Froch/Dirrell: Another look.

Your pithy comment does little to obviate the simple fact you were either utterly, well and truly wrong to claim that:

or you were simply being disingenuous.

You may not accept my reasoning for scoring the fight for Froch but I have clearly explained why I did so based on the four criteria used for scoring a professional boxing match, rather than posting something rather bland like, 'oh, he did not do enough to take the belt from The Champ.'

The result engenders a great deal of conjecture and this was not an easy fight to score largely due to one of the fighters suddenly becoming a 'conscientious objector' for a large portion of the evening. Dirrell did not do much either so perhaps it was a case of who did less least.

Pay attention.

I scored the fight 115-113 Froch (115-114 without the point being deducted.)

I have better things to do than enter into an exchange of unpleasantries over the internet with someone who does not even have the courtesy to read my posts.

Good day, sir.

 

if they fought again and dirrel didn't run and hold like you say, then there's a much bigger chance that froch ko's dirrel.

 

Negative. It was a general statement about what I noticed to be a consistent phenomenon on ESB and other outlets. Your post doesn't change that.

I clearly stated earlier.......

Nobody's really arguing the decision. This is actually one of the more sane threads on that fight.

Probably so. Don't much care. I wasn't arguing the decision, as I outlined above.

Then you probably shouldn't have posted, in response to my post.....

If you don't like the unpleasantries on the internet, then you probably should abstain from initiating them and, subsequently, bemoan the exchange.

.......because i could say the same(see above).... unless, of course you were being disingenuous.

No, a good day to you, sir.

 

It was one of those fights in which gave alot of mixed results, I wouldnt have argued either way but the 2 reports I read on the fight in Boxing News and The Ring Mag both had Froch a close winner, so I dont think you would be biased to have scored for Froch at all.

 

Dirrell won that fight, although terribley immature, I cannot see how he lost the fight. Even if you had both boxing brain and heart, i can't see how you could have Froch winning without being biased.

I hope Dirrell lives upto his potential, that man really is gifted in the technique and ability department. All the man needs now is a bit of RJJ fortitude.

 

No, and no.

 

fcku

 

Dirrell believes that anyone who runs, holds, falls down on canvas and complains should always win.

 

Given that Froch barely landed anything for 12 rounds and had absolutely no defense your arguement is weak sauce and you seem to be tying yourself up throughout the thread by contradicting in an effort to explain why the wrong man won.

Dirrell was on the move as a defensive tatic and by doing so fought effectively against the lumbering Froch. Stumbling, swinging and thrusting blindly forward in an attempt to hit your opponant with anything other than air does not equal effective aggression or ring generalship so that's the third and forth of your criteria exposed for this fight.

Basically Froch had no right to be called the champion at the end of the night. Dirrell effectively neutralised Froch's come forward style with movement and in doing so Carl was out of the game. It wasn't running, it was common sense against a dirty brawler.

As for cheating, c'mon... Froch was as guilty of that as anyone and if nothing else a career in wrestling or MMA beckons after he gets blown out of the Super Six.

Dirrell would beat him soundly in a re-match by simply doing the same thing but keeping his movement a little tighter so he can land more and Abraham would knock cocky Carl into next years tournament in the early rounds. Not sure about Kessler but unless Froch has upped his defensive game, and I am guessing he won't have, I can see Kessler knocking him out in the mid to late rounds.

 

Dirrell also believes you are the biggest joke on ESB. He's right you know.