Froch vs Dirrel

Thankyou Kerrzo. Bitchiganwarrior has been telling lies.

You see further proof that Mitchianwarrior is a total liar and not worthy of respect.
Mitchiganwarrior Pwned again, this time for being a liar

 

froch hardly landed a punch in this fight. i didnt think it was that close at all.

 

FIght wasnt even Close in my opinion. One of the worst robberies in recent years.

I though DIrrell won 117-111.

 

Being close has nothign to do with it going either way. Mayweather vs Oscar was close, but if you scored it for Oscar, you're an idiot. Same here.


If you score by clean effective punches, there is no way you score this for Froch. As per the Ring article. You have to throw the rules out the window.

I get laid all of the time. Whats that got to do with boxing?

ACtually im in Pensacola Florida hanging out on the beach with my girl.

Sex has nothing to do with your failed eyesight body. Getting tang aint never helped anyone score a boxing match. You can get all the ass you want, wont help you see Dirrells clean counters apparently.

Yet you admit you scored jabs that didnt land and missed several combos and clean counters and im not going to criticize you?

Well its what should have happened. Dirrell has a loss on his column, a insanely talented young fighter, and Froch should have 2 L's on his column and he's terrible and wont amount to anything.

 

it was a close fight, but i had it by 2 points for froch.. you can't win a fight with the shite dirrel brought to the ring that night.

and for all those talking about the rabbit punches that froch landed.. he had to, especially after all the dipping below the waist that dirrel was doing ( which is illegal ).

what other target was there to hit?

 

This. It's pretty commonly accepted that if a guy is using illegal tactics (holding/ducking below the waist/turning his back) in order to prevent you from landing legal shots, that landing illegal shots is basically two fouls which cancel each other out. If the back of the head is the only thing available...

 

The only thing Dirrell did was run, fall down on canvas, complain, hold, which does not win a fight. Froch fought, Dirrell ran. It was not even close.

 

Whenever scoring is mentioned in boxing, you get the criteria of ring generalship, effective punching, effective aggression and defence. That's the criteria used to score any fight and what makes Froch/Dirrell hard to score, is that Froch was the ring general and aggressor, whereas Dirrell landed more and showed better defence.

The thing is though, it was a scrappy fight and because if the crowd influence, you can say Dirrell did the best at two of four of the criteria. Froch, however, was very wide with the two most important things: Ring generalship and effective aggression.

Close fight but Froch won. You don't deserve to win any titles in boxing, fighting the way Dirrell did. Had he won, it would have been s disgrace to boxing but because he fought with such cowardice, it's not a loss people will moan about for years in the future.

 

Clean effective punching is always more important then ring generalship. Ring generalship is subjective, Froch didnt boss Dirrell around. Andre Dirrell could go where he wanted and when he wanted. Ring Generalship is Chavez vs Camacho. Chavez bullied him around the ring with excellent offense. Froch flailed around like an amatuer trying to hit Dirrell, getting countered most of the time in the process.. Which brings me to my second point about your silly post.

2. its EFFECTIVE aggression. Obviously its not effective if you are missing 95% of your punches is it.

Post your scorecard.

.

David Haye won doing exactly the same thing. Whereas Dirrell threw alot of punches, Haye threw few if any. Infact most of ESB thought his performance was boring to downright embarrassing.

Winning is winning. Doesnt matter how you win as long as you get the job done. And seeing as how Dirrell actually gained fans and attention for his performance against Froch, including staggering him in the 10th and displaying amazing defensive moves, he deserved the title.

 

Clinching is legal. Rabbit punching is not. The vast majority of rabbit punches Froch threw were deliberate. Most of the time because he doesnt know how to fight on the inside and Dirrell was pissing him off because he couldnt hit him and was making him look foolish.


Rabbit punches live you brain damaged. Its one of the worst things a ref can allow in boxing. Look up Gerald McCellan.

 

Ring generalship is, and always has been, the most important thing.

Froch was the aggressor and that aggression, whilst not always effective, was still much, much more than what Dirrell did.

My scorecard was 120-107, Froch. Boxing masterclass for the wild Dirrell.

Haye landed at, from what I know, the highest percentage of any 12 round title fight in history. I have rarely seen a fighter avoid so many shots. He was inactive because he broke his hand. His and Dirrell's performances are impossible to compare. You can give the fight to Froch but no matter how boring Haye's win was, you could never give it to Valuev.

What performance, apart from Haye/Valuev, since you always mention it, was worse than Dirrell's, where that fighter won the title? As always, 12 rounds with no injuries.

 

Lol no. Clean effective punches is the most important thing. Secondly

"RING GENERALSHIP: This also is somewhat left up to an individual's interpretation. Basically ring general ship is the fighter exhibiting the cleaner and more professional boxing form and skill. Another words, he looks like a professional fighter, and not some wild swinging novice. He shows his skill in throwing his punches correctly and understands how to impose what he wants to do in the ring while negating what his opponent is trying to do. Ring generalship also is when a fighter can dictate the flow of the fight in order to breakdown his opponents style. Another example would be a fighter going to the body if the opponent has protected his face well, leaving the body as the more viable target."

http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/1103/clean-punching-counts-most/

Ring generalship as per the New York Athletic commission

"According to the 1929 Rules of the

This content is protected

, for example, “ring generalship” comprised "such points as the ability to quickly grasp and take advantage of every opportunity offered, the capacity to cope with all kinds of situations which may arise; to foresee and neutralize an opponent’s method of attack; to force an opponent to adopt a style of boxing at which he is not particularly skillful."
Retrieved from "

This content is protected

"


Tell me. As any of that anything close to what Froch did? Except for "wild swinging novice" Froch accomplished nothing of what ring generalship entails. Dirrell looked more skilled, fought Froch at the pace he wanted to fight, thus was the ring general if there was one.

And clean effective punching is always taken over anything. The art of boxing is hit and not get hit. Dirrell hit and didnt get hit. Froch got hit and didnt hit back. Thats why Dirrell won the fight in most peoples eyes.

You can be the aggressor all you want. It doesnt mean a damn thing if you arent landing. Its EFFECTIVE aggression. Obviously if Froch isnt landing and Dirrell is dodging and slipping the vast majority of his punches, its not effective is it?

Its easy to land at a high percentage, when you throw 5 punches a round and land 3. Also when your opponent is the worst champion in heavyweight history. The same guy who got gifts against Ruiz and Holyfield.

Gee, thats not what the majority of people said in my thread. In your thread a good portion were actually complimentary of Dirrell. In my thread most thought Haye was boring and embarrassed himself.

It seems you are alone in believing Haye did anything to wow anyone.

Most importantly, Dirrell was in his 18th pro fight and went 12 rounds for the first time in his career. HAye was supposed to revitalize the heavyweight division. That didnt last long did it? :rofl

Lol, you already tried this, nobody in your thread thought the Dirrell vs Froch was the worst title fight at all. REmember they laughed and ridiculed you. Get over it son. And post your scorecard btw. Stop ducking and dodging that!

 

These debates are getting absolutely ridiculous. You may have noticed my lack of respect in my previous post because it's always the same old **** whenever a debate with you crops you. It goes round and round in circles and you refuse to take on board any points. Sooner or later, you'll start to throw insults around, which you started in this post by calling me "son", despite not knowing my age, so I think it's about time I started to back out. The whole forum was laughing at you before I went away and they still are now.I fail to see what I could achieve by debating with you any more, now that your reputation is lost on here. It's just pointless at this point.

He was in control mentally throughout the fight. A ring general could never looked as out of place as Dirrell did.

Most peoples eyes? Except the three who count and the most reputatable writers?

Boxing is basically about hitting and not getting hit but that is only two parts of the four part equation, as I mentioned before. Giving those to Dirrell is fine. Froch has the other two, without doubt, and by a bigger margin.

You criticize Froch but fail to do the same for Dirrell. Yes, Froch's aggression wasn't always effective, as I've said, but no way could anyone say that Dirrell showed better effective aggression. It's just impossible because he showed no aggression at all!

Besides the point completely.

Aside from that, you say Valuev is the "worst champion in heavyweight history" yet spend all your time talking about how primitive Froch is. If Haye could beat his poor champion clearly, why couldn't Dirrell?

There's a difference between boring and bad. I wasn't entertained by Haye's win but considering it was his second fight since properly moving to heavyweight, against a giant, who had one loss in his career? To beat him decisevly with a broken hand is a good win, whether it was pretty or not.

And again, Haye is not the flavour of the month. You will never get a fair poll when his reputation is in tatters. You could ask "Was Haye's win over Mormeck impressive?" or "Is Haye a fast heavyweight?" and you will get clowns sweeping into those threads to dismiss any positive comments.

Again, I ask you to name one single fight in the history of boxing, where the challenger has taken the belt whilst showing as little as Dirrell did, without injuries and going 12 rounds. Just one in the entire history of boxing.

My card was 120-107, Froch. It was a masterclass.