Froch still says he is ?unbeaten"

Yeah if it was in England he would have gotten the decision easily using UFC tactics which are only allowed over there.

 

what clean effective punches ? pitty pat hit and run punches ? I wouldn't call that style clean or effective.

I'd call that I am going to hit you quickly but softly and do anything I can to spoil/stop you landing anything tactics.

Technically dirrell won but I don't mind the robbery because of the way dirrell fought.

 

any poster can get 30k + posts if you just simply go into every thread and type "void is void" in it....check his posts and that's 95% of it... :rofl

 

Basically david haye did the same thing against valuev - all the holding and you guys were against that yet back up dirrell hmmm :think

 

Yes it is! He assumes a=b. First (math)-mistake is made when he goes "...divide out (a-b)...". That's not defined unless a and b are some "interesting" objects and division means something different from what is normally used.:huh

I actually like Froch. He's a true warrior that is not afraid of entering enemy territory. He should give Dirrell a rematch though. And a rematch with Kessler in Nottingham would be nice too.:good

 

Froch's one of my favourite fighters at the moment - and easily my favourite British fighter - but I agree with this. Having said that it's not uncommon for a fighter to accept he lost a decision. Hell, it's not uncommon for a fighter to refuse to accept a stoppage against him was just - like James Kirkland after his last fight. I think it's a psychological thing - refusing to accept the loss leaves a sense of injustice, whereas accepting it might have a negative effect on their self-confidence and self-belief.

Either that or he genuinely believes he won. He didn't.