Do you agree with this quote from Andre Dirrell ?

Its strange why fighters dont think they should be the one to travel to the champs country to fight, Its good that theres a champ like Froch whos willing to defend away

The Ring mag and Boxing News both had Froch a close winner

so I hardly think it was a robbery, just a close fight which can be interpreted in different ways

 

Dan Rafael also did and so did everyone on the Showtimes press row. This fight irritates me to the highest order people say robbery yet it clearly was a swing fight that could have gone either way.

 

I think the problem is so many people expected Dirrell to win, they can't come to terms with him losing. Froch does seem totally made for Dirrell, so it wasn't hard to pick Dirrell going in. I know I did, and I was pulling for him all the way until the 6th round or so, when it became apparent that he did not intend to fight.

A lot of people just can't take it when they're wrong and their guy turns out to suck.

 

I thought Martinez vs Williams was a far more decisive " robbery " but all I saw was americans saying williams won no robbery etc.

 

Why would anyone put themselves through that again???

 

In many rounds, Dirrell started well into the round, made Froch miss, and landed some jabs and counters, enough to make me think he banks the round. And then ? He starts showboating, evading only, not even throwing a punch. When he then ate one or the other garbage punch, I REFUSED to give Dirrell the round, for spoiling the full 1:30 of the second half not doing anything offensively. If Dirrell had distributed his punches, and a bit more of the action, over the round, I would have not much doubts he would have won the fight. But this way, every outcome seemed ok with me.

 

He needs to do what he needs to do. This fight was a close one with close rounds. I had Dirrell winning it but it was close. Many rounds could've went either way. The fight could've went either way.

 

Wrong? People act like froch did something to win. If anything, the judges were wrong (whether purposely or just not being able to tell that froch was missing). If I never knew who those guys were, I would have said dirrell won because of scoring criteria. Nobody talks about the italian judge that gave froch rounds 11 and 12 which gave him the win. It's only a swing fight if you let your dis-taste for dirrell not trading with froch in your scoring criteria. because according to the scoring criteria, there is no way that froch won.

 

LMAO @ you saying most people thought Dirrell would win.

All I heard from Froch fans and most people before the fight was "who the hell is Dirrell and Froch will brutally Ko him"

Insted we saw Dirrell easily out box him and saw just how much Froch blows.

 

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, clearly won that fight.

It was not a particularly good performance by either man.

A draw would have been best, but if I had to pick, maybe Dirrell.

But he has absolutely no grounds for griping, given his mediocre and sometimes bizarre showing.

 

LOL

how about

diaz-maliginni
sturm-dlh
calzaghe - hopkins
berto - collazzo
kessler - ward

America is just like any other place that has boxing matches lol

please stfu dirrell... If you put in a gutsy performance i would feel bad for you, however what you did in that ring that night was a disgrace to american boxing :-(

 

Agreed. If he had at least tried to win instead of be cute and steal the fight, I would feel bad that he didn't get the decision. But he really can't look himself in the mirror at the end of the day and say "Hey, I gave it my best and they stole it from me." He has to know he didn't put on a real fight.


And based on scoring criteria, Froch won more rounds. Clean effective punches? Just about even except one round early on that Froch almost dropped Dirrell, and the last 3 rounds when Dirrell finally showed up.

Defense? Clearly Froch, since Dirrell didn't even bother to protect himself while hugging Froch. Dirrell's running does not constitute defense. When Froch was in range, he was landing.

Ring Generalship? Froch by a mile. He had Dirrell running away the whole time, and had him on the ropes a fair amount.

Effective Aggression? Froch. Dirrell displayed no aggression, so even though Froch's was largely ineffective, it tops Dirrell. Again, Froch had Dirrell running the whole time, which is an effect if you ask me. it shows that Dirrell was clearly not the boss.


I won't argue with anyone that thinks Dirrell edged it. I had it 115-113 Dirrell the first time I saw it. The second time I had it 115-113 Froch. Both times I had enough rounds marked as questionable that it could have gone either way or been a draw. It was tough to score, but at the end of the day the guy who won was the guy who deserved the win. Not necessarily the better boxer, but the one who fought a better boxing match.

Dirrell needs to get out of the amateur mindset and start fighting like a pro. Reason #1: He'll have a hard time winning big fights like that. Reason #2 (and more important): Nobody will pay to watch him do these things. Reason #3: Champions will avoid a fighter who they think will run from them and steal their belt. They'll simply not fight him, and there'll be nothing he can do about it.

 

LMAO at this break down.

 

No, and he was not robbed. He did make Carl, look bad, but he did not do enough at all, to take the title. You have to win it, not run and hold.