carl froch - win or lose to ward,he deserves legendary status.

Sorry, I didn't specify. Yes if you're ******ed. No otherwise.

 

Dirrell was debatable. Kessler wasn't.

(IMHO!!)

 

It wasn't that debatable if you were scoring on the proper criteria, but not this debate again

It ends up going round in circles with me and jpab espousing the virtues of the criteria for scoring boxing matches and how Dirrell scored more highly in those areas, while the people that score it for Froch go on about 'Froch deserved it more', 'Dirrell didn't deserve to take a fighters title' and 'Ran'.

 

I don't buy into the "taking the title" line but I'm not sure Dirrell won the fight (which is the real question).

 

Totally agree. Had him losing to Dirrell just but Very hard fight to score and razor tight.

Kessler won clear enough.

 

Even if you specify those criteria they are still massively open to interpretation. Effective aggression, ring generalship... Not definitive at all. You may as well just go on punch count.

I think you need to accept there is no definitive way to score a fight and opinion will - and rightfully can - differ.

 

You forgot clean punching, probably the most important. Froch didn't land any clean punches. I don't think people can really interpret whether a shot landed or not differently unless they're seeing what they want to see, but they choose to ignore that in a fight like this when it was probably the key difference in an aesthetically unpleasing fight.

 

I think Calzaghe would have made Froch look silly .

Just far FAR too slow ..

In fairness to Froch .. he took his limited ability as far as he could ..so he has my respect for that ..

Legendary status ... :huh

 

I didn't forget it I just pointed out the most nebulous criteria.

Like you say - PROBABLY the most important criteria. Just goes to show, there are no hard and fast rules.

There is no definitive way to score and in fights with paltry levels of clean action you'll always have differences in scoring. Just the way it goes.

You could argue Joe managed virtually nothing clean against Hopkins but he won that fight and rightly so. If you fight overly negatively you run that risk.

Anyway there's no debate over last nights fight !

 

I don't see that much comparison between that and Calzaghe. Calzaghe landed enough glancing blows, and the difference was he was effective enough in terms of his generalship and aggression to be able to still maintain a work-rate to tally up enough of those blows to justify taking enough rounds to win the fight.

Froch was totally ineffective, swinging hopeless punches from miles away, getting clipped with clean counters himself. His work-rate was nothing special either. I really don't see any argument for him winning on any criteria except 'Dirrell didn't deserve to win the title' which while I understand where people are coming from with their disdain for the way Dirrell went about it, its not really legitimate or with merit in scoring.

 

if taylor had the brains to take a knee rather than standing on the ropes waiting to be knocked out carl froch would be nowhere just now.

what a dumbass.

 

Sadly for Froch, right now all he will be remembered for is losing his two biggest fights, like Ricky Hatton.

Rightly or wrongly, he wont be regarded as the stuff of legend for that reason alone.

 

If every fight had the warrior mindset of Carl Froch, boxing would be a much better place.