Forget the decision - who here feels Dirrell robbed himself?

i just think your a tosser

 

I think he didn't give the judges a great impression despite being the better fighter.. but at the same time how could they be blinded by Froch's dirty tactics.. they were as bad as eachother..

 

Your thread topic says it all.

 

He'll be fighting in America from now on and wont have Italian and Belgian judges. British, Mexican and American judges no not to score on bad aggression, but effective aggression. In America he wins this fight going away. So the only thing he'd have learned is, dont fight in Europe.

 

I didn't watch his corner closely, but he needed someone to go "Steward in the Tyson - Lewis fight" ballistic and tell him early on to get all over Froch. Even though he probably still deserved the nod, there was too much of the Stevens Dirrell on display last night and not enough of the Hanshaw Dirrell.

 

Indeed.. Props to the Mexican judge..

 

Dirrell skill wise is league's above froch....but IMO dirrell's corner knew it was a close fight.....when his corner said "your not getting a decision Here" the job of the corner is to encourage the fighter as well, if the fight wasnt close as some claim, dirrell's corner could have said your boxing beautifully just keep doing what your doing and keep froch in the middle of the ring.....the fight was close.....these 8-9 round win margins for dirrell are horrendous....dirrell should have won by a landslide but he didnt, and his corner knew it too...

 

I kind of see what you're saying although I had Dirrell winning the fight comfortably.
What you forget though is that kind of confidence comes from having a great chin. It's what kept Froch coming forward all night. It's what gave Calzaghe the confidence to stand in front of Lacy knowing his speed was good enough and if he did get caught then he could handle it. I'm not sure Dirrell believes in himself, his great reactions and his own punch resistance that much.

 

htf do you rob yourself?????? By this logic that Dirrell "lost" the fight, what exactly did Froch do to "win" the fight, thats the 10th time I've asked the question and I haven't recieved an answer yet....I'm waiting!

 

Completely. Dirrell blatantly robbed himself imo.

 

Froch tried every second of every round. He never ran or grabbed or fell repeatedly over his own feet.

He tried constantly.

He threw and threw and Dirrell slipped and slipped.

For every 10 punches Froch threw Dirrell probably slipped the 8.

For every 10 punches Dirrell threw he probably landed 8.

A round where Froch throws 30 punches and lands 6, and Dirrell throws 7 and lands 4 crisp and obvious punches....

Time and time we will be amazed at Dirrell's great slips and his crisp punches....

However, although Dirrell may have impressed more times (4 punches plus 24 slips = 28 amazing actions..) than Froch.... Froch still landed 6 compared to Dirrell's 4!

I don't doubt that Dirrell is vastly more talented than almost anyone else in boxing. Froch fought hard and tried every second of every round - that is what he did. Dirrell was successful at negating a LOT of that... but he forgot to punch himself (he did, but not enough)

So yeah - Dirrell definitely did rob himself in there.

 

So I take it from that post that you agree that Calzaghe clearly beat Hopkins, as we had an American location, an American referee and three American judges who scored it 9-3, 8-4 and 6-6 ?

 

I have never once said that Calzaghe did not beat Hopkins. I sometimes urk Calzaghe huggers saying Hopkins was robbed, but I scored the fight for Calzaghe. He was actually effectively aggressive sometimes unlike Froch.

 

I still think he won it. But yeah, he's his own worst enemy.