x = pick'em rounds Froch - Direll 1. 10 - 10 X 2. 10 - 9 X 3. 9 - 10 4. 9 - 10 5. 9 - 10 6. 10 - 9 7. 10 - 9 X 8. 9 - 10 9 10 - 9 10. 9 - 10 11. 9 - 10 12. 9 - 10 X 113 - 116 With point deduction: 113-115. If I give all the 'pick'em' rounds to Froch that I didn't already give him, it would be 114-114. And with the point deduction, it would be 114-113. In rounds, I scored it : 4-7-1 in favour of Direll. Changing the 'pick'em' rounds: 6-6. The point deduction, while possibly merited, came without warning and overall, I feel was unnecessary. Two judges scored it 7 - 5 for Froch and one scored it 7 - 5 for Direll. Nearly all of the rounds were close, so 'robbery' and 'gift' are inapplicable here. Direll was the much more skillful and faster fighter here, but he lacked sufficient aggressive output. Which is a pity, as he definitely had it in him to do better. Defence counts, and Direll frequently made Froch look foolish, swinging at empty air. But a minimum modicum of offence is needed to wrest away the title, especially if you're not laying any serious damage on the champion. And Direll failed to do enough to close the show. I would have awarded the fight to Direll, but I'm not surprised at the decision. Assuming he can learn from his folly, I would put my money on Direll in a rematch.
He warned him about 6 times for holding. I counted Dirrell holding about 14 times before he got a point deducted, it completely ruined the fight.
I scored it a Draw... With froch winning because of the point deductions.... I cant stand people who say froch didnt land **** atsch Those people are ****ing newbs who dont watch ****ing boxing.... Froch did alot of work on the inside, and caught direll CLEAN many times when direll was holding. I clearly remember his head snapping multiple times... Also while i dont agree with alot of carls tactics, both fighters were guitly of some rough ****. But carl only did his AFTER direll refused to engage and held :huh It was ****ing hilarious to see direll trying to clinch froch and getting decked repeatedly . Direll needs to realize that the pro game is complelty diffrent from the AM game. In the pro game, your allowed some rough housing, and refusing to engage is actually penalized. People who say froch didnt land anything, obviously dont have an eye for boxing, and can only see a shot land when it makes a loud sound or when the commentator tells them :yep. Froch also landed plenty of good jabs during the fight. Which were alot more effective then dirells BUT, it was a very close fight, with froch mauling like a drunk irishman, and direll hitting and clinching/running like a scared kid. Id take direll in the rematch, as i think hell have enough experience to counter froch's sloppy swings. I like both fighters, but neither won any fans tonight :-(
You know i cant believe someone born in "88" is trying to call the fans who had Dirrell winning a newb:rofl:rofl I had already fought in some rough gyms and tournaments before you were even born,not to mention a young boxing historian. Man i crack up on some of these know nothing boxing fans calling others Newbies:-lol::-(. Maybe i should go on the classic boxing forum.
Now there's a man with integrity. Froch won a closely fought fight. 114-113 Carl Froch. Holding is not in the rules.
I love how some people like to bring up what they did in the "old days" as some kind of justification. Looks like your going senile! The showtime announcers said it was close, looks like the board is split about who won, and many say it was a close fight. Looks like you better stick to the classic forum, talking about fights no one cares to watch anymore. Then no one will call you out on your bull**** scoring :yep And btw, why did you check my profile? What are you some kind of ******? Sorry, but i dont "exchange info" with dudes online
check this out chavala(little girl) i aint no old man I am a young 39 someone youd never talk to like that in person you little internet warrior. Justchecked your profile cuz i figured you must be a no nothing about boxing and seems iwas right. Dont put your **** out there if you dont want no one calling you on it little chavala!
I tell whoever whenever what they need to hear when I want to. Young 39? Dude.. your already OLD. Face it man, its sort of sad that you consider yourself young :-(. I guess you are, trying to "start beef" or "act tough" on internet sites. If you really are 39, then you must have developed in a ******ed way, because no 39 year old i know says "I am a young 39 someone youd never talk to like that in person you".... Wow dude you seriously need to grow the **** up, your trying to "act tough" now on the internet. Looks like your the E warrior. Because i never mentioned anything about physical disputes Btw i know what that word means, no need for translation. I guess you needed to write the translation, so people who didnt understand it would know how "cool" you are for writing it. Get ****ing real. You are 39 on a boxing forum engaging with arguments with 20 year olds.... Were the **** is your life at man???