Your a liar. It was also backed up on another thread as you know by other ESB users and one also put out a link, to the Boxing News article. Write up something fictitional if it helps ease the pain. Why keep using the word ***, are you trying to make a pass? Or hide a deep inner desire? No doubt one of the two. You have been pwned time and time again and schooled, even recently you changed your tune about Froch, after your hero Dawson got shown up, and after you had praised him to me. Keep trying fool, you have been known to fail before
Even in "real time" as you put it its quite clear that Froch isnt landing the jab. And its quite clear that Dirrell landed a over hand counter that set Froch's head almost to the floor. Its quite clear that Dirrell landed a 3 punch combination. If you are going to score a fight do it right. Dont try to compensate for the judges bias by scoring it how you believe they saw it. You missed more then several key punches Dirrell landed in that round, thats more then enough to revoke your credibility. You are the one who brought up punch stats clown. I merely said Dirrell landed more clean effective punches in the round and Froch landed ONE clean punch the entire round. You scored jabs that didnt land. You didnt score a Dirrell combinations and a massive right hand counter that landed. That is YOUR fault. Not mine. Dont pin your stupidity on me. And you have already been explained to countless times that boxrec can be edited by anyone and the punch stats are bull****. Yet you continue to persist to use that as truth then accuse me of using punch stats. You are a joke. Each one clearly missed. Hell the angle you can perfectly see whether Dirrells head snaps back or not. It clearly doesnt. either they didnt land, or they landed and they had no snap on them and Dirrell took it without flinching. Then its not effective. Nope. Bias comes from scoring punches that dont land, and missing several punches of the other fighter that do land. Then blame it on real time scoring. You judge incorrectly. You dont know what "clean effective punching" is. You apparently score a round for someone just because he backs the other up with his jab without landing. You're book is horribly written then. I dont think anyone on this thread gave round 8 to Froch. You'd have to give it to him because he landed one punch, which is obviously what you did.
I asked him countless times to scan Ring magazines scorecard. He hasnt. I have the issue right here that clearly says Dirrell deserved to win. I'll post it sometime later today. When did I ever change my tune about Froch? He still is an uncoordinated, slow, caveman boxer, who is lucky to even have held a strap for a little bit. Got lucky against taylor, and got a gift against Dirrell. will never hold another belt again for the rest of his career. A perfect representation of British boxing. Btw, last time a did a top 5 favorite boxers. Dawson didnt even make it in because of his inactivity. My hero. :rofl
Justice, "Dirty Harry" Style - Ivan Goldman Ring Magazine Pg. 18 January Issue Quotes "Sure Andre Dirrell was robbed..." "But lets not kid ourselves. If you look at the rules, the 2 judges who scored it for Froch were way outside the base path" "The round goes to the effective puncher, even if he is mostly running, grabbing and complaining to the ref, Froch barely landed a clean effective punch all night" "The gist of the evening is, Dirrell refused to engage, Froch fought dirty. referee Hector Afu let him, and to of the judges tore up the scoring rules and invented there own, providing Froch with a split decision" :bbb Down goes Bailey! Down goes Bailey!
Proof because if you have that issue of the Ring you know yourself what else is in it. What you quote was just an article and not a fight report, so now with your hand on your heart write what is on the page about the super 6 so far and you will see that in that edition you have there, the journalist who previews the super 6 in that edition felt Froch won by 1 point against Dirrell. Ivan Goldman wasnt giving a fight report. You are now a proven liar that I cant repect for not telling the truth of what is in that edition of The Ring. Liar liar liar and now everyone who has seen that edition of the Ring knows Pwned yourself fool
Nope. The writer makes no mention of scoring the fight. Infact he to makes the point that Dirrell won. Claiming how Glen Johnson felt Dirrell won and basically describing the fight as one sided recounting the blows that Dirrell landed in the 6, 10 and 12 and how perplexed Dirrell was at the judges decision. Meaningless. Just one of the many writers who scored the fight for Dirrell. what are you talking about? Knows what? The the writers of the ring felt Dirrell won and was robbed. Hey better yet *****. Why havent you posted your scorecard yet. You seem to be the only one without the balls to post a scorecard and give your own opinion. Come on, like I said, be a man for once in your life.
I've posted my scorecard on this, along with EXTENSIVE explanations for each round at least twice before. I had Froch winning it by a point or two. But there were more than enough swing rounds to give it to Dirrell by the same score. I personally preferred Froch's work in more of those rounds. Dirrell didn't even attempt to fight for much of the middle rounds. He would run, run run, and then hold. Then they'd break, then he'd rush in and hold. He wasn't hurt or tired, so I have no idea what the hell he was thinking. There were multiple rounds where both fighters were almost totally ineffective. In those rounds, I had to go with the fighter who was making the fight. Why? Because if the other fighter was too scared to engage at all, then the guy chasing him around must be doing something right.
You see you are a certified liar, because what I said is not the article you are referring to, but the fight report on the other pages of the edition you quote, which scores to Froch by 1 point. You are a complete liar and fool, exposed now on ESB around the world, and also proven that you are a rubbish poster who misses out valid details. Forget what my scorecard could be, you are changing the subject and trying to cover your lies. You have failed like the fool you are and been exposed as a liar The Ring and Boxing News scored for Froch . Live with it dummy
Tbh this is stupid because a lot are using replays and post fight stats to justify why Dirrell won. Remeber the judges didnt have any of this they could only go by what they saw as it happened. So along with all these slick moves you keep mentioning the judges saw one fighter stalking forward and attacking and then a lot of the other fighter falling to the ground and running. In the heat of the moment thats very easy to decipher as the fighter being under intense pressure and is being forced into making mistakes. This gives the impression that Froch is controlling the fight and Dirrell is doing his best to just stay on his feet. If fights where scored after a fght when judges could use replays then im sure it would be different. But they dont they score just what they see and it LOOKED like Dirrell was scared and under intense pressure.