Groves busts up Dirrell in sparring

That was harsh..and wrong.

Nevertheless he looked worse than the worse Andrade in that fight, in my defence.

 

I was at the fight, one of the worst events I have ever been to. I think the last undercard fight was 2 hours before the fight started, I had a very good seat and was close to the action. For me Froch won the fight by a round, Dirrel could have won if he put more effort in but he ran the whole fight and did practically **** all. It's similar to the way people think Hopkins beat Calzaghe by landing a couple of punches a round, there no way Dirrel deserved to win that fight. My god I don't want to see a rematch I think I would cry...

 

Yet you said that Ponce 'won'. Swings and roundabouts.

Not officially he didn't. But I think most can call a...................errm, win a win and acknowledge that it was a deserved Dirrell victory, he just didn't get a W on his record.

 

Yeah, was pissed up watching it

 

2 even rounds?! How was that fence Grant...

 

If I've scored them even, they were definitely Froch rounds.

 

One of 'em was probably the round where Dirrell got a point docked. He clearly won that round.

 

I'm Scottish so don't know how you figure that one?

The man who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one. It is the only thing he is fit for.

Froch won the fight...but more importantly...he won the event. :deal

Odds for the event were all in Dirrell's favour but Froch still triumphed.

 

Sarcasm?

Undeservedly so.

 

im posting this in the general!!!

 

Why Groves is human?

 

Groves is a boxer.

 

I'm not using myself as a standard, that's what you're not getting mate.

When people, casual fans and the likes, look over fighters records, they see results, not performances. I'm not saying everybody does, but quite a few do. I mean, in 20 years time, if a fan who was relatively new to the sport looked over Juan Manuel Marquez's record, they wouldn't se him argualy besting and winning over 12 of 24 rounds against Pac, they would see him drawing and losing against Pac. Where I would historically rank Marquez on him taking the best fighter of his generation down to the wire and in the opinion of many beating him, others would simply see it as a loss and a draw, which would no doubt affect how he is ranked.

I'm not saying that people won't base a fighter on performance, I am just saying that some, in fact most on this forum, will. Results are important, maybe Chavez - Whitaker was not a good barometer, but there are many examples. Oscar clearly beat Trinidad IMO, but when people look at his record, they see a loss to Trinidad, and therefore find it hard to higher his all time ranking because of this. Although it isn't the case all the time like you said, often a result can give an idea of the performance. Though obviously I would not use that to measure a fighter.

It's SportsLeader mate. Surely you saw my name when you read my post?

Maybe, but when I say that Ponce 'beat' Broner, I mean that he bested Broner. Not officially beat him. But yeah, obviously you can't infer that from my posts. My bad.

 

Which is obviously what I'm inferring, that Dirrell was the better fighter and thus deserved the victory. I know Froch ''officially'' won, it would be ****ing stupid of me to claim otherwise, which is why I didn't do it.

 

I just went into seek and destroy when I saw that you said Dirrell 'won'.

How was I supposed to know what you mean? I'm not Brown Bomber (P.I.) you know