Was Andre Dirrell robbed against Carl Froch?

Dirrell beat Froch. I don't like Dirrell, I do like Froch, but Dirrell hurt Froch and Froch didn't hurt Dirrell, and Dirrell did the more effective work throughout the fight. In all fairness, Froch achieved absolutely nothing in that fight. He barely landed a clean punch.

 

The reasons given for Froch beating Dirrell are eerily similar to the reasons given for Calzaghe beating Hopkins...

- B-Hop faked low blows and Dirrell was holding all night, "that tells you something"

People think that if objective judges of a sporting contest find a participant's tactics unsavoury or unsportsmanlike, they should allow it to impact upon their scoring.

Obviously, this is contrary to the very nature of "judging", where all likes, dislikes, preferences, opinions etc must be sidelined and the only thing which matters is the actual scoring criteria of boxing (principally clean, scoring punches above all else).

 

Wonder how most people scored the 10th ?:think

 

Dirrell won...I've watched the fight a few times, and I tried my hardest to make a case for Froch, but I couldn't...Anyone who says Froch won will say things like, 'Dirrell fought negative' and mention nothing about what Froch did to win the fight (because he didn't do jack). Froch fought dirty, and Dirrell fought cautious and wimpy, but at the end of the fight it was clear (to my eyes) who was doing all of the effective work.

 

I thought Dirrell won the fight, it was a fight of 2 halves and in my opinion Dirrells half was just a little bit more than Froch's. He certainly didnt do himself any favours in the 2nd half of the fight and considering where it was there was always the chance that a close fight would go favouribly to the home fighter.

Dirrell blew it, gave the judges the no headaches in the 1st half of the fight but gave them plenty of reasons to score most the rest of the fight to Froch.

Though to give Froch credit, he does what he does and it seems to do the trick and the way he was fighting must of changed Dirrells tactics cuz if your bossing a fight aswell as Andre was you dont throw it away and fight differently unless you have to. I personally think Froch,s power was wearing him down.

 

No! Dirrell was there to take a belt off Froch. The performance Dirrell delivered, with excessive running and an unfounded respect for Frochs power, has never and should never take a belt off a champion let alone a strapped handicapped.

 

Hate Dirrell, like Froch. Dirrell won that fight without a doubt.

Go back and look at the RbR of that fight in the British forum. Nearly all of them saying Froch got his ass kicked, then the scorecards are announced and over time the consensus magically changes to a deserved Froch victory. With pathetic excuses like "Froch deserved to win because he came to fight and at least tried to make it exciting" atsch That's not how boxing works.

 

This is the kind of infantile, non-sensical, brainless garbage I was referring to:

These people don't really grasp the concept of a "sport" at all it seems.

This short post demonstrates how this guy's disapproval of "excessive running" plays into his scoring, and how he evidently still believes in the ancient and thoroughly ridiculous fallacy about how a challenger has to emphatically win just to win.

Both beliefs are completely contrary to the nature of scoring a sporting contest. But sadly, these idiotic beliefs are rife among boxing 'fans'. It's one of the worst things about the sport IMO.

 

At least some people understand how a sporting contest should (and should not) be scored:

:happy

 

I remember that.

 

I had Dirrell winning pretty wide. While Froch was the one who pressed, he maybe landed five legal effective punches the entire fight. His best punch over and over again was the rabbit punch, for which he wasn't even warned (although both guys did a lot of illegal things in the fight). Nearly every round, it was Dirrell who landed the more solid shots, despite his ugly style. All that said, I can't get too pissy about it because Dirrell fought with a style that tends to turn off judges.

 

Though I agree a contender has to take the title from the champ,the champ should also know how to keep a title by performing well .I don't think Froch's come to fight attitude was enough to keep him as champ ..

 

The word robbery is used too much. It was a close fight which I scored to Direll by one point.

 

I thought Mayweather's "excessive running" was shameful in the Castillo rematch, I thought the situation called for a brave and dominant performance from Mayweather, and he failed to provide it, and stunk the place out in the process...

..but my personal dislike for him and personal distaste for running away as a means of approaching a big grudge fight doesn't impact at all on my scoring of the fight, because the scoring criteria of boxing has nothing to do with whether I admire his tactics or not.

Therefore, I had it to Floyd by 4 points. Castillo couldn't catch him, and even though it ****ing sucked, you can't deviate from your scoring criteria no matter what.

 

How can you rob someone of something he gives away?

I initially had Dirrell winning narrowly in a fight that could've went either way, but he simply didn't do enough to win a decision as the visiting fighter and fought a dumb fight. He and his corner should've known better. Pay attention to his activity (or lack thereof) on the inside in the fight, for example. He doesn't fight his way in. He doesn't fight once he is on the inside, and he doesn't fight his way out of it. He essentially gave that aspect of the fight entirely to Froch, and was even more generous by initiating the clinches for the Cobra. All those little bull**** punches we ignore by Carl once that happened, count as scoring shots and a winning exchange for Froch when Dirrell does nothing. And nothing he did. I was hyping Dirrell at the time because I thought he could take the whole thing, but the way he fought that fight left me wanting to throw a shotput through the TV. You can't rob a guy when he's that eager to give it away.