After reviewing events !!! Boxing in a nutshell !!!

I had a major instintive reaction yesterday with regards to boxing after watching yet another decision go to the wrong fighter and I vowed to become a distant fan of the sport but I rewatched the Dirrell vs Froch fight this morning and I had to look at the positives.

1. Dirrell showed that he is not only able to hang at top level but he actually outclassed and outboxed the champion

2. The tournament is obviously not over and Dirrell has the chance to redeem himself against a guy in Abraham who I believe to be a much tougher fight than Froch so if he won that fight it would wipe out any negativity taken away from the Froch fight.

My anger was more towards boxing in general and the so called fans of the sport. In my opinion boxing scoring can be subjective but boxing 1st and foremost is about punches being landed cleanly and if a man outlands his opponent and hurts him more than he is hurt then I would suggest that the obvious winner is the one landing the more punches and hurting his opponent.

It seems that nowadays the sport has had an inbred of goons and football hooligans who dont understand boxing or the sweet science and they would rather give a fight to a man coming forward and hitting air for 12 rounds, but because he looks like Rambo in doing so he is supposed to be awarded the fight.

I am all about the sweet science and as it shows there is alot of people who understand the sport of boxing. Boxing for some people is just an in and out past time but for more serious followers of the sport like myself consistent disreguard for incompetent scoring can make any purist turn their back on the sport and become a disgruntled boxing fan.

I personally have had words with many boxers who tell me the same thing about the sport and why boxing needs to completely clean up their act as their is alot of misconceptions in this sport, especially the ones about a challenger having to do more than the norm to beat a champion. If a fighter wins he wins regardless of the notion of having to do more to beat a champion. If the champion is made to look like a hopeless, flat footed, slow plodding, unskilled brawler who swings and is made to miss and look stupid and to add onto that is outlanded by 100 punches and hurt and stunned in the rounds where he was expecting his opponent to wilter and slow down then is that really a champion? Froch got beat up more badly in the rounds where many thought that Dirrell was going to be most vulnerable and taken out. You do the maths.

In the long history of this sport we have not been able to come up with a consistent scoring system in which fights are scored properly.
At least when talking about effective aggression vs a slick fighter.

Margarito applies effective aggression because he actually lands on his opponent even if its primarily to his opponents body.

Effective aggression I feel is not understood properly by the people scoring fights nowadays.

Slick skills and counter punching and using the ring does not equate to just running. I admit that Dirrell could have knocked Froch out had he not let all the foul play take him out of his gameplan but he did more than enough to win.

Here is why Froch did not win the fight in a nutshell:

1. Effective Aggression means coming forward whilst being able to land punches, Froch was coming forward orite but he was being out landed by his opponent who landed alot more shots on Froch than Froch landed on him in the majority of all the rounds.

Here is why Dirrell won the fight

1. Dirrell was not running, he was fighting his own fight, not Froch's fight and why should he fight a dumb fight to please Nottingham.

He did not fight a dumb fight like Taylor & Pascal did.
He fought to a strategic gameplan which worked and exposed Froch's to be a limited sluggerinabilities to actually box

2. To beat Froch you dont stand there infront of him and bang, you box him and Dirrell boxed him and landed alot more of the cleaner shots, alot more.

Most people who think Froch won the fight do not understand that boxing is about hit and not be hit and then the others would say boxing is entertainment and they talk about their hate for fighters running when in effect it is not running. Mayweather vs Baldomir was a clinic and even it is was not pleasing to the eye the job got done. The same could be said of Dirrell vs Froch, it was not a casual fan friendly fight but the purists would appreciate what they saw so my point is we have a divide of boxing ethics here

1. The fans who appreciate pure boxers and boxing strategy
Against
2. The casual fans who only appreciate slugfests and brawling styles and have no time to consider that boxing is based off hitting whilst not being hit, outlanding your opponent and landing the clean punches

So to conclude my argument, my instinctive outburst was a reaction more towards point 2 and these are the type of imbecils we have judging these fights.

When people goto boxing fights they are going to see a boxing match but they are actually waiting for the fight to break out and this is a natural instinctive animal instinct inbredded into human beings but if the fight does not break out and we see slick skills and a fight that is similar to a chess match then this is where we need competent judges to score fights properly and until this happens the guys with the real talents and skills will always get the short end of the stick, not in all cases but in the majority of them.

Your abusive comments are more than welcome

It will just show me how to tell who is a number 1 and who is number 2 on my points I raised.

For those wondering why I am still posting, mods refuse to delete