Andre Dirrell: Too little too late?

Fact u all ignoring what i posted and concentrating just on the Froch fight shows you have no defence for his actions.

 

:thumbsup Exactly

Highlight vidoes are deceiving but that fight was definitely Dirrell's, he did dominate the last 3 rounds. What a display of athleticism in that fight too.

 

Of course it was his fight.

You have to be seriously biased and blind to honestly say Carl Froch won that fight.

 

When a fight is so close and hard to score there is no room to talk about robbery :nono

Froch edged it, of course depending on which judge or fan you ask. But at the end of the day he walked away with the win bacause Direll lost his nerve in there, and did not know what to do.

End of story.

 

This guy has conducted himself like a coward, throwing himself to the floor when things got heated, running holding, fighting negative. He then opts out of a fight with Ward and many believe he had no real injury. He comes off in the interview regarding that situation like a liar and a coward. I have no interest in supporting this guy ever. He will have to start proving it the hard way not with soft touches and I seriously doubt he has the mettle for this.

 

Yeah those championship rounds sure how Dirrell didn't know what to do in there :roll:

 

How can anyone try to pretend it was onesided?

 

I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. Direll left room for the judges to score the fight after their personal taste, just like Hopkins did when he fought Calzaghe. And it did not work out. It is callad a failure, not a win.

 

Another delusional Britfan? Oh great, just what we need :roll::bart. Dirrell outboxed Froch, I don't think it was huge when (like 118-110 or something like that) but he should have outpointed Froch on a proper scorecard even with the point deduction. Froch got out boxed and was tagged with the biggest shots, that's not grounds to keep your title unless you get a gift hometown decision.

 

so consensus is many here think Dirrell beat Froch but then what? are you all excusing his actions since or do you think he deserves the hate he gets because of them?

 

He did not beat dog **** ouf of AA.
actually he lost some rounds and got Knocked down too. And in the End folded down like Ice Cream in Sun

Dirrel is just athletic gifted mental Midged.

 

I watched the fight last night, and yeah he beat the **** out of AA, to the point that it really wasn't even close. He DOMINATED AA, I challenge you go back and watch the fight and you tell me that he didn't dominate AA. Matter of fact even the German writer who was included in the "press row scoring" had Dirrell up by 7 points...so you can "say" what you want but the fact remains it was clear who the better fighter was. AA had to resort to a blatant and obvious foul to get himself out of the ass beating he was taking. As soon as it happened Tarver (who's actually been in a boxing ring) said you have to worry about Dirrell going forward because that's the kind of punch guys don't come back from, but I'm sure he doesn't know **** about boxing, considering he's a multiple time champion and has faught some of the best fighters of this era. Bottom line regardless of what's happening today...on that night AD beat the **** out of AA.

 

My apologiez, but you state your personal opinions like they where facts. You write that Froch was outlandet in significant punshes, the problem with that argument is that sloppy punshes counts as well when the judges score a fight. I am not a professional judge, or some super knowledgable fan, but it seemed to me like Froch landed body shots over and over again.

And saying that Froch was hurt feels like a stretch to me. On one occasion he put his earmuffs on, then you can literally see on his face that he thinks "Hell, I am not the aggressor anymore" and he goes back to work.

 

Over and over again he held instead of engage/using legit defensive tactics.

 

I am swedish not brittish, but that is a minor point. Back to the subject.

Should we have a look at the subject from the outside? The heartcore of this discussion is who landed most. Two out of three hometown judges gave it to Froch, the last hometown judge gave it to Direll. The fans obviosuly cant agree. When it comes to the opinions among more or less respectable sports journalist both sides have thrown names at each other. I cant remember what Frochs corner told him, but I clearly remember Dirells corner telling him he did not do enough.

All this tells us three things:

1. It was a close fight.

2. Who won it is a question about personal taste. Neither of the fighters dominated. In my opinion Froch outworked and outlanded Direll. I agree that Direll landed the better shots and made Froch look clumsy, but that does not change my impression (note: "impression", not "fact") that Froch landed more.

3. Froch was lucky to get away with the win. And if Direll have gotten the win he would have been lucky. By all means, you can pretend that Direll clearly won, but it just don't hold any water.

Ergo: Froch is the rightful winner simply because he managed to win one more judge over. On another venue and another night Direll could have been the one to leave with the belt. But that is just another "what if" in the sport of boxing.