Froch vs. Dirrel

In a nut shell. If he had engaged more he would have won.

But he was content on running like a ***** for 10 rounds. There is a difference between a good defense and just plain running. He spoiled the fight. Noway asked him to engage with Froch but he should have thrown the sort of combos he did in R11 and R12 from the get go.

 

That's bull****,utter bull****.When was Froch overpowering Dirrell?When he slammed him to the canvas or when he blatently rabbit punched and hit on the break?because apart from that he done **** all else.Like I said i'm a Froch fan but he didn't do enough to keep his belt,simple as.

 

I can see you didn't read my post (despite quoting it). What I said is when you are constantly clinching, falling to the floor whilst going backwards and complaining to the referee, then this is liable to create the impression with the judges that you are being overpowered or outmuscled by your opponent. And in a fight as close, patchy and with as little real quality in most of the rounds as that one, the perceptions of the judges can be very very vital indeed.

 

I read your post,unless the ringside judges are somehow blind to the fact that Froch hardly landed on Dirrell and was made to look amaterish all night how on earth can they somehow get the impression that Froch was overpowering Dirrell??Dirrell complained because Froch fought a dirty fight not because he was being overpowered and way to much is made of the falling down and clinching.Judges don't score a fight from the overall impression they get from it,so again,your theory is bull****.

 

Untrue

Judges score rounds, often based on who looks like they're having their way with the other guy. Dirrell never ever looked in control. Froch controlled the pace and was the only guy in the ring trying to fight.

Edit;
And you clearly don't have any concept of what a professional fighter looks like if you think Froch looked amateurish. Clearly, Dirrell was the one fighting like an amateur by running and trying to touch froch's face 3 times per round. at least froch was trying to hurt him.

 

who is that girl in your avatar? :blurp

 

The problem with your theory is that most rounds of the fight were pretty scratchy with not much happening at all. There were very few clear rounds at all. Dirrell tended to land the more obviously eye catching shots, Froch landed better work inside and in the clinches (which some of our amateur judges here don't seem to count at all).

You are quite wrong that perception is unimportant. Judges are human beings, and so while they will be consciously trying to score as objectively as possible, subconsciously they can be affected by their preconceptions and perceptions. That's why there is often the impression that a challenger has to do more to win than a champion. Not because judges consciously think 'I'll give him that round because he's the champion', but because, in a close situation, they may subconsciously be swayed towards the guy they expect to be winning. Or by the reaction of a crowd. In the case of Froch v Dirrell, there may have been some rounds where the judges struggled which way to give it and were swayed by the fact that Dirrell's actions made it appear that Froch was the alpha male and was on top.

As to the fight itself, as I said many times at the time, in my opinion any scorecard from 8-4 Dirrell to 7-5 Froch is perfectly justifiable. I'm not outraged that Froch won, wouldn't have been outraged if Dirrell won. That was the nature of the fight. Anyone who pretends that the majority of rounds couldn't have been legitimately scored either way or who thinks it is 'obvious' who won and by what margin is flat out lying or just plain wrong.

 

If Dirrel let himself go a bit more he would have got the decision, I still had it for Dirrel though but you can't call it a full robbery.

 

I had Dirrell sqeaking out the fight but the rounds were close. The decision was debateable but no robbery IMO.

 

When I said amateurish I mean Froch looked like he didn't know what he was supposed to be doing in there,not amaterish as in Olympic bronze medal winning amateur skill such as Dirrell has.
I was under the impression that judges scored a fight based on defense,clean punches landed,ring generalship and effective aggression but thanks for clearing that one up for me,apparently now it's who gives the overall better impression atsch

 

Not one respected boxing journalist thought Dirrell deserved to win that fight.

Dirrell certainly had the talent to win, but bottled it with a disgraceful cowardly performance

 

It goes to subjective personal biases when there is no clean, effective punching. Froch was clearly the one controlling the ring, and he was the aggressor, thogh it wasn't all that effective. There was no defense in the fight except dirrell's running.

So strictly judging each round by those criteria, Froch wins almost all of the rounds except the final 2 or 3. I think I gave Dirrell a few in the beginning or middle as well.

My point is that in a round with little or no fighting, judges have to ask themselves "who would i rather be in that round?" Dirrell falling over and whining like a lil ***** while running all over creation, or froch who's actually trying to do work. I think if you look at the fight, the amount of punches each guy landed was close. No appreciable difference, so you have to judge the fight based on something.

I believe if froch had fought like Dirrell and Dirrell fought the same way he did, the fight would have been stopped and ruled a no contest. Froch was the only one doing any fighting for the vast majority of almost every round.

Dirrell clearly wanted to pull a rope-a-dope and then win the fight late, but he couldn't KO Froch and had worked himself into a hole early. He fought a poor fight, and he deservedly lost. End of.

 

Either you didn't watch the fight, or you've never see Mayweather fight.

Option one confirmed...

 

dirrel made it a terrible fight with his clinching and falling to the ground. if he had engaged more for the whole fight he could have won, but the other side of the coin is that if he had been more aggressive, there's a much bigger chance that froch would have connected with a couple of big bombs somewhere durting the 12 rounds, which is all he needs to finish a fight.

no one disputes froch isn't a slickster, but some boxers don't need to be, he's got ko power and a solid chin and he keeps winning in usually entertaining fights.