1) If you watch the fight as a whole, you cannot say Dirrell was not the better fighter. I can't really remember Froch landing one real meaningful punch in the whole fight, and Dirrell hit him with a few that really hurt him. Dirrell's defense was awesome, and he is exceptionally quick. He's also a lot better in offense than he seems to think, and I actually think he could've knocked Froch out had he went after it. 2) However, a fight is not scored as a whole and is scored round by round. I had the fight 7-5 for Dirrell but could have easily had it 6-6, and as such I don't consider this a robbery. The rounds that Direll won were clear, but Froch could have won 7 rounds if you gave him the close ones for being the aggressor. I'd like these guys to both get through and meet later in the tournament to clear things up. Shame it wasn't a better fight.
I thought Dirrell won, wasn't scoring it but it seemed pretty clear he was doing the better work. However, I completely get the judges going against him in some rounds for being too negative. He really should have capitalised on froch's misses more, made him pay after he made him miss. Things happen in the ring that we can see better on camera than judges can from their fixed viewpoint. What I'm saying is, I can understand judges favouring the aggressive guy in a fight like that with so little action. I don't agree with it in this instance but I do understand it.
That should normally be the important factor in judging each round. The most important criteria of judging a boxing match is ''how many times fighters truly connect on their opponent''. Froch did land a few but in practically every round, Dirrell outlanded him. I truly didn't like seeing Dirrell at times last night, but we can't start changing the rules of the game to please others that only want brawls. If Dirrell didn't win last night, then we might as well officially turn the sport into a stand up MMA competition. Once again, hit and not get hit is the most important factor in boxing, therefore Dirrell clearly won most rounds !!
Actually the judges might have thought Froch connected with a few of the punches that you could see Dirrell avoided on the slo mo.
I agree but to be honest there wasn't really an effective punch in about 8/9 of the rounds so who do you score them for?? I'm guessing the judges went for Froch as he was coming forward. Like I said I scored it for Dirrell but I don't consider it a robbery!!! I think it's being overplayed.
I had Dirrell up by several rounds. I just don't understand the case to the contrary. He was fast, accurate and elusive and landed consistently; Froch was wild, disorganised, rarely landed a clean punch and got hit by pretty much everything bar the stool. Dirrell was truly robbed.
Total and absolute rubbish. I said it in the other thread and say it in this one. He might have outlanded him but because Dirrel might have thrown two punches and Froch thrown one punch in the whole round don't mean jacks. At the end of the day, hardly any punches were thrown and all you saw was one guy chasing the other. There was no fighting. Just running, diving and hugging. It is great to see Dirrell lose the fight. Great for Boxing. I don't want to see another one of his running around the ring 'fight' ever again. Dirrell is a disgrace to boxing.