Dwyer: I'd take Degale over Bute, Dirrell and Kessler

No, that's your opinion. It was a close fight, but Froch did win. This is my opinion, but more so, it was was the judges opinion.

Judges pay attention to ring ownership. Please read the next part of your own quote.

Watch the fight again. Quite simply Dirrel didn't do enough to win the fight.

A lot of the comments are way off the mark in regards to De Gale, but De Gale does have something special about him and WILL become a world Super Middleweight Champion at some stage. This is not to say that De Gale wiil have all his own way in this fight, as Groves has world class potential as well, but I still take a De Gale stoppage as the outcome.

 

Quiteeeee Fraaaaannkkklllllyyyy.......i...Don't Knooowwwwwwwwwwww

 

It could be argued what Froch did wasn't really 'ring ownership'. That doesn't mean mindlessly coming forward and missing a lot of punches. It means actually controlling the fight, and thats a lot more difficult to determine. One could easily make the case Dirrell was the ring general as he executed his style in the fight, he did good work when he let his hands go, completely nullified Froch's work, and forced Froch to throw from crazy positions in the ring.

 

I'm glad as a boxing fan that Froch won that fight. My reasoning when i withdraw myself as a fan is that if Dirrell won via blatant running and fear of engaging in any form of battle it would set a dangerous precedent within the sport for fighters to turn up and fight like a coward and win.

Fighters could basically ruin fights and make no effort to fight in any form other then brief sparks and win bouts. People moan at great defensive fighters of past and present for not entertaining. I'm a huge fan of defense. What Dirrell did that night was defence it was the antics of a guy no wanting any part of bout. At times he should skill and that's what bothers me about him.

As much as the sports about hitting and not getting hit Dirrell took it to far. He held numerous times within each round and cried foul near on all time.

Froch's performance was embarrassing at times but he wanted to fight and put on a show for fans. Dirrell when he did open up did well....which makes it worse.

I'm glad he never one his attitude to sport has been exposed even more since that bout...considering many great fighters never got to be world champion i'm pretty damn happy he hasn't got the honor of that yet...and pretty much hope he never does.

 

Dirrell has a screw loose no doubt about that. He doesn't have a fighters mentality. But on a technical level, its not that clear Froch was the ring general. Actually its so hazy its difficult to see, which is a bit like what Froch appeared to be...boxing in slow motion through heavy fog.

This is one of the hardest fights you'll ever see for determining a thing like that. On the one hand you have a guy thats not really successfully doing anything except intimidation. Boxing wise nothing is coming off. Then you have a guy that is doing well in spurts, but is fighting cowardly up close and not giving the appearance of somebody thats dominant.

 

Yeah sadly well actually thankfully i never saw fight live i caught it the next day. So i came on here and saw the shitstorm then watched the fight.

I couldn't believe the way Froch fought...it was embarrassing at times he was so crude and slow. At times he literally ran at him and threw punches and he did land at one point. Reminded me of a UFC bout where they circle and don't punch for ages then someone just thinks **** it. He imo also didn't have control of that bout he looked like a man struggling and as fight wore on in later rounds he started to make schoolboy errors and Dirrell looked to sneak a few shots in here and there.

No one looked happy in there even the ref looked fed up by it all.

Even typing about the mess pisses me off...

 

Generally theres a pretty solid rule IMO that if you can't land punches you're not really controlling distance, and therefore the ring, enough to score highly on ring generalship. The best you could ever do in this fight is mark Froch evenly for that in this fight, thats being pretty generous too.

But yeah, horrible fight. Don't care to see much of Dirrell anymore.

 

Yeah agree with you.

In the end even though at time many felt judges were wrong now must look back and think it was a blessing in disguise.

 

I agree with this.

People can anaylze the fight all they want and talk about the different types of scoring and who did what better etc., but, for me, that fight just comes down to one question: Who should win? That person is Froch, without question. I don't want to follow a sport where a guy can fight like Dirrell did and win world titles. That's just fundamentally wrong to me. A fighter doesn't deserve to be a world champion fighting the way he did and whilst he may have been the 'effective aggressor', the 'ring general', the 'cleaner puncher' and better 'defensive fighter', it doesn't matter to me because all that goes out of the window when a guy literally runs, falls to the ground needlessly, cries, holds and spoils at every chance. Even if you give Dirrell every single positive, the negatives you have to talk about when discussing his performance mean that he wasn't worthy of beating the champion.

I'm not against defensive fighters. When I've mentioned Dirrell in other threads, the rebuttal which has been used so many times has been "Well, what about Pernell Whitaker or Willie Pep?". That sort of fighting is a million miles away from what Dirrell did. They were movers, yeah, but that's like saying Ruiz is similar to Joe Frazier because he often moved forward. What Dirrell did was spoiling, without question. He was ducking below the belt, running, holding and so on - I don't remember Pep or Whitaker doing that. They gave us masterclasses in pure boxing. Dirrell gave us an atrocious, disgraceful performance. "Disgraceful" is an appropriate word too because he did "disgrace" boxing. I was embarrassed watching it and I get embarrassed thinking about it now. In a way, I'm glad Hennessy is such a **** promoter and that fight wasn't on Sky because, if it was, people new to boxing would get the impression it's a dire sport and those who know boxing wouldn't be in any hurry to watch Froch again. As a boxing fan, I love guys like Whitaker and Pep because they were beautiful to watch but the idea they are in any way comparable to Dirrell is an insult to them both.

I'm not saying the guy who is more entertaining or whatever should always win, but there's a limit. Fighters like Dirrell simply don't deserve to be world champions. Considering it was a close fight with a couple of rounds in it, no matter what you think, Froch deserved the nod.

 

Thinking fights should ever come to who 'should' win is pretty silly. It's not a big step from that to saying X should win because he's come from a tough background in Brooklyn and boxing saved him blah blah blah. Thats just emotion and emotion strictly speaking should never enter into scoring a boxing bout. We already have criteria.

 

I don’t get all this commotion... who did he pick to win? And who won?

Under 175 you got:

Hopkins: Super Ultimate style
Bellew: Super Ultimate style

Carl Froch: Super Infinite style

Andre Ward: Infinite style 10/10
James DeGale: Infinite style 10/10
George Groves Ultimate style 10/10
Beibut Shumenov: Ultimate style 10/10
Andre Dirrell: Infinite style 9/10
Bute

 

I wouldn't give Beibut Shumenov 10/10. 5/10 maybe he's distinctly average.

 

He did the true Chisora num nut.