Dirrell flat out robbed

ok, totally off sublect, but bkamins, u know holyfield but cant remeber the robbbery that Lennox Lewis sufferd against him in new york city that forced the rematch?

 

That was a real robbery.

 

No! Dirrell wasn't robbed. By objective measures the fight was a draw. Now add that the fight was a fight for a title. The challenger HAS TO TAKE THE BELT FROM THE CHAMPION. You can not possibly argue that Dirrell did that with his performance and style. There was nothing to be seen on fight night that could have given Dirrell the victory. I don't even think Dirrell would have been called the winner on American soil.

 

Watched it twice? wow, I could barely bring myself to watch it once...

 

It should be marketed as a sleep aid.

 

Dirrell-Froch
1. 10-9 (effective punching)
2. 10-9 (effective Punching)
3. 10-9 (effective punching)
4. 10-9 (effective punching)
5. 10-9 (effective punching)
6. 10-9 (effective punching)
7. 9-10 (lost round for negativity)
8. 9-10 (lost round for negativity)
9. 9-10 (lost round for negativity)
10. 9-9 ( Dirrell won the round plus he buckles Froch but he got the point deduction)
11. 10-9 (Dirrell won this very clearly)
12. 10-9 (Dirrell defiantly won this one aswell by dominating the first 2 minutes, Froch trys to it steal in the last 40 seconds)

116-111 for Dirrell .

 

The ref could be clearly heard saying to dirrell, 'come on andre, this is getting riddiculous'. some time around round 8/9. Fair warning enough for me. As for the rabbit punches. If you continually duck into an opponent what do you expect. Ducking low into an opponent is not a legit boxing defence and never has been.
As for Dirrell winning comfortably I don't know what your watching. I'm guessing you probably feel that Hopkins' schooled Calzaghe as well! 'The low blows in that fight were terrible!'------Yeah Right!
You should read Scott Gilford. You two would be married before the week is out I would wager.

 

:|

 

Spot on comment. Many very well respected observers, including Boxing News, has Froch winning, as did two of the three judges!!

It was very hard to score but in the end Dirrell didn't dop enough and he and his team know it. Running, holding, falling to the floor, and complaining to the ref doesn't win a world title

 

still dont understand how dirrell won the first round, someone please explain?

 

Dirrell snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

the only folks that were robbed were the audience.

 

Your scoring is nonsensical and incorrect. The criteria are clean punching and effective aggression. You can't have Dirrell losing rounds for "negativity" - it was his negativity that allowed Froch to WIN the round.

Effective aggression - here's why Froch was getting rewarded for it: he was trying to make it a fight. He was coming forward and Dirrell was running away, despite the pitty-pat jabs.

If, in each of those rounds, once or twice did Dirrell step forward and throw sharp combos after making Froch miss, he's have won those rounds. But he refused to enage and, to a judge, that can easily look like Froch was being effective in keeping Dirrell backing off.

Dirrell just didn't do enough to win - too much posing and preening till too late in the fight, and he was so insufferably timid that the judges got the impression he was scared of Froch.

I'd be happier if both men had been given a draw, or if both could have been given a loss.

 

You summed it up perfectly, pb. EXACTLY how I saw it.