Froch won!! Just rewatched it - my scorecard

I have a similar thread somewhere on here.
My score was 113-111 Froch.

I score constantly during a round.
Effective Aggression, Clean Punches, Ring Generalship.
I split the first 2 between them but Froch had the 3rd hands down.

Also it seems I have ALLOT more even
rounds than anyone else on these boards.

I like the thought of the
judges have a button per fighter. Holding it down for the fighter who they think is doing better as the action is happening. Computer tabulates who won the round by the amount of time each is held down during round.
Also means judges can be evaluated
rather easily...
Hell - the amateurs should be this way also.
No more stupid "have to hit button at same time" crap.

 

Well Said...Although I had Round 2 Even...But Round 1-3-4 ALL DIRRELL!!!

 

So I had it as thus -

Full card here:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177028

 

Has anyone ever heard of an EVEN ROUND!!!

Instead of WAVERING back n' forth like 3rd grader.

 

//. It must be a real small town, back in your "reality."

 

Effective Aggression, clean punches, Ring Generalship:?

I disagree with all of the three. Froch had a hard time landing a clean shot on Direll so he was not an effective agressor. I don't think you understand the term Ring General Ship.

It was obvious to any objective observer that Direll landed more punches and the cleaner blows. Also, the only guy getting stunned was seemingly Froch. and not Drell.That being said, I don't like the way Direll fought because he was holding too much.

 

I don't know how anyone would score the first couple of rounds for Froch or Dirrel. They were 10-10 rounds. In fact, most of the rounds in this fight were 10-10 rounds and should be scored 10-10. There has to be a clear winner, otherwise you're gonna get controversy. I've been saying this for a while now, if a round is that close, you score it equal and move on. Anyway this is probably my last post on this fight so here's my scorecard.

I score rounds based on "hit and don't get hit". I don't award rounds for agression unless the agressor is actually landing more than his opponent. I don't believe in the "challenger has to do more" rule either. I only score the actual fight, nothing else.

This first scorecard is based on bull**** refereeing (what actually happened, and therefore includes the point deduction)

1. 10-10
2. 10-10
3. 10-9 Dirrell
4. 10-9 Dirrell
5. 10.10
6. 10.9 Froch
7. 10.10
8. 10.10
9. 10.10
10. 9.9 (scored it 9-9 because Dirrel would have won the round had it not been for the point deduction)
11. 10.9 Dirrell (Dirrell's biggest round)
12. 10-10 (the only round I can see which is debatable. I scored it 10-10 because I thought Dirrell did enough in the early part of the round, but Froch finished strong. However, I have no problem with People scoring it for Froch)

as a result

118-116 Dirrell or if you score round 12 for Froch the score is 117-117. Either way, even with bull**** refereeing, Froch did not win.

Now if you score the fight based on what should have happened i.e the referee doing his job competently, then you add a point for Dirrel that should not have been taken away, and you deduct a point from Froch in round 8 for hitting the back of the head after doing it multiple times in previous rounds. It becomes

119-115 Dirrell.

Dirrell was screwed by poor refereeing and poor scoring. I have to say it, people are tired of hearing it, and this is probably my last post on the subject but the truth hurts. I will probably get flamed for it, but I'm a Brit who speaks the truth, not blinded by patriotism. It wasn't the worst decision ever but it was still a kick in the nuts for Dirrell.

On a positive note, this fight was intriguing. It wasn't "boring". Boring is Ibragimov vs Klitschko. Maybe some of you need to switch to UFC or bare knuckle fighting if you can't appreciate the skills of the sweet science. Fair enough it wasn't the most exciting or action packed fight, but it was watchable.


But like I said, people need to learn that there is such thing as a 10-10 round. If it's that close, you don't say "I saw Dirrel land 2 more jabs to the body than Froch so he gets the round, or "Froch looked like he landed the slightly harder punches so he edges it". Give me a ****in break, its 10-10 unless there's a clear winner. It's because of BS like this that there are **** decisions and controversy.

 

Not a comment for defense.
Not a comment for Direll making Froch fight his fight (ring general)

 

I watched it..

And Dirrell won..

He landed the more telling punches, hurt Carl Froch afew times..

And in the championship rounds, he did land afew bombs. Dirrell won the last two rounds in clear, Carl Froch was walking forward most of the fight....

But doing what..? Just looking like a ******

If this was in America, Carl Froch would not of had the stupid fans screaming for him.

Dirrell could of done a better job.

He was nervous this affected his performance.

But he still won..

And i think he's gonna win the whole thing...

 

The first 3 were close but I had them all for Dirrell because his jab was sharper, he made Froch miss more and he landed cleaner, other than that I generally agree although I think I gave Dirrell the 6th from memory, which was also close

 

its all a matter of opinions and the 3 people whose opinion mattered scored the fight collectively to froch.... Job done .

 

As I said in the other thread, all this proves is that you don't understand how to score a fight.

 

The fight was like watching a dodgeball match minus the ball.
A real mess. Hard to call.