I was wondering if there was a punchstat for that fight! Anyone who saw that fight would see it the same way, Dirrell outpunched Froch.
Even though these stats are shite, it wouldn't matter anyway. As you all know, fights are scored on the 10 point must system which is round based not punch based. A fighter could land a load of punches in a couple of rounds which increases his average over a fight. It doesn't necessarily mean the fighter won more rounds. If punch stats were the be-all and end-all they would be used to determine the winner of a fight.....but they aren't and they're not.
Abraham v Taylor was a close fight. Froch v Dirrell was not. Still waiting for a valid explanation of how Froch won from the Brits, other than the lame excuse that the inept judges said he won. Waiting.....hello....still waiting...
Not at all, no one including americans really thought taylor was winning that fight before the ko. nice try tho
Translate: because the punches hurt and he didn't want to risk getting hit with any more of them than he had to. Your definition of Hopkins is not a counter-puncher but a loser. I'm a big Hopkins fan, but Calzaghe unnerved him, plain and simple.
It's been a week now and I haven't heard one legitimate explanation of how Froch won, only "Froch won, get over it Yank".
finally the numbers come out! they look pretty much exactly like i thought they would. what a ****in joke.
I know right. Thats the biggeset cop out ever. Thats what you say when you know you lost and got a gift. They should just take the W and STFU before they really look like idiots when Froch gets sparked. Like they havent learned from the Hatton fiasco. Dont hype up limited fighters, its just gonna make you look stupid in the end.
yeah. it's all one big conspiracy to make froch look bad... :-( look, obviously fights are not scored solely on punch stats. that said, stats like these portray an obvious winner. you simply CANNOT win a championship fight landing 6% of your punches. no other factors in the world can make up for that.