To be clear, I don't advocate shoddy, biased judging. I just believe that Dirrell was the victim of an overly influential crowd cheering prejudicially for Froch's ineffective aggression and incompetent officials.
Watched this fight over and over again. Dont see how anyone could give Froch 5 rounds let alone 7. Must be using a different criteria then whats in the rule book.
So if Froch was robbed of a win previously in his career, would you say that it was only fitting that Dirrell was robbed against Froch?
I am neither American nor British and I scored it 6 rounds a piece 114-113 for Froch Don't see how you could possibly give Froch less than 5 rounds unless you don't know how to score a fight.
You are biased and it effects your final judgment. Similarly Froch fans, they are bioased and they think Froch won. In reality to unbiased observers it was a difficult fight to score but it could have gone either way and the draw would be the best result in that case.
Then you dont know how to score a fight. Also round 10 is a 9-9 round based on the fact that Dirrell had Froch hurt, even the biased judges in nottingham scored that round even. Post what 6 rounds you gave Froch.
The fight wasnt that difficult to score. Score on punches landed and who is missing punches and its clearly Dirrell.
Dirrell can't afford to be clumsy and what frustrates me the most about him is that he has the skills to beat Froch & Abraham but he was gun-shy in the Froch fight and respected his power too much.
Sure, because the "fit" you're relying upon from my original post is not a normative one. Instead, it refers to an unfortunate feature of the sport that happens to be roughly symmetric.
Dirrell is going to win on points ... or a possible stoppage ... Abraham is too slow, very flat footed and isn't as skilled. I think Froch has a bit more skill and ability that Abraham and Abraham has gotten by this far but will be exposed come Saturday. I'll be at the fight as well with my nephew ... cheering for Dirrell to get the stoppage.