Who do you think won that fight, Froch or Dirrell?

From where I was sitting Froch was employing a constant jab but the couple of good punches came from Dirrell. Now, I didn't score it live, but I felt Froch had pressed the action and had a nice jab and won. HOWEVER if I rewaych and rescore it and find Frovh is as innacurate with the jab has others are saying then maybe I will see it differently. God knows why Froch couldn't get anything going, had Dirrell cornered numerous times.

 

flea what did you score it wathcing it on the telly

 

Just re-watched the fight and I had Froch nicking it by a round.
From about round 7 onwards I noticed Dirrell wanting to hold on to Froch much more, this coincided with the success Froch was starting to have in landing some of his power shots, I think Dirrell started to taste Froch's power and hence he started to hold more than he did in the first half of the fight.

Some of the commentary was baffling, I think the analysis after round 11 (or 10) when the commentators remarked that Dirrell had landed good left hooks, when in fact, as clearly shown on the replays he actually didnt land those shots, the fist hit the air behind Frochs head.

I think the impression of Dirrel scoring regularly was also inflated by the amount of jabs and combos that hit Frochs gloves, especially in the earlier rounds.

Overall, I was impressed by Dirrell and he certainly should have won this fight if he had have been busier, especially with his counter combos. Froch struggled to catch Dirrel with his arsenal and that wasnt down to Dirrel running, it was due to Dirrel's brilliant footwork. This is something that I did not fully appreciate in the Dirrel fights that I watched on youtube. Hence, this is why I expected Froch to stop Dirrel. When Froch landed his power shots, they were not his best flush shots, but clips. Even so, they rocked Dirrel, which justified Dirrel tactics.

 

Well, it's just a saying that becomes received wisdom, it happens in boxing all the time, like 'undisputed' is currently being morphed into something it doesn't literally mean

But the idea behind 'it takes more than that to win a title' is just that you are unlikely to be awarded rounds for fighting off the back foot excessively against a champion in his backyard

You are there as a challenger. If you are actually not challenging but are instead trying to prevent a fight, you are unlikely to find favour with the judges


You're taking it a bit too literally, nobody really thinks the champ gets a free point a round for being the champ, but in the real world you'll not often pinch a title with overwhelmingly negative tactics

 

As ever, trotter, you're the voice of reason. Of course you're right, I was just irked by the fact so many people were using this as part of their argument as if they were saying it would have been different had Carl not held a strap.

It wasn't a master class from Dirrell but, had he had more experience, I think he would have done the necessary extra to clearly win this fight. Froch, conversely, was shown to be massively limited and I fear for his progress in the competition now.

 

The only argument for Froch winning seems to be that Dirrell was negative an holding.

That is very well but Froch still had to do something to WIN the fight and he didn't. He barely did anything. On the other hand Dirrell had plenty of successes.

 

Was press for the fight and had Froch winning by 2.

 

then you need to find another job, scoring boxing aint your thing

 

Man even the brit forum scores it for Dirrell how obvious is that?

 

I'd love to see the cards

I can only assume Froch was given the bulk of the first half / 2/3rds of the fight

In which case he probably got a lot of very cheap rounds where sure, he had very little success, but Dirrell did nothing at all

I suppose you have to pick the fight apart round by round to understand the scoring, whereas naturally we all tend to view the piece as a whole

 

It was a split decision. A hard to score, controversial fight.

55% of the Forum thought Dirrell won.

There's nothing 'obvious' about it...

 

just 55% huh??


honestly, some of you guys are beyond help. You can't even be honest about the polls we can all see with our own eyes.

A big majority has Dirrell winning, and that majority becomes stronger when you only factor in the respected posters.

 

My thoughts exactlyy. I was in the arena as well and didn't score either but was a bit unsure as to how to score the judges would have scored it nothing would have suprised me to be honest it was that harder fight too score will have to rewatch.

 

It says 55% on my screen. You've lost me.

 

Impossible fight to score really do not know who won just depends on who was on the judges and what they liked to be honest I think the home town advantage was what helped but I wouldn't call this a robbery by any stretches of the imagination.