Carl Froch "Dirrell´s weak"

So by giving your opinion of the score, you will prove others opinions are wrong? :roll:

 

Nah, I didn't think it was close. 120-107 Froch :good

Does it not even matter to you that every journalist in the arena thought Froch won, two judges did, Dirrell admitted it was close and he should have done more, his team think the same and even Gary Shaw no longer cries robbery? It's just you and a few clowns who are crying about it, long after everyone else has moved on.

 

Someone will post a scorecard and he'll go through the rounds crying and saying they know nothing about boxing. Like he does all the time.

He's the definition of a stuck record.

 

Same cowardly post everytime.

Source? Ring Magazine said that the judges had to change the rules of the sport to award Froch the victory. I agree.

Dirrell never said the fight was close. He was speaking metaphorically. From his words he thought he won the fight comfortably. that the only thing Froch could do was be dirty and anything else was ineffective aggression and I agree.

The vast majority in this thread believe Dirrell won comfortably. Only you and a few others believe otherwise, and all of you are too cowardly to attempt to post a scorecard.

 

I wont give an opinion of anything. I will use the rules of scoring a bout to prove you wrong. You havent posted a scorecard yet because you obviously arent confident in your own statement as I am.

 

No, you would use your perception of the rules and how you see the fight which is how everyone judges a fight. Even the judge scoring it for Direll only gave it to him by a point.

You've already shown that you're not really that clear about what effective aggression is and its clear that you score a round for Dirrell based on the 4 or 5 seconds per round that he actually threw punches and ignored the rest of it.

 

I score by

1. Clean effective punching
2. Ring Generalship
3. Effective Aggression
4. Defense.

Dirrell won atleast 3 out of 4 of those. You are the one who said you score based on some unknown book.

So? Judges had Holyfield drawing Lewis. Tito beating Oscar. Whitaker drawing Chavez. Were you trying to make a point here?

Effective aggression is pressing the fight effectively which Froch didnt do. Which is meaningless because as I schooled you on before, clean effective punching comes first, and Dirrell won that wide. You dont score a fight saying oh well this guys aggression was more effective then the other guy landing punches. You score it based on steps 1-4. Only when 1 is close do you move on to the others. In this case 1 wasnt close.

Let me make that clear "Clean" punching. As in the few elbows, back hands and rabbit punches Froch landed in the clinch down count.

If Dirrell in those 4-5 seconds(nice exaggeration) landed the cleaner more effective punches and Froch failed to land anything after then yes.

But by all means, post a scorecard and attempt to prove me wrong.

 

Dirrell has been exposed as a coward and a fraud, its all over now man, move on with your life :yep

 

The thing I remember most about the fight was the worried look on Frochs face at the end, and him on his knees Praying with Dirrell. LOL

 

1. You don't understand what "floored" means.

2. You aren't aware of even rounds.

3. You generally have no idea what you're talking bout.

 

Threads like this are fun to read when one/me/I have no proverbial dog in the fight.

 

Thanks for posting a vid which clearly contradicts yourself. Direll lands
a jab out of the southie stance and misses with the follow up straight
left, but manages to get his opponent on the backfoot. So, what does
he do? He clinches to him for dear life. Why? That's not what a championship level fighter does when he gains the advantage. I'd
have thrown his ass down too. The general in that ring was froch,
the champion was froch, and the right man got the nod. Froch!
Deal w/ It!!