Froch vs Dirrel

So D Rafael, The Ring Mag and Boxing News scoring for Froch makes you think Dirrell won? Interesting.
Ive also read on here that Boxing Monthly scored for Froch but havent seen that for myself to confirm

 

a bit rich coming from you is it not?

 

No just Rafael, the guy does not know how to score a fight.

 

I stayed up to watch this fight live on Primetime and thought it was a stinker. Froch couldn't cope with Dirrell's movement and speed. Meanwhile, Dirrell was throwing himself at the canvas to avoid getting hit. Awful stuff.

But... if you are scoring the fight for clean punches landed rather than "walk-forward aggression", I believe Dirrell deserved the nod by about two points.

 

MW, I've now rewatched rounds 2, 4, 8, 9 and 12. I've changed the scoring quite considerably. Round 2 looks like a draw, round 4 also. The eight I gave to Dirrell this time just like you but it's close. Round 9 is extremely close once again. This is a really close fight but an intriguing one. Maybe it's just me but I really like fights that are hard to score even if they are "boring". It gives room for discussion.

I understand if you've got Dirrell winning the 12th but no way in gods green can you say "no way in gods green did Froch win that round". Dirrell clearly won the first minute of it with three or even four good counters, that much I concede. But then what? What really happened? Dirrell virtually gave away the last two minutes, that's what happened! Froch landed several jabs, blocked Dirrell's shots (not with his face this time ) and did some ugly/clumsy/inaccurate but nevertheless effective work when Dirrell was up against the ropes.

What's funny was the replay when Bernstein and Johnson complained about Froch not hitting Dirrell with his five-punch combos. The thing is - he connected during those replays. Some glancing blows, granted, and a lot of inaccuracy obviously - but also blows to the side of the head and body shots. You also have to realize just how hard it must be from judges who see a Froch combination put Dirrell against the ropes. It's effective aggression even if you only lands 1/5 - especially when your opponent is inactive - and because of that I give this round to Froch.

Even though I prefer people giving their scorecards and analyzing rounds rather than regurgigating sources, Bailey has got a point about all his publications and magazines that he frequently cites. James Slater, who I think is a decent impartial writer (one of few contributors on the main page who is...), scored it for Froch. Bernstein wasn't sure. I didn't score it for Froch as you know but you can't say people like this don't know boxing. That lack of respect is what irks me and not the scorecard in itself. This is NOT a robbery.

Gus Johnson is entertaining as a sidenote. Granted, he hasn't got the best knowledge and granted, he can be biased. But he's really into the fights. Like in round 2: "Ooooh, double left jab". He basically creamed himself everytime Dirrell landed, actually partly reminiscient of Lampley in Cotto-Margo even though tha latter example is over the top and almost shameful I feel.

 

No they didnt. I have Ring Magazine right here with me and they clearly say dirrell won. Nice try ***. Thats what you get for taking someones elses word for it. I'll even type the article up if you want me too.

 

Uhh yeah you do. Why would you score a fight and not scrutinize every punch? Why would you score based on punches that dont land, then totally skip over punches that do land. Thats ****ing stupid.

The punch stats you saw were from boxrec. Showtime doesnt have punch stats. I thought we explained that to you dumbass already?

i

they werent. Its quite easily to see they werent landing.

Biased ****ing scoring thats the only thing you are good for. If you are going to score a fight. Do it right.

 

As much as I like Boxing News they can be horrendously biased towards British fighters.

 

Agreed. I thought 4 was a clear dirrell round. Fairly inactive and a boring round. With neither fighter landing a punch in the last minute and half or so, but Dirrell still was the only one to land, and that gives him the round in my eyes.

They traded jabs neither of which was effective, and Froch shoeshined not even scoring punches to Dirrells body, most of which he slipped and dodged. AGain Dirrell landed more punches, and landed a 3 punch combinations where he drove Froch to the ropes and droped a big right hand against his head. Froch's light ineffective body work, and missed jabs isnt going to overrule that.

Nothing effective. Shoe shines. Again the scoring is clear "Clean EFFECTIVE punches" shoeshining someones body and him slipping most of the punches is not effective and certainly not clean. Simply touching someone with your glove is not a scoring blow. Or else this would be olympics and not boxing.

You know what. Watch the British telecaste. They are creaming Dirrell too. Even if Dirrell ran, wasnt as active as he should have been, he impressed alot of analysts who thought, and many on here thought aswell that Froch was going to walk over him.

AGain i just dont see 6 rounds you could credibly give Froch.

 

Close fight. Not a robbery at all.

 

Dirrell at the weigh in for that fight was acting like a 4 year old.But he won the fight,had he got the belt he would`ve been branded shithouse for the running off that he did.

 

same as what i had it

 

One sided because Dirrell raped his sorry ass!