If you are so worried about what the judges are doing then consider that they only use 4 criteria, clean effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defense. Nothing in there about any pre-conceived ideas about how the champion should be treated differently.
You said scoring should favor the champion. I can't agree with that.If a round is close but I feel the challenger did a bit more I will give him the round. In a fight being champion or challenger when scoring shouldn't count in judgement to whom receives the round.
I can understand peoples frustrations at Dirrells approach to the fight, however he imposed his fight on Froch, he silenced the crowd didn't allow Froch to gain any momentum and outlanded him. Although a frustrating fight i can't really see how Froch took it. IMO Dirrell dictated and landed more in his fight than Haye did in his.
I don't think I'm contradicting you. Even rounds I give to the champion, in reality there is no perfectly even round as was already pointed out, but just degrees of closeness. If both fighters very closely asserted themselves, I give the champ the benfit of the doubt, if it was close but one edged out the other I will reward respectively
dirrel should have won, he won more convincingly than haye against valuev in my book. i like froch but you cant deny that he was outclassed and even outlanded. dirrel made it a **** fight though... maybe thats why froch got the nod
hell yeah it was a dirty fight, not sloppy DIRTY.direll could not operate under that type of ref, crowd, and then theres a cobra.yet he still manage to win in my eyes.the american fighters are more sound and skilled and it shows with every matchup. jeramain taylor needs to have seat, he makes the usa team look bad, hope allen green gets in there.but yeah good fight and dirty.i bet direll will beat arthur !
I understand but in an up and down back and forth fight scoring can become very difficult.. and this is where personally philosophy and bias comes into play. What style a judge prefers, what they percieve as effective, whether defense or aggression gets rewarded even if most of the aggression is not effective for example, and then bigger picture philosophy, Which is what I'm talking about.
Then we disagree. If I feel a round is very close whom is the champion has no importance on how I score the round.
Why is this so often compared to Haye/Valuev anyway? Because there is a British fighter involved? Is that it? :huh The fights weren't similar. Valuev and Froch were not equally effective (or ineffective depending on how you look at it). Froch worked a lot harder than Valuev did and landed a lot more partial blows. When Valuev was missing he was often hitting air, and he just didn't impose himself very well by putting Haye under pressure.
First and foremost any fight fan calling Froch dirty should immediately do the same when it comes to Ward. That's just basic principle. As for the fight, It was god awful. To make matters worse I stayed home on my birthday to watch it and it was arguably the worst fight I've seen all year. Anybody who watched that fight more than twice deserves some sort of gift package from Showtime.
I would draw similarities because Dirrell seemed to be criticised in England for his spoiling tactics and for failing to engage. Haye on the oter hand was highly celebrated by staying on the outside and not getting involved in a brawl. I remember a comment after the Dirrell fight claiming he hadn't come to fight and didn't do enough to take the belt. Hayes performance was hailed as magnificient, smart and tactical.
Agreed, save for I had it one point for Froch in a very difficult fight to score. Dirrell had the ability to beat Froch, but lacked the bottle to actually go and do it