Froch vs Dirrell - I hope all of you so called boxing experts get shut the %u@k up

Solid Chin, seeing as you are so adamant that Dirrell will walk away as winner, tell me this. Should he lose will you come back on here and say you were wrong? Somehow i doubt that. Your opinion is perfectly valid, so don't criticise others with differing opinions from yourself. Personally i'm tiring of these threads stating how Dirrell or Froch will do this or do that, when none of us ****ing know what will happen. Why can't there just be one thread where we can all have a prediction poll.

And just for the record i think that Froch will take this.

 

It isn't a fact if it is clearly incorrect, but thats fairly irrelevant point to your analysis anyway.

Although Dirrell clearly has a stylistic advantage in that he has great handspeed and is offensively sharp, theres a couple of things that could spell trouble for him against a world class opponent.

He moves backwards in straight lines often, and doesn't mind getting ushered into the corner or within close proximity to the ropes, which up until this point has not been a problem as inexperienced opponents have bull rushed him without throwing any punches. For someone who relies on footwork to keep himself out of trouble he crosses his feet a lot and slips into a narrow stance too often, he has excellent athleticism, but poor footwork technically.

He doesn't maintain a high guard, that on its own isn't a huge issue, but the problem is he relies on footwork most of the time to avoid being hit, rather than upper body movement (although he has good reflexes he doesn't consistently apply it, so a shoulder roll once or twice a round doesn't count). When he can't move anywhere, and is doing things like changing direction rapidly without a guard up, it opens up a few chances to get hit flush moving into a shot (you could see an example of this in the Oganov fight but it wasn't a well timed shot and frankly, Oganov sucks).

He gets carried away and flurries without picking his shots when he senses defensive liabilities, and then gets passive for a period of time to recover. He can't do this against Froch, this is particularly important considering he is likely going into deep water that he has never been in before.

Obviously a lot of this is pretty minor, and Dirrell still clearly has a stylistic advantage, but when you start to think about a few other factors like power and punch resistance, it starts to look a bit more difficult for Dirrell. Dirrell has pop, but there have been a few bad signs, like when he has thrown the kitchen sink at journeymen and although they have clearly been rattled he hasn't been able to put them down when teeing off with flush shots in huge numbers.

 

Erm, I wouldn't phrase it exactly like that, but that's not an unreasonable statement. Froch is more of a known quantity and proven at a higher level than Dirrell is, there are more question marks against Dirrell than against Froch. Anytime you have that situation then the outcome of the fight is to a large extent dependent on how the fighter with the question marks answers those questions.

I've seen Dirrell backers compare him to Floyd Mayweather, Roy Jones and a young Ali, ok? Hey, if that turns out to be true, Dirrell wins! If Dirrell, on the other hand, is taken off his game plan by the crowd, if he walks straight backwards to the ropes as we've seen him do before, if he hasn't improved his defence, if his stamina isn't up to 12 rounds, if he can't answer those questions positively then he loses.

We can more confidently state Froch's level than Dirrell's right now. Froch hasn't been in enough world level fights to consider that completely established. But it's fair to say that the outcome of the fight will depend to a greater extent on how Dirrell answers the questions against him.

 

Watch Dirrells stance if you have any doubts over his technique ... against guys of 5'8 and 5'9 you can box t distance and maintain balance ... Froch will be in Dirrells face landing jabs and Dirrells stance is too wide .. he will topple unless he gets his feet and legs set ! ... for me Froch by KO in the 5th ... Froch is a unique fighter and he too will have learned alot from the Taylor fight ..expect an improving Froch to be in that ring sunday morning !

Im that confident ive a months salary on Froch to win this fight .... no doubts in my mind ...

 

Alot of ifs there...OT, are you by any chance a reprogrammed HattonBot?:hi:

 

was that courtesy of a non HD clip on youtube...just typical of a HattonBot!

 

Of course there are a lot of 'ifs', that's the exact point. Whenever you are making as big a step up in class as Dirrell is, there will always be a lot of ifs.

I'm not sure exactly how Ricky Hatton is relevant to this thread, do you have anything worthwhile to actually contribute?

 

..well it's still good to know that you've got a job after taking the advice from your ex-God Hatton in betting the mortgage on him

 

OY **** ! ...im not even a Hatton fan u dickhead ! and just for the record I have seen Dirrell box in person you fackin arsewipe !

 

You did honestly believe Hatton would beat both PBF and Pac man, right?

 

Really? What fight?

 

Okay, I'll give you some STYLISTIC reasons for why he MAY be out of his depth.

Doesn't employ enough head movement.

Has been dropped by a lesser puncher than Froch (heavily)

Isn't a big puncher (watch the first round with Oganov)

Pulls back with his chin in the air (watch the last round against Oganov)

Shits himself when rushed (Hanshaw)

Doesn't have a good team around him (his Grandpa seems to know jack ****)

His mentor (Grandpa Dirrell) isn't going to be in attendance

There you go. Nothignt o do with unproven. In a fight where both fighters make obvious mistakes I think it comes down to the man with the bigger punch and better punch resistance, clearly Froch.

Also, Dirrell's 'boxing' doesn't seem to be up to much, he couldn't keep lateral movement up against Oganov and gassed after a few rounds. He's also off balance quite a lot and his switch hitting leaves him square on.

You're just a hater. I'd like to see you pull up some stylistic reasons WHY Dirrell will win. Not just 'we'll see how good he is'. The fact of the matter is you're castigating everyone for sayign Dirrell is this and that but there is also no evidence to the contrary.

Before anyone says 'he was a good amateur though' so were Howard David, Mark Breland and Audley Harrison:deal

 

:good

 

No, I had Hatton as underdog for both.

You're confusing me with someone else?

Actually I probably thought Hatton would be Pacquaio when Pac was at SFW, but then so did everyone except PacDabest....