Froch on the Dirrell-Abraham fight

While I applaud Froch's scrappy, competitive approach, he's a severely limited fighter. I chuckle sometmes, because if his name was Von Froch (German) or Froch-ko (Ukraine) the Brits would be panning him with gusto.

 

Sooo. . .we know that Dirrell ran and held. . . .

BUT, what exactly did Frotch do to win this fight? Because last time i checked, Swinging at the air dont add up to points. Thats pretty much all he did the entire fight.

Forward aggressiveness dont mean anything if its not effective.

 

I wonder why it was Dirrell who was actually coming strong in the later rounds of the Froch fight. :think

 

Froch may be the least talented but may also have the biggest heart.Sometimes determination beats skill.

 

dirrell won the fite 2 me. the ref should have never taken a point away from him unless he also takes a point from froch earlier in the fite for hittin an holding. honestly though without that point takin it away i would say dirrell just won that fite, but really though that fight was so close.

 

dirrell may have stunk out the joint but he actually did it WHILST LANDING PUNCHES!!!...Froch hit air all night period he lost that fight I'm a brit and I can see it it's clear as day who won that fight

 

Both Boxing News and The Ring had Froch a winner against Dirrell.
Fans can call it what they want and post what they want, but in truth it was a close fight which can be interpreted in different ways, but not a robbery

 

As I've said on countless threads, this all comes down to your own personal boxing mantra. In a close fight I am always more inclined to favour the more aggressive fighter as Froch was. Froch didn't land much going forward trying to fight, Dirrell didn't land much, but wasn't trying to engage in a fight. So I favoured Froch. I am also of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that you have to emphatically beat a belt holder. I know loads of people agree with this and some don't - that's part of what makes Boxing great.

Now, another fight around the same time that can have this logic applied was the Haye/Valuev fight. It may seem hypocritical based on what I said above, but I gave that fight clearly to Haye. Valuev was going forward, but Haye (on the back foot) made it so obvious Valuev was missing it became impossible to give him rounds. Haye did not engage as much as I would have liked but Dirrell on the back foot did not make it apparent that Froch was missing (by falling over and getting clinched) and didn't engage enough.

 

Muh huh. You're boy is a bum and is going to get put down sooner rather later.

Better jump ship now. Nobody will want to be known as a Froch fan when he gets Hatton'd.

 

Froch got a gift decision in his hometown last time out.

Too bad he is not fighting on his own turf in his next fight.

 

You score fights on

Clean punching
EFFECTIVE aggression
Ring generalship
and most importantly

DEFENSE

Dirrell won 2 out of 4 of those clearly. Made Froch miss, landed the better punches throughout the fight. You dont score aggression, you score effective aggression, which isnt plodding forward swinging like a drunk and hitting air.

And there is no such thing as taking the title from the champion. You made up your on criteria just like the judges in nottingham most likely did.


Apparently you and the judges in Nottingham(or most judging in England for that matter) seem to like rabbit punching and body slams as legal boxing moves.

 

No such thing as "taking the title from the champion"? Are you dizzy in the head mate? It's one of Boxing's most prominent unwritten rules and to dismiss it completely is foolish. Similarly, you have also made up your own criteria by suggesting that defence is the "most important" factor.

What a load of bollocks. In which case, I award Joshua Clottey a unaminous decision on the grounds that he completely outblocked Pacquiao.

You also point out that Dirrell won "2 out of 4" of the criteria you listed. It's hard to disagree with that, I put it to you that Froch won the other two areas. His ring generalship was undoubtedly better as Dirrell barely looked like he wanted to be in the ring and his aggression was effective because Dirrell was too intimidated to engage for the most part.

This is why it was such a close fight. So you take into account other factors. As I said originally, I'd back the aggressor as he is the more willing to fight and I believe (although it is not in the written rules) that the challenger should show a clear willingness to take the title.