Saw a Dirrell fight for the first time

JT wasn't washed up, he still had the ability, he out boxed Carl for most of that fight, his stamina was just terrible.

 

I had Dirrell wining and there is no doubt he won, now i expect people to tell me he did this and that blah blah blah it was an ugly fight but Froch didnt land ****, he was hitting air all night looked like amateur many times missing by a mile. Both fought dirty if i remember only Dirrell got 1 point deducted but Froch deserved it as well for so many punches landed behind the head...
Shame about Dirrell extremely talented but he is proof of how important is mental aspect of boxing.

 

Dirrell had the chance to be a difference-maker in the division, I really rated his potential.

Sadly, something's missing there. It's not just the poor situational awareness he had in the Froch fight where he fought like the home fighter and not the visiting one. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's a shame we haven't gotten to see him step up and reach his potential. It seems like now he's on his way to becoming just another "what-if" guy.

 

dirrell wasn't active enough against froch
it's one thing being a better boxer than your opponent, it's another thing proving it by winning the fight decisively

dirrell didn't and so he wasn't awarded the decision

 

So its all about activity?? so hitting air > hitting opponent?? Dirrell landed more cleanly and even hurt Froch at the end of 10th, it wasnt nice fight to look at and score but could not score it for Froch.

 

Never cease to be amused by these claims he 'clearly' beat Froch. It was close. Dirrell could've won if he'd fought with more confidence, but he didn't. So boring hearing all his butthurt fanboys bawling about how he's been badly treated and how 'potentially' he could beat anyone at 168. Maybe he could, but this sport isn't about potential, it's about results.

 

froch held the paper belt - dirrell was a better boxer but was too gun shy to prove it decisively, so froch kept it.

it was dirrell's fight to win and he didn't want it badly enough, because he didn't take enough chances

 

What rounds did you give Froch? Do you agree with the Italian judge who gave Froch the 11th?

 

a close fight with each round being pretty clear

 

I think the point being made is that Dirrell did indeed "win". Not that he "could have", but that he did. In the way that, say, Cunningham won against Adamek or Matthysse won against Alexander.

 

Dirrell has talent and skill, but there was still something missing in the Froch fight. It might just be lack of experience, or maybe his general mentality. He looked quite negative at times, and also uncomfortable with Froch's rough tactics.

This content is protected

 

Dirrell should have been DQ'd against Abraham?

Do you also believe that Holyfield should have been DQ'd against Tyson, for exposing his ear in so frank and delicious a manner?

 

Do you agree with the ref who didn't disqualify Dirrell for excessive holding?

 

Clarky Cat will not be drawn in to a detailed discussion of what actually happened in the fight. You know, like who landed all the good punches and things like that.

 

Body slams and grotesquely flagrant rabbit punches are A-OK, but run-of-the-mill holding is DQ-worthy. That's Clark Cat for ya.