Froch did not beat Dirrell contrary to what his nuthuggers might say

I hate the way this subject gets brought up all the time.

I thought Dirrell landed more, harder, cleaner shots than Froch and I had him ahead by about 3 rounds. Saying that his perfromance was a stinker and rightly he gets criticized for it.

It was a bad decision yes, but it's hardly uncommon is it? Get over it.

 

Yeah that is true. I was there as well and although we were all biased and Froch fans, we thought Froch dominated quite clearly and it was just a frustrating fight because of Dirrell's negative tactics.

Since watching it back, it's a frustrating fight in part because of Dirrell's tactics, but also because Froch wasn't as dominant as we'd thought and was missing a hell of a lot.

One thing that pisses me off from the aftermath of that fight is that Froch-haters claim that Dirrell staggered Froch a couple of times. Get out with that bull****. People always claim that in fights where in truth, nothing dramatic happened either way. It's like Frank Warren claiming DeGale could've stopped Groves and McCloskey had hurt Khan.

Horse out.

 

What did George Groves do against Degale..?

He ran more than Andre Dirrell.

Andre Dirrell landed the harder shots, and hurt Carl Froch.

 

Dirrell beat him clear the way I saw it. Personally I never am going to count this as a win for Froch.

 

Makes me cringe when I see people talking about 'runners', there are different styles of fighters and some of them use a lot of movement, hitting and not being hit and all that you know. Anyway, such comments are embarrassing as **** in my humble opinion.:good

 

4:38

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1hHNbHGegQ&feature=related[/ame]

 

Froch beat Dirrell, get over it:good

 

Sorry staggered was the wrong word. He got staggered but wasn't hurt.

And PK: Groves didn't run against DeGale. He may have fought off the back foot but it wasn't often that he actually ran. Dirrell does run a lot.

Horse out.

 

**** fight that could be scored either way depending on what you like. Scoring in boxing is subjective, accept it or watch something else.

 

Dirrell really didn't run. Negative tactics on the inside, sure. Holding...sure. Very scared and tentative in terms of being hit, and perhaps overly cautious...yes. But never was he running and not throwing punches. He threw as much as Froch. Oscar against Trinidad is running.

 

No, that was definitely too negative a performance IMO, it was like amateur fencing.

His performance against Abraham was far more varied I thought. When all is said and done I think Dirrell will amount to very little, Froch has basically rid the bad performance by going on to sho himself a far better fighter than that.

Ward, as I said before, can mix the backfoot/lateral movement that causes Froch so much problems, and mix it up with a more positive approach that sees him beat Frochy convincingly.

 

It's a shame Dirrell is such a coward. Loads of ability wasted.

 

I don't have any criteria regarding what is an 'amateur' performance and or what is 'fencing'. I just watch the fight with an open mind as to how a fight can be scored, which is a ****ing huge and subjective window, and then score it on what goes down in the ring. i don't give a **** if he is running, dancing, or standing still, if he is doing the scoring then that is that, plain and simple. And what I saw was Dirrell beating Froch clearly. You might have scored it differently and that is your opinion, and that is fine with me, we just view boxing differently,

 

What a ***git he is, getting in the ring and boxing at world level, what a ****ing coward.

I'm leaving this thread now

 

Oh, so you're not reading this then?
Getting in the ring with world level opponents he does just fine, and I enjoy the boxing when he isn't running away or pretending to be KO'd.