Groves busts up Dirrell in sparring

i cant believe people are arguing over what a spade is hahaha

 

This content is protected

 

You do realise you quoted a post that I said in jest? Nor am I defending it until my last breath, and the fact that you thought Dirrell won suggests that you have no reason to treat me with such contempt. Very mature ending to your post though. Anyhow, back to crying over how I believe a fighter I dont like won.:|

 

****ing hell, I wish I never said 'boxrec'

Results are results. Whitaker never officially beat Chavez, just like Dirrell never officially beat Froch.

You can assess Pernell's performance and say that he clearly bettered Chavez, but you can't say that he beat him, because he didn't. He outperformed him without a doubt, but he never beat him.

I'm not trying to be a ****, that's just the way that it is.

Then why say Dirrell 'won'? :nut

**** off.

 

A pedantic **** might be better fitting?

 

In my defence, from where I was sitting Froch seemed to be bossing it with his jab.

With the benefits of modern technology, re-watching it on DVD showed this wasn't the case

Dirrells subsequent fight shows he is a stylistic hassle but missing something mentally. Therefore, Frochys reputation hasn't taken a massive knock, even though he struggled to get anything going on the night.

Dirrell barely tried to get anything going. He seems to love falling over. Scared of being hit?

 

Your score after 11 was 7-2-2 Dirrell

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176847&page=76

Read from there..everyone saying Dirrell got it.

 

For the same reasons you say Ponce ''won'' against Broner. But I didn't try to act like a smart-arse over that, seeing as I agreed.

I'll take that as my point proven. It's a spade. End of.

 

That hurt feelings.

Mate, I've got the fight on my PC. At the end they announce the result as a draw.

People don't seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm aware that Sweet Pea schooled Chavez, I've seen the ****ing fight. That however does not change the fact that the final result was a draw, and that does have an effect on Whitakers legacy. He would be held in higher regard historically IMO without a doubt, had he got the decision against Chavez, but unfortunately he didn't, and that will always act against him.

insulting me only makes you seem arrogant.

 

Broner beat Ponce De Leon. I felt that Ponce De Leon won by 2 rounds, but that doesn't change the fact that Broner beat him.

Do you acknowledge that Dirrell never beat Froch?

 

Scared of being hit, bad on the inside, weak physically. Weak mentally. A combination of all?

Whatever it is, he still should have won strictly speaking, based on the criteria for scoring boxing matches. As I said, its not surprising we all had it for Dirrell live, because everybody that debates this seems to argue for Froch based on some kind of moral reasoning that they've concocted post-fight having seen Dirrell's antics back.

 

Who gives a **** about paper wins. Who won the event?

 

[yt]GWihWfdH4Zw[/yt]​

 

****** more like.


Oi, Mong Boy Sport Lad or whatever the **** your name is, Historians judge a fighter. They take the action into account.

You will not find one who gives Chavez the credit of earning a draw. You obviously think boxing judges have the final say on a fighters legacy?

Only sheep use boxrec to judge a fighter. Anyone worth their salt (I.e not you) would try and make an informed analysis based on what they themselves have witnessed.

Otherwise what would be the pout in watching fights. Surely I could gauge the back and forth excitement of Khan-Maidana simply by Reading the scorecards the morning after?