Dirrell, Froch, and The Great Train Robbery

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...ecards-and-punter-unhappiness-with-primetime/

It's funny you say that and the 2 of the judges gave him a lot of the middle rounds. Im going to hate watching this...

 

Unfortunately the decision itself changes perception of the fight, and that is often the case (most recently, a shameless 114-114 score gave some extremists the courage to claim that they scored Lomachenko-Russell a draw, etc).

What happened here is that Dirrell outscored Froch more or less every single round. Again some people choose not to see that and just outright say "there was no action in most rounds", but the fact still stands and shouldn't be ignored.

At most, you could have given Froch 4 rounds here imo (giving Froch every benefit of a doubt) and easily argue for less. Giving Froch 6 or 7 rounds is in my opinion a clear robbery, and that's the case we had with those judges.

If Dirrell just runs around the ring, sneaks a couple of punches here and there, while Froch chases him and hits nothing but air, then Dirrell won the round, no matter how dull it was, whether or not Froch was the aggressor. If you were going punch for punch and ****yzed every round that way, counting scoring punches each guy connected, there is simply no way Froch even came close to winning.

There were even rounds where you had to choose between Dirrell outlanding Froch and Froch scoring harder shots, and I gave those rounds to Froch (for example that round where Froch managed to land 1 good shot and then smiled), but I surely didn't give anything to Froch when he was just chasing Dirrell around and getting hit by Dirrell, while managing to land nothing but hitting Dirrell behind the head in the clinch.

Anyway, that's my take. If you had it Froch, it's on you and you should ask yourself a couple of questions. I had it 9-3/8-4 Dirrell in a clear cut win and imo it was a clear robbery.

 

I gave him rounds 6-10 and 12. With the 10th being a 10-8 round. Making it 114-113 Froch. You could have given Froch the 3rd as well given that he landed the only eye-catching punch in the entire round but I went with Dirrell fractionally due to volume.

What you just said is a ridiculous exaggeration, Froch landed a good deal more than 8/9 clean shots and landed the heavier blows over the course of the fight.

Dirrell did make him look silly on occasion, Froch had some wild swings but what you don't recognise is that it's much easier to be the fighter backing off, making the other guy miss. Froch must get credit for constantly stalking and making Dirrell back off. He owned the centre of the ring for most of the fight, that's undeniable.

 

He was backed up by Froch's power, the telling blows were his.

 

U should follow a different sport.....u don't know how to judge a contest

 

Froch did better vs Dirrel than Garcia did vs Peterson and than Canelo did vs Lara.atsch

 

At the time I thought Froch deserved the win because he was the aggressor and Dirrell just seemed to be running, holding, falling over and complaining. I would have to watch it again and score it to be sure but I don't see that happening any time soon. wasn't a good fight to watch from what I remember.