nah like i said, shite fight to watch, either man could have won. i gave froch 6 of the first 9, and i gave him 12. you gave most rounds to dirrell. the difference is i can accept the viewpoint that dirrell could have won, you dont accept the viewpoint that froch could have won. if that is schooling then so be it. i thought schooling was something like, oh i dunno gettin over 320 esb members all agreeing that you are a fool, and the word "floored" is not applicable when a fighter gets hit, and doesnt drop a-la pittman vs pascal.
I was saying that this was the only fight in recent years in which chad was the stalker. Dawson prior to the pascal fight was always being stalked, which made him the stick and mover. IMO pascal really had him off his game with his brilliant plan. I might be a little wrong on him always fighting backwards. Im gonna have to check the previous fights again to keep myself in check LOL.
Chad is a slick boxer but I think he's shown the most success going in & out and not being pressured too much going back. Pascal toke the role of being the guy going in & out and like you said, made Dawson the stalker which he usually isn't. Heh I might be wrong with saying Chad doesn't fight going back but I'm just saying I don't remember him being the kind of fighter that throws punches while going back.
laughably bad scoring. Yeah, I should accept the viewpoint of someone who believes that you give a round to another fighter, despite the fighter landing more punches, and landing the hardest punch of the round in that round. Yeah, I should really come over to your line reasoning. :rofl You had to engage in semantics over a word I never used soley because you cant beat me in a real debate about boxing. Like I said, you are the equivalent of 100 monkeys randomly smashing their hands on a keyboard. Glad you are proud of moral victories on an interent forum. :tired
Ward can fight going forward, going backwards. Can fight on the inside, can fight on the outside, and most importantly, unlike kessler, he has head movement.
see the thing is, it dont matter if my scoring is lame, cos i aint a boxing judge and i dont feel the need to spend all my days convincing people the wrong man won. if you cant accpet it was a close fight then that is your problem. at the end of the day, i gave froch the edge, so did 2 judges. so did a lot of people including dan rafael. but a helluva lot more agree the fight was close. dont make me do another thread to expose your sorry ass. well you said that pittman repeatedly floored pascal, and it just wasnt true was it not?
You're a *****. You give Froch the edge because you are biased as hell. And such a big ***** you wont even have the decency to defend it. Whether it was close is meaningless. The wrong man won either way. Doesnt matter if Dirrell only won 7 rounds. He still won.
Boo Hoo. Widdle Mikkle got hurt because Andre wouldn't box fair. Lets not forget..it's a FIGHT, and it gets rough. Kessler couldn't beat Ward in a month of Sundays. If pro boxing is too tough for Mikkie maybe he should try cheerleading.
i will get round to re-watching it again one day when im bored, and i will re-score it. not to defend my original scoring, but to see how i have it after seeing it again. when i do that ill get back to you an we can debate away. i just wish we disagreed on a more exciting fight. biased? ye perhaps i am, and the close rounds i gave to froch. but bias dont stop the rounds being close does it not? bias dont change what happens in the ring. if i give the swing rounds to dirrel, ge gets the nod, it was a close fight. not a onesided masterclass like you claim. tell you what, ill actually re-watch it now cos im wide awake and the mrs has already crashed out.
I see what you are saying and agree. He does more of an in and out thing usually. I still can remember him doing alot of backing up in the tarver and johnson fights. He does stop to stand his ground or move in with a shot while moving back but I don't think he actually throws shots while going back. Very few can do it for the matter.