carl froch has been shown up most of the time at world level at 168

That is not boxing, dude. Being negative and playing stay-away while landing cuffing shots with no force is not something we should laud.

 

you don't have to patronise me, you'll find I know my boxing very well thank you, ask around.

There is no rule against usng excessive movement, we might not like it on aesthetic level but that is immaterial to the discussion. Cory Spinks has won many fights doing it, it's not a problem. Sure I would prefer to watch someone box in the vein of a Whitaker, but it's not for me or you to tell boxers what style to use.

 

It's just the fact that he would drop out of range and when closed down start grappling. Wasn't he even deducted a point for that?

 

I'm not saying I enjoyed it and was jumping around on the end of my seat. My point stands.

 

Agreed :yep

 

yes, I admire Froch for always wanting the right fights, such a great quality for a fighter, he is good for the sport.

There's nothing wrong with critiquing him technically though.

 

Yeah, the ref took an awful long time making the deduction though, which probably helped Froch.

If Dirrell had had a point taken in about the 4th or 5th like he should have, he'd have stepped it up earlier and beaten Froch relatively comfortably.

 

Ironsense2002 is a spastic of the highest order.

 

Spinks wasn't a runner. He'd box on the move, but he'd step inside, land combinations - actually box.

I'm not patronising you, I'm disagreeing with you. It's nothing to do with aesthetics. Mayweather isn't bothered about aesthetics, but he leaves you in no doubt when he's won a round.

That's the difference.

 

He was as much a runner as Andre Dirrel, Spinks used excessive movement.

And anyway, regardless to that, what I'm saying to you is even though Dirrell is what you describe as a 'runner', he is in the ring landing punches and doing scoring, he can run around all he wants. It is acceptable, and yes it is to do witrh aesthetics. I'm not saying I enjoy it but he can score points however the hell he wants to. I'm open min ded to every style o boxing and understand that there is no set way to box. I can appreciate Dirrell, I can appreciate Mickey Ward. It makes no difference to me. And it doesn't matter if he leaves doubt to who won the round, some rounds are close, but you can definitely make the case that Dirrell still wins them.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I've made my point more than clear, be stubborn and have the last word if you must. I know I'm right.

 

No, I agree with you, nothing wrong with that.

 

Sounds like teeto's ever so slightly mad brah:think

 

as always, you know me by now bro

 

Sadly, the judges didn't agree with you, which some might argue makes you wrong. You seem to have some odd affection for negative, mouthy hype-jobs. First Broner and now Dirrell. Slick and black, huh?

 

This content is protected