Andre Dirrell: Too little too late?

By a 2 to 1, maybe even 3 to 1 margin landed the more "meaningful" shots in that fight. He literally staggered Froch, I don't recall him being hurt at any point in time. You tell me, what did Froch do to "win" the title? He was outlanded in total punches and I feel ANYONE would agree with that, he by far landed the more significant punches, Froch was the only one ever hurt in the fight, what exactly did you see of Froch that justified him being considered the "Champion"...aside from the scorecards, what did you personally see from him that merrited that?

 

There always has to be a 'worst' win, so even if it is Dirrell's then he still rightfully deserves the belt.

 

I agree with your simple but profound position of "I don't give a **** if he landed 1 punch per round, if his opponent (champion or not) landed 0, then the man won the title. This interjecting hypothetical rules **** is silly, he outpointed the man simple and plain.

 

Haye had an injury, Ruiz was never as cowardly as Dirrell, Johnson didn't win the title...come on. Title winning performances without injury, DQ etc.? Give me one.

 

:thumbsup thanks, that's basically what it comes down to. Yeah Dirrell was **** in there, but he was better than Froch, so what does that say about the Cobra?

 

If you're going to make those claims, lets see the punch stat numbers.

Cheers.

 

There have been plenty of injuries in boxing. None have limited there punch output to literally 10 in an entire fight.

How exactly was Dirrell cowardly? He fought at range, using his jab, speed and footwork, even staggered Froch at one point. Clearly winning the championship rounds.

Ruiz has produces some of the most boring dreadful performances in boxing history. Comparing the 2 shows how big a joke you are.

Wlad vs Ibragimov.


Thats one. And it was easy. Now post your scorecard you coward.

 

How do you really rate Dirrells performance though? Rounds 1-4 he boxed well. Rounds 10-12 he was dominant.

I dont believe it was as **** as the biased posters proclaim.

 

Nothing. He was against a man who repeatedly broke the rules by holding, falling down and generally refusing to engage. At times, he literally ran - I don't mean he moved out of the way, I mean he properly ran. It was spoiling on a huge degree, far worse than what guys like Hopkins have ever done. How could that sort of opponent ever look bad on Froch?

Dirrell didn't outbox Froch in the sense he was slipping shots, landing combinations etc.. He made it an impossible fight by refusing to engage and spoiling, which is why you simply can't just look at the positives from him. It's as simple as that.

 

Maybe, but he had an injury so it excuses his performance. Next.

Dirrell held to a point where he should have been DQed had the referee followed his own criteria. He cried, he fell to the floor when Froch was close, he literally ran - He did anything possible to avoid a fight.

Indeed, Ruiz was a horribly boring fight. However, he didn't disgrace himself like Dirrell did. Even Hopkins against Jones was more respectful than Dirrell against Froch.

**** fight, **** performance but anywhere near as bad as Dirrell's? No chance. Absolutely no comparison between those two.

 

The bulk of the fouling was committed by Carl Froch. In the 5th round Dirrell is outclassing Froch, landing at will and Froch cant land anything. Froch gets frustrated and throws Dirrell down to the ground. Several times in the fight Froch had to resort to hitting Dirrell behind the head. In the 10th round when he was hurt he grabs Dirrell behind hte head and proceeds to rabbit punch him. Just for the fact he was in danger of being KO'd. :rofl

Provide a clip of Dirrell running.

Just in the 3 rounds and the highlight clip posted above you can see plenty of examples of Dirrell slipping punches, countering and landing precise explosive combinations.


Have you actually ever seen this fight?

 

That is merely your criteria. Nobody respects Haye for his performacne that night, injured or not.

What criteria would that be? Holding and clinching has always been apart of the sport. Since its inception. Dirrell did no more holding and clinching then seen in any normal fight. Nobody not the announcers not anybody believed Dirrells fouling or holding was any more egregious then Froch's. Unless you are claiming Bernstein, Tarver and Gus Johnson were biased in dirrells favor?

The only time Dirrell cried was when Froch was blatantly hitting him behind the head. The only time he fell to the floor was when Froch pulled him down or in once instance threw him to the floor.

Nobody but you believes Dirrell disgraced himself. In the thread I started most thought Dirrell fought a decent fight. You were laughed at remember?

Wlad holding all the physical advantages over the much smaller opponent, refused to engage, and only pawed with the jab. Dirrell actually hurt Froch and fought a great 3 championship rounds. How is that fight worse?

 

He didn't look as bad as Pascal did against Dawson, and Pascal is the track star of boxing...

 

Sure, Froch was dirty too but the idea he did the majority of it is bull****. Froch came to fight, Dirrell came to spoil. If you disagree with that, you're a ****ing idiot.

And watch the fight again? No, thanks You post enough clips, have a look yourself.

Funnily enough, earlier in the thread I mentioned watching a short clip and it making Dirrell look good

Answer me something: Do you actually criticize Dirrell at all for his shameful performance?

Of course. Isn't commenting on fights you haven't seen one of your specialties? You did get caught out twice...

 

Come on...

Pascal didn't embarrass himself. It may have been a poor performance but Dirrell's was on another level.