Froch/Dirrell: Another look.

No way!!! Not only does that makes no sense; it's flat out wrong. Wow. I'm amazed that this belief is held by people. No, no, no, no, no.

You can't base a fight on a previous fight. Seeing as each round is scored independently of each other, how can you say a whole fight is scored based on another?! Crazy.

p.s. I'm a Froch fan and wanted him to win, but I had Direll winning the fight.

 

Agreed. Its just excuse for a robbery :-(

 

Yes, but the point you are missing is that Froch and Dirrell were the same weight and height. Valuev outweighed Haye by 6stone and was about 9inches taller

 

Froch was more effective than Valuev, Haye was more effective than Dirrell.

Valuev was only getting air the majority of the time, whereas Froch did land some good punches. He didn't land lots, no, but he was so much more effective than Valuev, who couldn't hit Haye all night long.

Haye's punches were landing flush and you felt he could hit him any time he wanted to. Be fought composed, calm and did his job. Dirrell struggled to find any rhythm and despite landing good shots, he never looked like he was dictating the fight, unlike Haye.

Then, it goes without saying that Dirrell fought a much uglier fight. He ran and held far more than you should in a title fight. Haye boxed and moved well and didn't spoil the fight at all. In fact, given Valuev's use of holding tactics in the past, Haye did well to avoid clinches, whereas Dirrell initiated it all night long.

They weren't that alike, honestly.

 

And I thought that Oiimpic scoring was bad.:verysad

 

My flabber is ghasted. I hope you're not a professional judge.

It is just not in the rules to favor anyone, based on anything, but performance in that particular round.

 

Oh Olympic judging is diabolical; but if professional judges hold the belief that the champion have an immediate points advantage, we may as well give up now.

 

I had 115-112 for Dirrel as well. Froch was soo slow that he landed about 5 punches in the fight. I can't see him winning more than 5 rounds.

 

People tend to remark on the size of Valuev much too often, lets not forget that he only stopped one fighter in his last seven fights. He was also outboxed by ancient Holyfield, got sparked repeatedly by 'world beaters' Larry Donald and Ruiz. Add to that the boasting of Haye and his criticism of 'boring klitchkos'.
If the great Larry Donald could have been the agressor against Valuev why couldn't Haye?

 

I can believe that people really believe this. Scoring should be judged right down the middle. Then we wonder why boxing is out of the mainstream. atsch

 

You make relevant points however the question posed was:

"Can you name any title winning decision, where the eventual winner showed as little fighting desire as Dirrell?"


My reason for believing this is that Haye landed less punches than Dirreall and looked much less willing to engage. Besides the last round he never looked like having the appetite for going after the beast. As for Valuev being less effective than Froch i whole heartidly agree but also believe that this reflects even worse on Haye. If he really desired the title shouldn't he have thrown much more on the line particularly considering the fact that Holyfieald didn't get the decision by fighting a quite similar fight?
For me Haye showed very little fighting desire and kept the fight at a safe distance and pace.

 

+1 to your face palm rhino

 

This is pure fantasy.

Presumably, Dirrell and his team formulated a strategy which read:

'Avoid engagement. In the middle rounds, begin holding excessively, make unnecessary representations to the referee, throw yourself to the canvas and continue to avoid.'

Dirrell sees himself as a slick, switch-hitting counter-puncher and he did not show anything of the sort until the final two and a half - three rounds.

I interpret 'effective aggression' as encompassing whose style is in the ascendency. Dirrell - for whatever reason - was clearly afraid of engaging with Froch and his primary focus was on avoiding engagement rather than counter-punching. By putting Dirrell off his game plan, this is evidence of effective aggression.

Apropos of 'ring generalship', Froch was pressing the action and making Dirrell look cowardly and amateurish for over 9 rounds.

Dirrell clearly won the final three rounds, save for the point deduction in round 10.

There was, in truth, very little clean punching until the end and as for defence, well, Kevin Johnson ought to be the new WBC Heavyweight Champion of the World if running and refusing to engage is enough to win the round.

I recall scoring the fight 115-113 Froch (taking into account the point deduction.)

 

Surely you don't expect boxers to adopt the same tactics for every opponent they face??
Do you really think Dirrell expected to counter puch, box nicely in his normal slick style?
imo he knew he was facing a world champion for the first time, in his backyard in front of a noisy partisan crowd.
He was also fighting a pressure fighter who likes to come forward all night.
Therefore it is not beyond belief that they formulated a different plan for this fight.
was Froch allowed to fight at his own pace? For me he looked very frustrated and even desperate at times.

 

I am certain Dirrell's camp formulated a game plan but clearly the fighter was unable to implement the same between rounds 1 through 9.

Dirrell was like a ship without a captain for too long to win the fight.

Perhaps he learns from the experience and takes this into his fight with AA. Then again, perhaps the fear of his chin being exposed as grade A china means he'll do his level best to avoid engagement.