Carl Froch-Andre Dirrell Punch stats 100% ROBBERY

These look about right to me. If these are the correct stats, It's ****ing ridiculous that anybody thinks Froch won that fight!

 

They are fake you knob head :deal

 

Trust me, Froch doesnt need anyone to help him look bad. I think he can do that perfectly fine on his own.

 

Not only that, you can't win a fight flailing away like an imbecile, missing in an embarrassing way, and getting countered so hard it makes your legs buckle. Froch did all of that and more.

 

LMFAO.

 

Calzaghe - total punches --232/707 = 33%
hopkins --- total punches-- 127/468 = 27%

C---- jabs --- 46/224 == 20%
H----jabs --- 11/93 = 12%

C- power shots -- 187/483 == 39%
H- power shots --116/375 = 31%

so we all agree then calzaghe won that fight clearly because now we all take punch stats so importantly?

 

In a nutshell I think Froch won because if he hadn't forced the fight there wouldn't have been a fight. Just a guy standing in the middle of the ring with the "challenger" doing laps around him. Whether it's within the official rules or not, the judges penalised Dirrell for his passive aggression. Personally I agreed with this since I ddn't want to pay £45 and travel to Nottingham to watch a no-contest. If you have a different opinion, I entirely understand but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disgree. I don't think Dirrell's performance warranted a win and if that display were the standard for Professional boxing, our sport wouldn't survive. If it's any concellation I thought Froch's performance was **** poor too. I would be cautious to use this fight as a template for how Kessler Froch or Abraham Froch plays out since styles make fights (or not in Dirrells case) and Froch's next two opponents have entirely different styles.

 

calzaghe did win that fight. who cares?

 

MrPR has made these stats up himself.

Pretty hilarious after we were all told by MrPR Dirrel would 'expose' Froch

 

The fact ppl can ignore punch stats when they want and then use them as gospel when it suits them is why it matters.

 

Absolutely. So, we're in agreement that Calzaghe beat Hopkins and Dirrell beat Froch?

 

and that's really enough for you? i wonder if you thought DLH beat mayweather too. if froch was utilizing effective aggression i might let this slide, but he wasn't doing **** except walking after dirrell and flailing like a fighter who has no idea how to throw a punch.

the REF penalized dirrell for not being from nottingham, putting a whooping on froch, and taking him completely out of his game. in all fairness, froch should have had 2 points taken in that fight for rough house tactics and a ridiculous amount of rabbit punching. what froch was doing was far worse than dirrell "running" (while shelling froch with power punches by the way) and holding.

 

which he did.

 

i don't think they are. those numbers look right on to me.

 

Because Dirrel shwoed next to know aggression while Froch showed some desire to hunt his opponent down which are important in boxing, this was while Froch was the champ.
Dirrel also spent half the fight on his arse.

The fight was there for the taking, but he refused to take it and only activley engaged around round 10.