FROCH VS. DIRRELL Last thing ill say

Hi, I just thought that Dirrell was holding too much, and going into his cage too quickly - and staying there for too long - if Froch showed any sign of returning fire. Dirrell changed stance not as a means to get to Froch, but as a means to keeping Froch at distance. Which works if you are landing your own work, but not if you are not. Sure, Dirrell landed a little, but only two hurtful shots through the whole fight and against that he held and complained an awful lot. Be clear, I am not saying that this was a vintage performance from Froch, diappointingly far from it (I'm a Brit!) but Dirrell was too negative and his meaningful attacks too sporadic and brief to give him much. He moaned as much as Sven Ottke but landed even less. At least Froch looked like he was trying to engage, evenn if he looked unschooled and confused by the southpaw elements of Dirrell's work. To my eye, Dirrell could have won but lacked the confidence in his work. Safety first doesn't work for me, and should not work at world title level. Had this fight not been in the Super Six, but had been just a voluntary defence of the world title, I don't think that there would be the same furore over the decision. Close, but neither was very impressive.

 

turn off the volume... and dont listen to the announcers

word that was something i also noticed..

in the last like 5-6 roudns froch had no clue what the **** he should do

 

Psychologically the announcers do create a certain unexplained - subconscious bias in the minds of certain fans.

Holding or clinching is a strategy ... it shouldn't be a punishable offense ... the fighters are the ones fighting the fight ... and i'm sure if Froch really wanted to he wouldn't have allowed himself to be in a clinch or leaned on ... (like Teddy Atlas says) guys who allow it to happen want it to happen. It takes two to clinch !!

 

I think the fighter that was effected by the body shots was Froch and he slowed down as a result ... his balance looked poor and for a come forward boxer/puncher ... he was letting Dirrell do whatever he wanted to do in the ring ... and him being the champion should not have allowed that to happen at all.

 

since when was holding against the rules ?

holding is a technique... everyone was blowing bhops **** & shanes **** for holding against pavlik & margarito...

everyone begged cotto to hold against margarito




then when someone wins a fight using some holding its a big issue... people are so wishy washy in boxing its disgusting

 

:yep I gave Froch a few rounds.

 

I think most of the issues is that Dirrell looked so ungainly doing it. Like he's never been taught to tie a guy up properly. In a clinch you generally take control of the arms by hooking yours over or under the other guys. Dirrell was just straight up falling into Froch and hugging him around the chest, around the waist, anywhere, and then leaning on him stumbling forward, instead of walking him backward. He didn't do this every time, and he clinched effectively at times, but he just looked bad enough to create a negative impression.

He looked out of control and off balance a lot of the times he went to clinch, versus someone like Hopkins or Floyd or Shane against Margarito who were very effective at tying the other guy up while still looking sturdy and in control.

 

i was part of the helpfull nottingham crowd..:good