FROCH V DIRREL -- WHO WON (with vid)

They are won by winning more rounds than your opponent. Dirrell did that.

 

That's the debatable thing. Look at the poll results. Most people, right now, think Froch won more rounds than Dirrell. The Ring scored it for Froch, as did every journalist I've seen, who was at the arena.

The manner of a fighters performance is what wins or loses rounds. Dirrell's performance was unacceptable and didn't deserve to win anything, except the disdain he deserves.

 

But you have no problem with Haye winning the title off Valuev throwing 11 punches per round?

Cue Jack's predictable biased response : Haye broke his hand, he was fighting a giant, etc etc

The simple fact is Dirrell landed more, had better defense (what you refer to as running when an American does it but hitting and moving when a Brit does it), and showed superior ring generalship. Sure he did a lot wrong but that doesn't take away from the fact that he outboxed Froch and if Froch was as good as he thinks he is he would have been able to close Dirrell down and negate his tactics, he couldn't do that so he should have lost. It's that simple.

 

Gary Shaw knew Dirrell was losing the fight and there was no controvesry immediately after the fight. It was simply a 'bandwagon' thing which began on the forums.

All the respected ringside journalists had Froch winning, including Boxing News and The Ring as did two out of three of the neutral judges

 

Haye did fight defensively, yes, and I think he should have done more but he was limited by his injury. You can't just dismiss a broken hand. It completely threw his gameplan out of the window and he adjusted well, even if his winning tactics weren't easy to watch.

That said, despite the injury, he was still much more dominant than Dirrell was. Very few people think the Haye/Valuev fight was close and even Valuev himself and his promoters, have all agreed Haye won and deserved to win. There is no dispute about it. He was inactive but landed at a record breaking rate and took less clean shots than I've ever seen. The only issue was his inactivity but the fact is, he couldn't be active because he'd broken his hand.

Like I said though, you can't dismiss a hand injury like it changes nothing. It can have an enormous impact on a fight.

No, it's not. Name me one journalist who was at the arena who thought Dirrell won. Just one.

 

Even loudmouth Dirrell has never talked about being robbed. If he truly believed he won, why wouldn't he make more of a case about it? And Shaw too. He is a complete dick and if anyone would moan about it, it would be him, yet he's said nothing either. They understand that it was close and Dirrell could have won, but didn't do enough.

 

But you just said that a fighter should give his all and not run. Did Haye give his all? Did he not run? And don't give me this **** about him changing his tactics because he broke his hand, those were the tactics he used from start to finish. You will just never admit that you are biased towards British fighters and constantly use on rule for them and another rule for others when assessing a fighter's performances or abilities.

I don't care how anyone from ringside scored the fight. Dirrell landed more and won more rounds regardless of his negative tactics. Tell me which rounds Froch won and let's see how objective you are.

 

Dirrell no question !

 

He broke his hand in the third round, so we never got to see what he would have fought like without the injury. Haye is a slow starter and rarely does much until the mid way point and by then, he'd broke his hand.

And I always add the "without injury" stipulation because that means a fighter can't give it his all. He has to adjust and compensate for his problems, which means that, to win, they have to change their gameplan. You could say that Marquez didn't give it his all against JuanMa, for example, because he wasn't throwing his right hand and he eventually had to quit. That's why these injuries are legitimate and you can't compare a performance with and one without an injury as easily as you're trying to.

Which British fighters am I biased towards? You think because I defend Froch and Haye that you can make sweeping accusations like that?

I've been on ESB for years and I've always been impartial, as you can check if you look back at my post history. I've never followed fighters because of their race or nationality and my favourite fighters would consist of many different backgrounds. If I made a list of my ten favourite fighters of all-time, I don't think there would be one British fighter there.

What do you mean "you don't care"? The people who were there at the arena, included two judges and many expert journalists, gave it to Froch. That's more proof of a victory than watching it on TV and thinking you know what happened. When fights are shown on TV, they don't always reflect how a fight goes, which is why you get people bitching about decisions like Holyfield against Valuev. Most people watching at home thought Holyfield won, yet 38/40 journalists at ringside scored it for Valuev. It can be deceptive and I know who is more likely to see what happened.

The fact is, the people who were in the best position to score the fight, unanimously scored it for Froch. They did because he won the fight.




Why didn't Shaw or Dirrell kick up a fuss, if it was a robbery? Both of them, like the people are ringside, knew what happened.

 

of the two fighters, which one was hit flush in the face and wobbled?

don't be shy!

 

I was in a pretty good seat in the arena and nearly everyone sat near me had Froch winning, some by as many as three points with the deduction.

Perhaps if Dirrell had had a point taken earlier than he did, he might have sprung into action earlier.

If he'd fought the whole fight how he fought the last couple he'd have won pretty easily, probably by stoppage.

If Oscar hadn't run from Trinidad he'd have won.

This is just another of those examples.

 

Like I said, you will never admit you are biased. The fact that you are defending Haye's performance and criticising Dirrell's at the same time says it all. Dirrell has to "give it his all" but Haye gets a pass because he broke his hand even though the hit and move tactics were planned from the start.

 

There's nothing like an edited video to make someone look good for a biased person.

Froch won Dirrell didn't hi him for **** - even Dr Shaw Hi said as much post fight.

Stop crying whine whine whine. Dirrell got beaten end of.

 

I can't stand Dirrell, he's a muppet. But he definitely beat Froch and was robbed that night. I even posted a thread after it. I was rooting for Froch but I hate seeing robberies in boxing. Some people let their bias cloud how they score a fight. :nono

And after the fight, the majority of people on ESB said that Dirrell won. Now the pendulum has swung due to revisionism. It's like George Orwell's 1984. :dead:dead:dead

Let's face facts. Froch barely landed a punch on him, but Dirrell beat him to the punch and even hurt him in the 11th I believe.

Here's a highlight reel of Dirrell's punches. I challenge anyone to make a video showing Froch landing similarly effective punches. :deal

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUm8AHqiPKU[/ame]