Meh, what's the point of debating with MichiganWarrior fights that he's seen when there are so many fights that he hasn't seen that he's happy to debate about?
Horrible fight. I gave it to Froch by a round at the time. Rewatched about a month ago and still gave it to Froch. Very close. Not a dull fight, but certainly not a good one.
Next question: 101 votes to 23 - is this poll close? MichiganWarrior votes 'yes'. It's a hell of a lot closer than some polls he's seen....
I liked reading him say that Haye's performance against Valuev was worse than Dirrell's against Froch...then following it up by admitting he's never seen the Haye/Valuev fight but was going off others' accounts!
Clean punches is the most important thing. And there is nothing Froch did in the fight that could overrule that. lol, no they werent. It was a clear landed counter right hand. Dont know how you could miss it. you also say "Dirrell did some good work" and fail to clarify what that was. He lands a 3 punch combination with Froch stuck in the mud. Thats not doing work, thats a significant point in the round. Why would you fail to mention it? Meaningless. Those judges were incompetant. Not too mention swayed by the crowd. Thats why we score fights, without the bias and crowd. Again you scored a round Froch landed 1 punch in. Incredible. Why would I need to see it in slow mo when its clear in real-time that Froch isnt landing **** and Dirrell's countering him all over the place? Nope. Popkins is one of the most respected posters on this forum. And even he says there is no way you could credibly score this fight for Froch. Froch gets disqualified in America. There is no way he can rabbit punch that much and not be. He's been lucky so far. Judges, fighting weight drained and easily fatigued fighters. His lucks pretty much run out at this point.
On round 12 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJuAKb5AVk4&feature=related[/ame] 4:40 In other words, the last round was close but he felt he won the most of the fight to win the fight.
Clear win for Dirrell but you don't take someone's title by boxing the way he did that night, that's just not enough to win in someone's hometown and get their strap... This isn't the amateurs, and i think Dirrell learned that well after the fight. EDIT: at Jack saying Froch had superior generalship in the fight when he was getting dragged around the ring matador-bull style all night, not cutting the ring properly, and not doing a good job of forcing his own type of fight on Dirrell at all. Just because Dirrell chose not to fight with him doesn't mean Froch was the general in that fight. Dirrell did **** up by staying on his bike for the middle rounds though, and it cost him!
Not my fault you dont know what ring generalship is. Nope. Just a few Brits who couldnt beat me in debate. Thats all. I find it hilarious myself they work so hard to "get me" and realize, I dont give a **** about anything on this forum not about boxing. :yep :rofl No he wasnt. If he was in control mentally, he doesnt get frustrated and slam dirrell in round 5. He doesnt blatantly rabbit punch him throughout the fight. It was clear to everyone he was frustrated. He was lucky he was in his home town. Anywhere else, he gets disqualified, or deducted atleast 2 points. Most people on ESB scored it for Dirrell. The 2 judges who scored it for Froch were incompetant. Unless you can prove to me Froch deserved rounds 11 and 12? The clearest rounds of the whole fight. As for the writers, most had dirrell winning. Even ring magazines writers felt Dirrell was robbed. Hitting and not getting hit is the most important part. No he doesnt. Again its cute you wont admit you were wrong. But its clear you have no idea what ring generalship is. Or effective aggression is for that matter. You think that effective aggression is just coming forward wildly. Wrong You think ringgeneralship is just coming forward wildly. Wrong. Ring generalship, if we look at the correct definiton, is a wash. And if we think effective aggression, Dirrell wins that aswell, because he was the only fighter who was effective offensively in that fight. I even posted proof about what ring generalship was, and you tend to ignore it because you have no argument. Dont get mad at me because you take the wrong stance the vast majority of the time. Froch's aggression was never effective. Who hurt who? Froch even as bad as he is, still has a really good jab, and he's awkward, hard to time, keeps his chin tucked and is tall and long. VAluev is just tall, he's slow as ****, and is right now the biggest joke on ESB, if you havent seen the Sugar Nikoli Valuev threads. Andre Dirrell would beat Nikoli Valuev easy. Well thats why I put down embarrassing. Alot thought he was embarrassing. :rofl He hadnt fought anyone. Got 2 gifts, maybe more. Ruiz and Holyfield beat him. Nuff said. He's not the flavor of the month because of how bad the Valuev fight was. Or the fact he's ducking the Klitsckos. Still if Dirrell was as bad as you say. He still received far more credit for his loss against Froch then Haye's win against Valuev. Dirrell showed skill, amazing athleticism, and hurt Froch and most eyes who can score a fight, won the final 2 rounds against a champion when he'd never been 12 rounds before. Again explain why Dirrell is so respected and Haye is so hated, if Haye is putting on such "great" performances? Guzman vs Funeka I. Ibragimov vs Klitscko. Basically any title fight involving John Ruiz. Kevin Johnson vs Vitali Klitscko. Chad Dawson vs Jean Pascal. No seriously. Post your scorecard. You got a big opinion. I wanna see you back it up
Dont know why anyone would take what a flustered fighters says after the fight as gospel. Anyone with eyes knows 11 and 12 were clear Dirrell rounds. Unless you're Italian or Belgian.