After seeing Andre Dirrell getting robbed in the UK it's easy to see why Ward won't..

Nothing to do with that. Dirrell from rounds 1-5 was executing his gameplan which was to pot shot and counter when Froch made mistakes. Froch then dirtied up the fight and Dirrell was too inexperienced and crumbled mentally from rounds 6-10 allowin Froch to grt back into thr fight. However when the point was taken from Dirrell he woke up and thoroughly dominated the rest of the fight even nullifying the point taken away when he hurt Froch in the tenth


Froch is a dangerous opponent and Dirrells gameplan was sound. The running and spoiling atleast for thr first 5-6 rounds and much of the championship rounds is drastically overstated

 

It seems some people scored it for Froch just because they don't like Dirrell. They watched a round and instead of looking at what landed, they'll say, "Man screw Dirrell. I'm giving that to Froch"

 

I had Dirrell winning that fight by two points, but it was in no way a robbery. It was a close fight with a lot of difficult rounds to score. Froch would beat him in a rematch, in my opinion.

 

When you win a Split Decision in your hometown, you know you got your ass kicked.

I would stay the hell away from fighting in the UK if I was Ward. No reason to lose your 0 unfairly. If you're going to lose it, lose it for real, in a real loss.

And you fools stop it with that "English judge gave it to Ward the widest"...it does not matter where the judges are from. If you have been watching boxing for more than 10 years, you'd know it doesn't matter. It makes me sick when I hear "The judges are international, we're getting a fair decision". No you are not, what matters is the home town, you don't have to have home town judges to get a HT decision. And in Ward vs Froch I's case in NJ, you obviously don't need to have anything at all to get screwed.

 

this is exactly why i think dirrell would win easy in a rematch if he managed to get a couple good fights in, he was on the big stage for the first time vs froch against a beast of an opponent in his very first step up in opposition level and he was in that guys backyard and still managed to outbox him for the majority of the fight. vs abraham he had less nerves as he experienced a step up vs froch and the big stage already so he was ready for it and looked much more confident. if he cam into the ring like that vs froch it would be a wide decision win for dirrell. seems like 50 cent is intent on ruining his career though. waste of talent.

 

I've always seen the fight as five Dirrell rounds, four Froch rounds and three close rounds. The first three rounds were the close rounds, you could very easily give them all to Froch, personally I gave him the first two out of the lack of activity combined with the fact he was at home and was going forward, in the third Dirrell seemed to start to connect more.

That's not right, any score from 115-112 Froch to 115-112 Dirrell is a decent score, anything wide of that in the favour of Froch you have a point.

 

Quite a fair bit of drivel that mate like has been mentioned the worst robberies
happen in America by a long long way so by your genius reasoning does that mean no one should travel there to fight in case they get unfairly treated ?

And do you think people mention the Brit judge scoring in Ward vs Froch because it was the only card that represented the actual fight making it a valid point.

 

dirrell lost. he ran most of the fight, challengers should try to avoid that

 

Yup. People don't seem to realise that judges would have taken - quite legitimately and correctly - his persistent trips to the canvas. He caught Froch plenty, but his idea of defence was to run away and fall over. That's going to put you in trouble with judges.

Close fight due to Dirrell's folly; he certainly had the talent to win, but one tends to assume he was certain of a KO defeat in the event that he used legitimate defensive tactics.

 

I personally don't care for either fighter, but I remember watching that fight live and thinking Andre had beaten him by 2 or 3 points. If you want to consider that a "robbery," so be it. I've seen much worse officiating over the years, but it was a bad loss for Andre and put an unwarranted blemish on his record at that point.

He was tagging him with the cleaner and more effective shots. He might've been a little too defensive in the latter part of the fight, but he was still outboxing him. I'd like to see a rematch between those 2 down the line if Andre can ever get his career back on track. It's been a downward spiral for him since the Abraham match.

 

Robberies happen in America more often because their are more high profile fights here than any where else. But the P4P title actually goes to Germany followed by UK. Which the small amount of high profile fights that happen there, the ratio of the charts.

And let's not act like African American boxers have not been part of these big robberies you claim have happened, and I mean they got the short end of the stick against a foreign fighter.

 

that's fair, but I'm just going based off what I've read from some of these guys. I don't even think some of them scored it and just watched the fight and said Froch won it, because they don't like how Dirrell fought


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUm8AHqiPKU
[yt]GUm8AHqiPKU[/yt]

Dirrell was "running", but he had the much cleaner punches in the fight

 

Damn, Froch sucks against boxers.

You saw the face of guilt in Froch's face when Dirrell was raising his hand with him?

 

Ignore MW. He's a white boy with identity issues.

 

Andre Dirrell is beyond a disgrace and it pains me to credit him with anything, but Froch didn't deserve the decision. Not an horrendus, out-and-out robbery, just a blatant hometown gift. Froch knew it and you can tell by the look on his face after the decision is announced.



And truth be told, in hindsight, I'm glad Dirrell got jobbed. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving fighter.