Rewarded? He doesn't need to be "rewarded" for anything. This is boxing and he clearly defeated Froch in boxing, that's all what matters. He may refused to engage or take any risks, he also may ran as you say, but that's irrelevant. The judges don't need to favor anyone, they just need to do their job. Unfortunately, they didn't do their job well that night.
Andre is as skilled as they come in boxing. The Froch result was a major setback for him and his reputation though it was very undeserved. Boxing is about hitting and not being hit. Carl Froch is a warrior and one of the most entertaining guys when matched with another trading type. But he was made to look like a straight up fool every single round early on in that fight. It was night and day and Andre schooled him like he has never been schooled by anybody. And when the cards were read, they had the wrong man winning that fight. Andre won more rounds plain and simple. Though you also have to give Carl some credit for switching tactics to a much more roughhousing style to get back into the fight late. But it was too little too late when it comes to who really won that fight. The Abraham fight ending was also some very bad luck. He schooled Abraham and all people remember is the ending. And most focus on Andre and his reaction rather than the straight up foul Abraham committed. The whole super 6 tournament was a shame. Andre was the only guy in it that had any chance against Ward. I won't say he could beat Ward but he damn sure could give him a run for his money. Nobody else in the tourney could even come close. And to this day, he is the only guy out there capable of threatening Ward. But again it is very bad luck as they are buddies and from the same country. It's the best match up we have not seen in recent years and we will probably never see it.
It wasn't the AA fight that gave him a bad rep, it was the blatant duck of his pal Andre Ward under the advice of Dr. Shaw Hi that did it. After that I couldn't have cared less what he did in boxing. And I still don't.
I must say I'm shocked by the number of people who are capable of recognizing Dirrell's potential in spite of him not having accomplished too much yet. But will someone finally explain where this "mentally weak" thing comes from? Exactly, at times it looked like Mayweather getting into a ring with someone who's never boxed and purposefully making fun of them. The gulf in level of skill was vast. The only thing Froch could do is pull dirty moves, that's the only thing that worked for him in that fight and he did it because he couldn't do anything else. And then he wins a shameful hometown decision and gives a speech comparable (even worse) to his speech after the first Groves fight. Refusing to acknowladge that there even MIGHT be something fishy here. Acting as if he won a one sided fight.
It was supposed to happen during the Super 6 tournament. When/if Dirrell makes his way to back among the top guys in the division, hopefully it finally happens. Obviously it's hardly going to be on PPV.
Fine, sorry if coward offended you. However, you know what I mean. It was similar style wise to Canelo-Lara. Before you have a heart attack and say it wasn't, you can see that Lara was retreating while Canelo was chasing. Both of those fights went the other way because judges do not favor that style. Yes, Andre Dirrell could beat my ass, but that is not the point. Judges judge the fights.
The Abraham fight really ****ed him up, especially from the mental standpoint. To my knowledge, the questions of his "mental fortitude" really began with the aftermath of that fight (which, as I’ve stated before, was a horrible display from Abraham, bordering on criminality). Dirrell won me over as a fan with his performance against Froch on Froch’s "home turf", which I felt Dirrell won. It’s great to see him seeming to have his confidence back, and if he does … watch out.
But how do people get that he's mentally weak from the AA incident? Is the reasoning that he maybe faked being that hurt so he'd win by DQ or what?