Graham Houston on Froch-Dirrell

Yes, Houston got this one right too.

 

the are guys that arent giving froch credit. Im not naming names but I thought id take the time to show how great the guy is. look at the chain of fights and figure for your self. robinson got beaten by joey archer n he got beat by emile griffith etc

*sugar ray robinson* < Joey archer < Emile griffith < Alan Minter < Marvin Hagler < Leonard < camacho < oscar ela hoya < Bernard hopkins < Jermaine Taylor < **Carl froch**

and off course everyone was in their prime when they lost.

 

Interesting read. I really like Graham Houston's articles, and i think he nailed this one on the head too! I had it 115-112 Dirrell when I scored it yesterday but it didn't feel quite right. Dirrell didn't deserve to win with all his negativity, Froch didn't deserve it cos he barely hit cleanly all fight. Open to interpretation like Houston said.

 

I think a better word than "negativity" is, like Houston put it, "lack of assertiveness".

 

Graham is a grossly underappreciated boxing journalist. I rely heavily on his insight whenever making predictions. :good

 

He's better at describing than at predicting, I find.

 

He misses the mark plenty, sure - but I'm pretty sure if you dug up stats he's at least got higher percentage than Atlas by double digits, for what that's worth.

And he always has logical and identifiable analysis to support his picks.

 

A damn good article...

 

a coin can predict fights better than atlas.

 

There's Houston, Borges, Kimball and Fischer for me. McIlvanney when he was still covering boxing regularly was brilliant.

Houston is probably the least biased boxing writer I can think of - he gives credit to all sorts of fighters and doesn't get the hump because he dislikes a guy's behaviour or the way he talks.

He's the only guy whose write-ups after the fight are absolutely required reading.

He'll call a robbery when he sees one, but has the sort of knowledge of boxing scoring to say when a fight's close. he gives Dirrell credit but criticises where the man let himself down, and he points out how poor Froch was too, while explaining why he deserved credit.

His reasoning is always logical and astute. The hyperactive idiots on ESB who like to cry robbery all the time could do with reading the opinion of someone much more knowledgeable than them and accept that people see things differently.

 

Good article. For me it was the kind of fight in which Froch can consider himself lucky to have got the decision, but Dirrell can't have any complaints about losing.

 

That's exactly how I felt.

I had Dirrell 114-113 but I didn't feel sure about it. I felt like I was being raped giving a boxer a win that bitched his way around the ring.