Froch vs Dirrell - I hope all of you so called boxing experts get shut the %u@k up

Why the **** would I use a comma when I was using a hyphen already?

I work as a ****ing copywriter - who's more likely to be right?

I didn't spout horse**** - I stated a perfectly valid opinion. Form lines aren't ALWAYS right, but they give a good indication of what's going to happen. And ****ing hell, Diaconu and Branco are still better than ANYONE Dirrell has fought.

 

I can always rely on you to bring the sense.

 

Yep. Pretty much correct I think.

Well....... by Sunday morning Mr Solid Chin will either be hailed as a boxing analysis genius or someone who has completely embarrassed himself. If the latter I hope he's man enough to hang around and admit he was wrong as I will should by some miracle Dirrell wins this fight.

One of the things that really annoys me about boxing forums is that after someone strongly predicts a result and gets it wrong(like we all do) they then either a) start making excuses(poor decision,poor ref,low blows etc etc or b) they bugger off like Decebel did after Taylor lost to Froch or c) they keep a low profile for a while and then claim they never got it wrong in the first place.

 

PS Posters who are man enough to admit they got it wrong with no excuses earn FAR more respect from me then a poster who gets a prediction correct.

We all make bold predictions which turn out to be seriously flawed. What seperates the men from the boys is how we behave when we're wrong. Oh that reminds me, is Decebel still in hiding????

 

There is one thing about Dirrell that does give him an edge....he knows more about Froch than Froch knows about him....

 

:good I wasn't suggesting you couldn't/wouldn't but there's so many idiots on here mate, I'm sure you know where I'm coming from.

PS Are you going to the fight?

 

it's no more flawed than any other logic - boxing generally defies conventional analysis because of the variables. Form lines are flawed, but have their uses.

You are still spectacularly missing my point: I am saying that Froch has beaten a better standard of opposition, therefore would appear to be the better, more experienced fighter. I'm stating it in a blunt, simplistic way because that's what it boils down to in essence.

Dawson has nothing to do with this but he refused to fight him because it made him no money - he was a worthy challenger who deserved his shot and didn't get it.

Branco is still better than anybody Dirrell has fought - true or false?

Diaconu, as a top ten LHW and title challenger is better than anyone Dirrell has fought - true or false?

Pascal is better and more accomplished than anyone Dirrell has fought - true or false?

This is the simplicity of form lines - Pascal is a better fighter, proven by his performance against Froch and his subsequent win of a title at a HIGHER weight. Until Dirrell beats someone of the calibre of even a Diaconu, you can't say that he'll do this, or he'll do that - because he's been pretty shaky against much lesser fighters.

Anyway, you made a point that Reid nearly had Froch out of there in their fight... what? I watched that fight - Reid landed some tasty rights, but that was it. Froch battered him. And Reid, lest your ignorant ass forgets, was a former SMW champion who held Calzaghe to a SD and is still a better name on Froch's resume than ANYONE on Dirrell's.

Are you following yet? do i need to explain this patently obvious logic to you again?

Do I think Froch is going to win based solely on form lines? No - I think Froch will win because he punches harder, is more tactically astute and will keep his composure. Dirrell will get off to a roaring start, believe that everything's going his way and get over-confident. He'll either make an effort to get Froch out of there and gas as a result or walk on to a sneaky right hand and crumple.

If he wins, that's great and I'll give him his props, but anyone with eyes can see what a mountain he's got to climb still.

 

well i guess OP was wrong.

dirrell was much better boxer that night, although he seemed like he had ricky hatton training him =S

 

So let's see.

1. He fought like a green fighter for the vast majority of the fight.

2. He apparently pulled something together late, when I'd long since tuned out and it was clear he wasn't fighting in a way that would win overseas. Good for him.

3. He did OK with the crowd, not great. Froch's roughhousing spooked him at points.

4. His stamina held up well, but his lack of output aided this. In other words, he fought to survive only for LONG stretches early in the fight.

5. Not even close.

6. He was tested tonight and came up short.

Was the crazy brainwashed majority of boxing fans wrong? No. Frankly I had no clue exactly what would happen tonight and won't even lie as if I did. I DID however hope Andre wouldn't pull a Stevens, and for too many rounds of this fight he did. In other words, he fought in a way where he knew he wouldn't get KO'd, but drastically reduced any real chance he would have at winning.

Am I impressed by him right now? No. Can he improve to become a much more complete fighter? He has all the talent, the choice will be his.

 

I'll eat my crow. Dirrell was ****ing fantastic and a class act after the fight.