holding was not excessive and did not warrant a deduction.

However, there were a couple of occasions where I felt that Froch should have been deducted points for hitting the back of the head, which is obviously very dangerous and outlawed for a reason.

Just my 2 cents

As for the Abraham fight, and then pulling out of the fight against Ward, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Only he knows for sure if he faked a knock out and then faked injury. I can see why people dislike him though.

 

This is a good post. It was a closely contested fight but I clearly had Dirrell as the winner.

 

now don't start getting keyboard warrior like,i don't like him,what you think a 'pure boxer' is,is not what i do,so ****ing what,if we were all the same the world would be full of twats:roll:

 

Staying well outside of punching range is not defence. Dirrell is an embarrassing fighter.

 

This content is protected

 

op

 

I never said it was defence. But in fact it is a form of defence. Defence isn't exclusively the type of defence that you personally find aesthetically pleasing.

Yeah, he's so embarrassing, being in that ring and being a boxer, what a ******. Open your dam mind man,

 

It's defence. It may not be a style of defence that you enjoy watching, but it's defence because he was able to make Froch miss and land more meaningful blows. Being more of an athletic type rather than a good inside fighter like Ward, he did what he had to do to win with his skillset and IMO did win the fight against a world class fighter in Froch.

 

Anyone with a brain and no agenda knows that you're right. This place knocks me ****ing sick at times.

Looks like my 'yearn for the sperm of the cobra' comment was ****ing spot on.

 

funny,ive been on here for a couple of years, and never seen you on the brit forum,good job really,you must be on the general,you seem to talk a lot of ****.
ps is that your mum shouting,think your tea is ready:hi:

 

:rofl


****ing bryn banging them out as usual

 

well I've been on the british before and my posting heritage is in the classic forum, not the general. I was a regular classic poster for about three years and tbh I'm (not to toot my own horn) still one of the most respected posters from the classic forum. Ask your God Flea Man if you want to dispute that.

PS is that your mum getting boned? Probably.

 

You're right, I have no brain, an agenda, and need to open my mind. What would my agenda be?

Staying well outside of punching range so your opponent can't even feasibly land is not defence, it's negativity.

Haye and Alexander have also employed this 'style'. Its more 'I'm scared to get hit' than 'I'll stop my opponent from landing' IMO. Everyone has an opinion, but it seems a product of the modern amateur system, and it makes for poor, unscientific viewing IMO.

As for styles, I like fighters of all shapes and sizes, so not a fair criticism for me IMO.

 

It is defence. Is this serious? It's possible to stay out of range and land, it's called using angles. Luis Manuel Rodriguez did it, he did otherr things, but he did this very well.

I refuse to pigeon hole defence under one criteria and banner. Footwork and mobility provide a vehicle for defense, as does inside craftsmanship. Defence is a versatile artform. I don't care which form of defense is the best or the most fancy or the most scientific, and I never debated anything of the stuff you just ranted about. I debated one sentence in terms of defence, and this was it;

'staying out of range is not defense'

that's the sentence I'm nullifying. The other stuff you said is a lecture you know I don't need, I'm more than up on what defence is, you know this well.

 

:bowdown i apologise oh mr big respected one,widdy is humbled by your brilliance :smooch

ps,i dident say anything disrespectfull about your mother or family,don't do it with mine sunshine:deal