Dirrell lost but Haye won, WHY?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Dudemeister, Nov 9, 2009.


  1. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    Haye clinched less than Dirrell, fell over less and took less punches.

    A very underrated psychological factor in fights where not much is happening is who looks like the winner.

    Haye made Valuev look silly and never looked uncomfortable. Dirrell was always on the floor, whingeing and holding. He didn't make himself look like winner.
     
  2. CharlieGarbs

    CharlieGarbs Guest

    Watch both fights, close thread.
     
  3. TheGiftedOne

    TheGiftedOne Active Member Full Member

    888
    0
    Oct 20, 2009
    Have you not seen the pictures of Hayes hand?

    Obviously he's going to fight Ruiz next it's his manadatory, Ruiz was paid step aside money (about £120,000) to postpone his mandatory position til after Haye-Valuev
     
  4. ero-sennin

    ero-sennin Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,206
    1
    Jan 31, 2009

    I've said my peice about the Dirrell fight and we're just gonna have to disagree on that one.

    As for complaining, when a man is rabbit punching you, and that incompotent referee does absolutely nothing, you have a right to be pissed off. He shouldn't have to tell the referee anything, but he had to because the ref was either not watching Froch's tactics or choosing to ignore them, or was too weak willed to go against the Nottingham crowd.

    Rabbit punching is more serious than holding. Despite this, the only one with a touch of class post fight was Dirrell. Froch was the one complaining just because he was too **** to cut off the ring like he promised he would. Ricardo Mayorga and Floyd Mayweather jr = two of the best trash talkers in the game, and even they can be gracious after the fight.

     
  5. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    Ruiz is the mandatory, he has to fight him.
     
  6. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    I don't know what you think we're disgreeing on. My point was simply a psychological one that judges may be swayed by the body language/demeanour of the fighters in fights where there is essentially not much of note happening.
     
  7. ero-sennin

    ero-sennin Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,206
    1
    Jan 31, 2009

    Ok fair point there. I thought we were disagreeing about who won that fight.
     
  8. pngo

    pngo #1Contender Full Member

    7,543
    1
    Apr 24, 2007
    Froch was fighting dirty the whole fight, it was the only thing he could do because a ****ing prospect was making him look like the limited fighter he really is.

    Froch was rabbit punching, hitting when the ref was breaking them, holding Dirrell's head down with one hand and punching him the other, etc. and the ref
    let him get away with it.
    Still clinching or not, Dirrell won that fight.