i cant seem to remember this fight but by all accounts the ref and decision was a scandal? im gunna have to watch it
Not at all, was a close fight that could have gone either way in my opinion, close fights aren't robberies
the reports i seen had Dirrell miles ahead?also said Froch was constant fouling ? shall i give it a miss?is it a stinker?
just general google searches....seems that Dirrell got completely schooled by all accounts .. ill take you guys word for it,close fight so not a robbery and keep my 45 minutes
there were moments when dirrell totally outclassed froch, but too few and far between. less heart than thatcher! you're better off watching hearns hagler 4 times.
Depends what you look for Dirrell was cheating/killing the fight all over the placed but was more skilled and precise whereas Froch was more aggressive, more entertaining etc, depends what you look for, I wouldn't Dirrell in a hurry though, like watching paint draw./
By the way most people score fights around here it was about 8-4 to Dirrell. Dirrell wasnt that impressive or anything but he outscored Froch most of the time. I dont mind him not getting the decision though, he was fairly negative fighting a champion in his home town and never stepped it up. Wasnt one of Frochs better nights too he looked off the pace but its an inteserting enough fight.
Scoring this fight is very subjective. It depends what you prefer : 1. The man who runs away most of the night, stopping to clinch occasionally, and even managing to do some slick boxing and land a crisp clean punch once or twice in rare inspired moments. OR 2. The man who plods forward constantly, flailing at thin air and trying to catch as many punches in his face as possible - alas there are too few incoming - before resorting to grabbing and pushing and attempts at forearm smashes. I had Direll winning but he didn't box enough to claim "robbery".
I wouldn't say a robbery, but Froch didn't land a single punch for 12 rounds. No, seriously, he didn't.