froch is terrible.

I don't think he's that good either but he's beat two good fighters. On the other hand, I think Dirrel sucks, I've never ever liked him. He's quick but all he does is grab/lean om you or run. I can't wait till he gets k.o.'d.

 

...by 'terrible', do you mean 'victorious and British'?

 

I don't think either fighter looked good. It was an ugly fight to watch. I personally don't see how some people on these boards had it 117 - 111 for Andre. I would have been happy with a draw or split d the other way aswell, but there was no clear winner to me.....just an unusually ugly fight.

 

Well said.:good

Froch can eat a dick

 

Froch is not good fighter and that says a lot about Dirrell who lost.

 

No he means Terrible as in a Horrible boxer who throws punches at the air.

Froch is better off sky diving with no parachute.

 

try rewatching the fight sober....It will make alot of sense to you how someone could have it 117 to 111....This fight reminded me alot of the tards who said Tarver clearly beat Roy in their first fight....BOXING ISNT ABOUT AGGRESSION, it is about who lands the cleaner shots. Just flat out dumb judging

 

Dirrell thought it was track and field event, wrestling, crawling on canvas and complaining.

 

Well, I didn't have a single drink today, but I was tired as ****. Maybe I'll re watch it tomorrow with the volume off but I don't think it will be any easier to watch.

 

And Froch thought he was the reincarnation of Samuel Peter.

 

Bit rich seen as Dirrell was doing the majority of the holding.

 

I have to agree with the thread starter, Froch was truly awful. Watching him "box" is cringe worthy. He's also under the impression that he's amazing, it's sad. A good chin and hard work can take you a long way, even when you have nothing else.