WHO WON THE FROCH-DIRRELL FIGHT? Vote & either post your scorecard or explain why...

116-111 Direll

8-3, with the 10th being 9-9, to Dirrell

 

No, I mean like engaging with the champ.

He ran almost all night. That's ok.....but he shouldn't expect to win judges over that way. A learning experience.

 

Correct score:good

 

this is also true, i saw Dirrell winning 8 rounds to 4 giving the 10th to froch

 

I have to agree with this the most. I am already tired of seeing all these threads about robberies and what not. Either way or draw and I would be fine with it.

 

Dirrell also won round 10, yeah he was deducted a point but it should be 9-9.

 

I thought Dirrell squeaked by with a close win.

 

I thought Andre deserve the win. At least, even if he lost this one, he still manage to show the world...FROCH IS REAL ****!

 

The fact that you used the word "robbed" clearly demonstrates you really don't know what you are talking about. I suppose you think Froch was "exposed" too.

 

Was the Henshaw fight more difficult than the Froch fight ?

 

I got the exact same scorecard.:good

 

Dirrell won he outworked Froch and landed the cleaner harder shots, IMO Froch won no more than 4 rounds. With that said the fight was ugly and fouled filled. But if you're going to take a point away from Dirrell, Froch should have been deducted as well it was only fair.

 

The fight didn't end until around 3:30AM here in the UK. I came online about an hour later and there was was a barrage of hatred toward the UK from US based Dirrell fans which included but was not limited to calling us all "British ****s". They seemed to think it was the biggest robbery of all time. I took it all rather too personally and reacted against it by childishly voting on a few polls that I thought Froch had won. I'm making this post to clear my conscience because the reality is that although i had heard the full commentary of the fight, I can't say that I had watched more than 3 or 4 rounds properly enough to make an honest assessment at that time.

Since then I have read all the arguments on this forum and decided that I would watch the fight again in full, this time with US commentary. I would do so unbiasedly and in accordance with the proper rules of boxing. I was determined to ignore the main points everyone was mentioning which included Froch having the home crowd advantage and being the current Champion. And Dirrells "negative" tactics including running, holding and moaning.

The result was that I had Dirrell winning by 2 rounds before the 1 point deduction (obviously 1 round with that deduction).

With that said I thought there were at least 4 rounds that were so close that I would have no problem whatsoever with anyone saying they saw them the opposite way.

There were also an additional 2 rounds that I had for Dirrell so narrowly that they could possibly be argued by some, although they would be more contentious in my mind.

I saw several posters saying that Dirrel had won by "at least 10 rounds" and then calling the judges bias! Seriously how could anyone have either fighter dominating to that extent?

Although the judges disagreed overall with my assessment I do not see this as a robbery at all. With those close rounds I truly believe that all of the judges could have come to their totals fairly and honestly.

It must be difficult for the judges to ignore the points mentioned earlier (home/Champions advantage, negative tactics etc) but i believe they are professional. Of course we can never know what is in the judges mind but we must remember that they are human and may not even see every punch. Their view can easily be blocked by the fighters themselves or the referee. Even if all the judges saw the same thing there honest opinions could differ. Why would we have 3 judges if they always gave the exact same score?

It was a close fight, It could have gone either way and just because you or I disagree with the decision that does not make it a robbery and it defiantly doesn't condemn an entire nation and their boxing knowledge or integrity.

Moving on to the fighters, "Froch was Froch". I've never met a Froch fan who thought he was a great boxer or that he had speed. They like him because he is a warrior, he has heart, a decent chin/punch and likes to come forward and fight. Anyone who thinks Froch was exposed in this fight is crazy. What was there to be exposed? His characteristics have never been hidden!

On to Dirrell. I confess prier to the fight my entire knowledge of Dirrell was based on Youtube videos and Boxrec! But I was very impressed by him, he seems to have all the tools. I feel he could have won the fight but for some reason mentally he wouldn't allow himself to. I do believe he ran too much and that does leave me wondering whether he doubts his own chin. Don't get me wrong nobody wants to get hit. But in my opinion, considering this was a world title fight you have to be prepared to "put it all on the line" at some point if you want to win. Never the less he will defiantly learn from this, improve and have a bright future.