Was Andre Dirrell robbed against Carl Froch?

No they dont. fights are scored by Clean Effective punching.

Not rabbit punches and hitting on the break.

 

This was a complete robbery.But Dirrell ran like a ***** on froch home turf and thats a no no is the fight game ,so i think he got what he deserved. Come to fight or go home a loser.

 

Another thread on this, are you for real atsch

 

The principal difference is that Calzaghe and Dirrell were both visiting fighters who fought completely different gameplans, and Calzaghe's is much more conducive to winning on the road. Dirrell also had significantly better results when he did open up on Froch and landed better shots than when Hopkins tried to do the same with Calzaghe as the fight wore on, which is why Froch-Dirrell was a much closer fight than Calzaghe-Hopkins was.

If the opportunities in front of them were related to an all-you-can eat buffet, Dirrell was happy taking an appetizer plate while Calzaghe was going for the entire steam tray. One guy tried to get away with just enough, and the other wanted it enough to go all out. That's why Joe won on the visiting fighter's turf, with Hopkins' judge and referees, and Dirrell couldn't do the same.

 

I'm fine with saying Dirrell should have won but it sure as **** wasn't a robbery.

Even if you scored the fight for him (as I did) it was very close and it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who "fought" as he did.

 

If the fighter's not warned for them, and the other fighter does nothing, they absolutely do.

That's why that fight is so frustrating for me to watch. All Andre had to do was work a little more on the inside and land one or two real clean punches in the clinching situations/close quarters to win the exchange. But he couldn't be bothered to do it.

 

No they dont.


The rules are.

1. Clean Effective Punching
2. Effective Aggression
3. Ring generalship
4. Defense

Nowhere is rabbit punching or hitting on the break a judging criteria, even if its not ruled by a bad referee.

So despite landing the more telling shots, the more clean effective punching, hurting Froch, and not getting hit maybe a few times himself, he should have tried the illegal tactics Froch used?

 

Well said.


You cant score fights on a bias, or make up your own rules.

 

Another Dirrell -- Froch thread, it never dies!


Another chance for me to issue the Conrad Dobler Challenge: Find me a legal punch the Froch landed besides the one he caught Dirrell with in the 3rd round.

The point: If one fighter (Dirrell) landed 20-25 clean, head-snapping power punches (see highlight reel linked above), more or less evenly distributed across the rounds -- and the other fighter (Froch) lands so few punches that even on a close examination of the fight on video tape (with pausing and rewinding, etc.) it's hard to find a single clean landed punch -- who do you think really won?

You do the math!

 

Both fighters deserved a loss for that crappy fight. You should all forget about it and stop wasting more time on it.

 

The ref's failure to decut a point from Carla,despite the fact that these rabbit punches were as frequent as Dirrell's clinching,shows what kind of corrupt,bent ******* he was.

 

Absolutely! He should've also been greedy as hell and taken every one of the scoring opportunities left to him. You CANNOT leave that kind of room for error as a traveling fighter and hope you did "just enough". It's the Glen Johnson syndrome, and you have to know that "just enough" isn't gonna cut it going in to the fight. It's mind boggling that Dirrell fought that fight like he had the home field advantage.

As for the first part of your post, you and I both know that judges will still give the exchange to the fighter they see throw anything that lands over the guy who does nothing. It's not spelled out in the rule books, but that's how it plays out in reality. And Dirrell's corner should've known it too. It still pisses me off because that's a fight Andre could've had locked up, dominated, and he didn't want it bad enough to take the risk to do it. And his corner let him go on thinking that was fine.

I still get pissed thinking about it. Like I said before: how can you rob someone when he's that eager to give it away? I still scored it very narrowly for Dirrell, but he left the door too open given the circumstances he knew he was up against. You can get away with that if you're Dirrell in Michigan, or Corey Spinks or Devon Alexander in St. Louis where you'll get the benefit of the doubt. You're not going to get the benefit of the doubt in an ugly, close fight where you try to do only just enough to skate by against Froch in England. Or against any home fighter in any state or country. If the exact same fight plays out against Ward in Oakland, it's Ward keeping that 0. If the same fight happens in Michigan, but we reverse the fighter's performance (ie, Froch does exactly what Dirrell did) Dirrell's winning it.

There is NO room for ambiguity if you're the visiting man. That's the reality of it and it has been for decades.

 

SO basically UFC then?

Good judges dont score rabbit punches and hitting on the break.

Andre's best work came after the point deduction. Where he wobbled Froch in the 10th and pretty much dominated round 11 and 12. Clearly he did want it.

Before the 12th his corner tells him. "You have to get him out of here, you are not going to win a decision here"

Clearly after the point deduction, Andre's corner knew the fix was in.

It wasnt close. At best you could give Froch 4 rounds.

A robbery is a robbery is a robbery.

 

are you joking? a single shot? just watch the clip on page 3

 

you're looking at the fight from a practical standpoint, e.g. expect that robberies occur and fight accordingly. This would be good advice to any fighter who fights in a hostile territory.

But that's not what the debate is about. When we talk about robberies, we're saying: assume a perfect world in which judges are in a soundproof booth, unaffected by the crowd, scoring according to the proper criteria (i.e. emphasizing clean effective punching), the ref is being fair, the "champion" has no inbuilt advantage where the challenger must "take the belt away from him", etc.

So, yes, in a corrupt world Froch can and did "win". The question is, what happened in a fair world? And what many people are saying is that in this hypothetical "fair world", Dirrell won rather clearly by virtue of him hitting Froch, and Froch not hitting him.