Froch vs Dirrell controversy thread

Fair enough. I hope on a second glance you'll see the clear Dirrell victory that many others did.

 

First glance had me giving it to Dirrell by a 115-112 scoreline
Second glance had me giving it to Froch by a 114-113 scoreline
Third glance conceeds it could have gone to either fighter by 114-113 or 115-112 to Dirrell.

115-112 to Froch is an outrageous score.

 

the truth is that Froch did land punches on Dirrell, and if you have a good eye then you would see them. If you have the fight on your computer I can take you through a round and show you.

 

this is a fan who is desperate to believe his fighter won...sorry buddy but carl lost and most fans will agree...give it up and accept that he got a gift decision

 

Dirrell had to fight like this because he would have been KO'd instead.
I told you all that dirrell is too fragile to compete at top level. He knows it
and he showed it to you, but you're too inexperienced at boxing to see this. And by you I mean anyone who thinks dirrell thinks that if dirrell had of faced froch and performed well in lieu of that he would've beaten carl easily. No, if he had've faced froch he would've gotten KO'd. That was my prediction of the fight, and that's what would've happened if dirrell had any heart, but he doesn't so he didn't.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl Yeah, thats what really happened.

 

That right there lets you know. Show me. Name the rounds and the times in the rounds when Froch got off good punches. Show and ****ing prove.

 

:rofl

 

Nice g/f dude.

 

I'm wondering what your definition of "experience" is. I seriously doubt you have ANY pertaining to boxing. You talk more like an MMA fan.

 

Dirrell went toe to toe with Froch a couple times, and when he did, Dirrell got the best of it, even wobbling Froch in the 10th. You are deluded kid.

 

Put it this way.

Dirrell was CLEARLY the better fighter in the ring, had more talent, even seemingly had more power than Froch.

But he didn't make it count. He wasn't dominant in the fight for more than three or four rounds and that's what cost him. It's very hard to win a fight when you're on the backfoot as much as that, it depends what judges look for.

Some respected boxing journalists in America even had Froch winning. I can't consider this a robbery. A close fight, yes. But a robbery? No.

 

Doesnt matter. Judges should score on effective aggression and clean punching. If you score the fight correctly, its not close. Dirrell was the best at the jab, countering, precision punching, and hurt Froch a couple of times.

It is a robbery. The definition of.

 

i completely agree.

 

Thanks for staying objective....