I apologize on behalf of my country

Why you apologizing? Grow some ****in' balls man, seriously.

 

No chance did Dirrell lose this fight...He won enough rounds including the final 2 and even had Froch rocked at one point. Froch looked like De La Hoya did vs Pacquaio.

And also to say Dirrell was running in the fight? He was BOXING a dirty fighter with NO STYLE or TECHNIQUE. I believe from round 10 on DIRRELL was the one engaging, DIRRELL was the one throwing punches, DIRRELL was the one pushing Froch back with actual punches. The mother ****ing showtime commentators made this fight sound decent for Froch. If this was on HBO we woulda hear Letterman screaming how extremely well Dirrell did and have him up at least 8 to 4 rounds.

Dirrell may have lost the fight, but he won A LOT of fans including myself. He showed tremendous class with his post fight interview, did not whine like most would after a robbery like that. What a champ.

And for Froch. All respect for you is lost. Even he and his corner/family didn't think he won, jus look at their faces.

 

The man is simply being objective and honest. It's nice to see some unbiased Brits. There aren't many.

 

What about Froch rabbit punching 374 times? Seriously they shouldve put it on punchstat. No point deduction? And the reason he kept doing it was out of frustration of not being able to catch Dirrell who was coming in and out and hitting Carl flush.

 

It was not a robbery.
Dirrell did not throw enough punches, instead he ran for most of the fight or clinched. That does not win you a boxing contest.
Froch was crap but because dirrell stunk the joint out by moving away from danger asap he was made to look like the agressor and thus the judges went for him.
He staggered dirrell twice and gave him a blody nose in the second, id say they were more telling punches!
It was close but NOT a ROBBERY!

 

Okay dude we get it. But honestly to say that Froch won because of what Dirrell DID NOT do really makes no sense. Not enough punches? he landed plenty, probably 3x more than Froch) Froch won because Dirrell ran? (he effectively avoided punches while landing his own and pushing Froch back by fighting not being a slop throwing wildly as Froch did. Froch was much more staggered and who gives a **** about a bloody nose? You sound ridiculous.

The best part about what happened is if they rematch, we all know Froch is going to look like a joke. Guarenteed. He will be very hesitant to agree to another fight with Dirrell, please stop coming at me with more bull****.

 

Froch's performance was worse than the decision. I've come to expect spotty judging and this was a questionable decision. Aggression alone is not worthy of a round. It has to be effective aggression and Froch hardly landed a thing in this whole fight. His best offense was a throwdown and punches on the break. He was completely baffled and was seriously hurt. Dirrell hardly suffered a significant punch all night.

Dirrell landed the far more meaningful punches and at times made Froch look like a rank amateur.

But again, I've seen worse decision. No one has ever said the judges get right every time.

 

thanks for ur unbiase thread.

 

Dirrel fought negatively, no disputing that.

 

Dirrell did outbox Froch, who looked absolutely atrocious. However, Dirrell shot himself in the foot with his holding and running. That was as hard to watch as Froch's excuse for technique.

 

use the ring use the ring... AGILITY. counterpunching... if you call that running then watch WWE

adn yeah Dirrel won the fight.

 

Oh dear, so I'm an idiot and clueless ****er because we have a different view of the fight? :roll:

The majority of judges, Danish TV and press row agree with me. But I forgot that you are more qualified than they are :good

I suggest you watch the fight again but turn off the volume and clearly bias commentary.

 

R o b b e r y

 

you dumb twat.
if you were british you wouldnt be spelling apologize with a Z.

 

I'm american and I had froch winning