But if he's fighting like a coward and still winning rounds then he's doing something right. Cowardly or not, to win rounds you have to be achieving something in there, more than your opponent did in that three minute time span.
I would agree with that but, the runners have always been given credit as 'ring generalship', it's part of the game...
Absolutely. I have a hard time giving a fighter rounds on the card though, if they spoil as much as they land. When it becomes bad, I think you have to pretty much ignore the positives that the fighter has done and rule it out because of the negatives. The way I'm talking about this, it's like it's a frequent occurrence It's obviously not but I feel it should be the case.
Nobody was talking about Dirrell and many people didn't even know who he was until he entered the super six and his promoter was hyping him up saying that he was going to win it all with only an 18-0 record. Then he fought Froch and exceed most people's expectations since they didn't know much about him and thought he was a scab that Froch would run through. He arguably won the Froch fight and was ahead by a large margin in the Abraham fight before Abraham clocked him while he was down. All he needs to do is keep perfecting his craft, by the time he has 30 fights in he could be on top.
Froch/Dirrell was a crap fight and either guy winning would not have been an outrage, regardless of which fighter people prefer. Theres arguments for why both fighters should have won but whatever people put forward, there'll always be a counter-argument etc and it goes nowhere. Close fight, SD/draw was the right decision. On topic, I think Dirrell definately could be a top contender within the weight division. He's oozing potential, but right now he needs to get himself back in the ring and clear his name. He should get himself a tune-up fight ASAP, a decent euro level fighter and then dive right back into the deep end of SMW contenders. His pulling out against Ward was downright ridiculous, and it damaged the sport. For him to come out with "neurological problems" bull**** should result in a fixed term suspension of 5 or so years, just to ensure he's back in full health. That or a full investigation into his so-called condition, which would most likely have resulted in his outright banishment of the sport.
Haha no it's a pretty rare occurrence, but I think to someone like you you just wouldn't even be scoring rounds for someone like Dirrell who you think is running/being a spoiler so it's a moot point. It wouldn't make much sense to give someone rounds when they're running to you and then not let them win because they were running.
What a bull**** premise - but not at all unusual for Eastside. How slow-witted and inexperienced regarding life and athletics are you that the salient reasons this topic is clearly no more than a weakly veiled attempt at expressing your deep seated familial bigotry escapes your notice? Rather than note his obvious strengths you absurdly focus upon the transient factors as if that supports some final determination or conclusion. Wake up. You wouldn't have thought to make this thread if you didn't really find him (and others like him) TOO dissimilar to your favored IDEAL. Any adult (rather than an inexperienced foolish twat) would note clearly - that while there is an evident or discernible range - there is a difference in physical maturation that presents a differing attribute set between how an athlete is at an early point in a career compared to where they will inevitably be later on. As this relates to AD, it is clear that while he possesses some noteworthy attributes in having some of the highest end quickness and speed it is also evident that he isn't a fully mature physical specimen and that development is undoubtedly going to result in him becoming a full fledged light heavyweight if he fights into his 30s. It is obvious in his frame that he is not yet what he will become. It is no different than looking at any many dozen of easy examples. If we glance at a young version of Sergio Martinez and the fighter we see today we note incredible differences. NO ONE is stepping in the ring at 154/160 and blasting him out or easily putting him on his back foot as he is at the apex of his maturation related to physical strength. But, in his 20s that simply wasn't the case. No surprise. Young men grow up and age. Why not look at the level of comp and fighters Carl Froch was facing when he was 27 years of age? Why not note the fact that Froch and Abraham (or Kessler) are all much more physically mature and complete than AD either because they were older or were older and simply more mature? Why not note that a 26 year old (by 1 month) with eighteen fights was put in the ring (AWAY) with an older champion in a title fight as opposed to the many "champions" that have tended to fight as many bums as possible in attempting to protect their trinket (some well into their 30s)? If a not fully mature 26 year old has the skills to trouble two fully mature champions closer to their peak than not in Carl Froch and Arthur Abraham doesn't that actually mean that in a few years he is more likely to stomp them completely and utterly? The advantage both fighters had over AD was their experience, maturity, and physical strength. That advantage is transitory. It was also mitigated by being far less skilled. That won't change. Any reasonable adult would see that the future advantage lies with the younger more talented athlete with speed to burn and the frame and size to catchup in the area of strength and power. It is obvious to any unbiased viewer that both fighters (both champs) were able to land almost nothing at all. Both fighters caught more than they gave. No, your thread premise belies the usual and rampant bigotry that is so pervasive in these troubled economic times (for so many). Lots of young kids and young adults are looking for a target. Deep seated biases are not far under the surface of nearly every thought. But a young athlete is not static. Unless AD is ill, he will only be a tougher proposition for anyone he fights in the coming years not less. He has obvious upside in that he will mature into a man and the remaining weaknesses of youth will recede. OTOH, there is zero upside for Carl, Arthur, Mikkel, or Lucian. They will not become quicker, faster, stronger, or more athletic. AD will not change greatly in his speed and athleticism, but he will become stronger. In the end, it is fortunate that Carl and Arthur fought him as a young less developed product. In a few years, they will be better served to be retired than face him again. Maybe you will still be throwing rocks on the internet at the minorities that trouble your sleep. You surely won't be offering any sensible conclusions or viewpoints on athletic talent and its probable development.
Dirrell beat Froch. No one who claims Froch won can produce a credible scorecard. Most of the fouling during the fight was Froch. The only fighter who was hurt in the fight was Froch do to a massive left hand from Dirrell. It was a shame a young prospect was robbed in his first 12 round fight which is what should've been the defining fight of his career. Thought Dirrell fought an excellent fight for most of the night, maintaining range, landing clear blows and displaying godly defensive skills. He got a little flustered with Froch's dirty tactics in the mid-rounds, but won all 3 of the championship rounds, and had he been fighting in unbiased location won a clear decision. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUm8AHqiPKU[/ame] As for what remains of his career. There is no doubt in my mind he is a top 3 fighter in the division and once he gets back into fight fitness will display the disparity of skill and athleticism he possesses over 99% of the division.
I HATE Andre Dirrell, he is a disgusting coward of a man, I have no time for him, I hope he gets brutally ktfo
Dude, Dirrell doesn't need to do anything except get back in the ring, many believe he beat Froch, and he certainly beat the dog **** out of AA...so I'm not sure what your point is. He will "redeem" himself when he gets back in the ring and gets to beating quality guys, which he has more than established he's capable of.
Championship rounds Dirrell vs the Slobra. Mind you, Dirrell has never gone 12 rounds before, but watch how he performs, anyone doubting this kid/questioning his heart or desire seriously needs to watch more boxing. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czg1INSWVuI[/ame] Dont listen to Jack. He's a bit pissed off because he made a thread about who was more boring Haye or Dirrell and everyone in the thread laughed at him. Him calling Dirrells performance a joke or the worst ever clearly shows his biased as just in the 3 rounds above Dirrell is displaying an excellent boxing ability, acumen and aggressiveness trying to win the fight. Jack is a joke poster and should only be taken as such.
MW, tell me one performance, barring injury, DQ etc., that was worse than Dirrell's where the contender won the belt? Just one, cheers.
We already did a thread on this jack. Everyone laughed at you. Most said Dirrells performance in the fight wasnt that bad. Far better then Haye being outperformed by a demented Holyfield against Valuev. Far better then anything John Ruiz has ever produced. Far better then Kevin Johnson not even fighting back against Vitali. I have posted clips including rounds 10-12 where Dirrell fought a very admirably fight even for his age and inexperience. You and only you remain the coward for failing to produce a credible scorecard in relation to this fight.