Dirrell should have won that fight. Would have gotten the nod anywhere that was England. Probably didn;t hurt Froch but it was Dirrell's first fight ever against a world class opponent so he was quite tentative not knowing how he would match up with a world class operator. A rematch would be quite different with Direll winning widely imo
Then you dont know how to properly score a fight. Name the rounds which he didnt. 10th? 11th? 12th? He swept those. The rules of scoring a fight are 1. Clean effective punching 2. Ring generalship 3. Effective aggression 4. Defense. Nobody cares about made up rules.
Except for the multiple combinations Dirrell landed, the body shots and the counters it was just like Shane vs Pacquiao. atsch
I know what ring generalship is. Froch was the aggressor, Dirrell was trying to box. Dirrell got caught in corners OVER AND OVER in that fight and never got out without getting touched. Froch was doing what he was trying to do, Dirrell was trying to avoid what Froch was doing. It was effective aggression ESPECIALLY in comparison to Dirrells 0 aggression. Sloppy doesn't necessarily mean ineffective. Froch did land plenty of punches. Like I said, not the prettier punches but he definitely landed plenty of shots. I can agree Dirrell had some good clear rounds and some Froch rounds were harder to score. I'm aware of the scoring criteria, I mentioned them already. Your quote on ring generalship, again- who was getting caught in corners? Who was falling all over the ring? I don't see that Dirrell DID neutralize Frochs attack. He was getting hit to the body quite often when he got caught in corners and did all the work in the clinches.
Then you should know Froch had none. Watch Julio Cesar Chavez fight. Thats a ring general. Swinging wildly and missing, looking goofy and getting punched in the face is not ring generalship no matter if you are moving forward or not. Effective aggression. EFFECTIVE. I've watched the fight more then a few times. You go by nothing but memory. Froch didnt get Dirrell in corners, maybe once or twice during the fight, Dirrell either slipped all Froch's punches and got away or like in round 11 clocked Froch hard with a left hook after ducking 10 Froch punches. If he did why are there a multitude of videos showing Dirrell hitting Froch, but none of Froch's offensive work? Find one video of Froch doing work on Dirrell. You're just making a fool out of yourself. Go find me a round right now of Froch's body work in the corners and I'll beleive you.
Dirrell is fast as ****. He gets underrated too much because of that Dr. Shaw High B.S. But foreal though, Froch needs to shut the hell up. He's acting like he beat his ass.
So first you say Dirrell should have won the fight. Then in your 3rd sentence you give a reason why Dirrell might have legitimately lost the fight. Dirrell lost the fight, bub. Froch was the more aggressive fighter and during those many clinches that Dirrell offered the fans (that after all of the running, of course) he just got his head and body punched. Froch did actual work in those clinches.... then Dirrell added whining to the ref along with clinching and running to his 'memorable' night. He sucked in that fight. And again, you admit as much as yourself in your 3rd sentence.... going completely against what you said in your first.
Michigan Warrior says: And you're the one with a Peter Quillin avatar?? You've clearly made a fool of yourself.
In Ricky Hatton land, you might count wrestling and rabbit punching as offensive work. Not in any legit boxing venue however. Post your scorecard. I'll review each round to you and show you where you are wrong.