Froch vs Dirrell controversy thread

Dirrell won clearly imo.

 

I thought the challenger has to take away the belt by engaging not running away..

 

:deal

 

Yeah, it reminded me of the Holyfield-Valuev fiasco. After that stinker nobody really cared who won. They just wanted to get out of the arena or away from their televisions, go outside and take some deep breaths of fresh air. Both Froch and Dirrell will go on to fight much better in the tournament. Just a very bad clash of styles.

 

Froch getting a point deducted would of been just, I agree. But that holding was clearly annoying the ref. I understand what you're saying about hometown fights should not alter the 10 point system. I'm not sayin' they should I'm just pointing out how these factors sometime do influence fights. It's not fair, but you can't dismiss the possibility.

 

Yes, Dirrell had and showed all of those things and mostly in picture perfect style.

The problem was that he showed very little in terms of attack for most of the fight. When he did it usually looked straight out of a RJJ greatest hits video.

It was a good man fighting a brilliant boy.

IF (or when) the boy learns that he has to take rather than wait and hope to be given based on some nice actions then the boy will imo. grow up to beat the man. If they meet again in 1-2 years I already think Dirrell will beat Froch.

Dirrell lost because he is still learning. He is not a finished product, but a product in the making. But damn is that product gonna be good!!!

 

Awful fight. Snoozefest. I hope the pair of them get their just desserts in the next round.

 

I love the attitude toward Dirrell on here and the general level of bias that is being shown tonight by Froch's fanbase. I came into this fight cheering for Froch, wanting him to win, because honestly, I dislike fighters who squander their talent because of ego or what have you...and up to this point with Dirrell, he has done just that. Yes, he had won and looked spectacular at times, but he has also been known to take rounds off and generally fight down to his opponent. Froch on the other hand, has been all class. Carl on the opposite spectrum has been the epitome of hard work and dedication.

So my bias layed in his corner going in...

That said, this is boxing guys, not a street fight, I think many of you are missing the point. A fight is scored on 4 criteria, Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Defense and Ring Generalship...with the emphasis on Clean Punching. Take that into account of your scores and there is no way in holy hell Froch won 7 rounds. Impossible.

Did he land even more than a handful of clean punches? Barely if the answer is yes. And for all of Andre's "running" and holding, he landed way more and his shots were clearly cleaner and even more damaging.

Was he aggressive? Yes, but he was continuously countered cleanly while using that aggression, that in no way can be considered effective under any definition of the word.

Did he display the greater defense? Come on now? Even Carl's unbelievably hot girlfriend will tell you no.

And Ring Generalship? Be serious, round in and round out, whose fight were they fighting? Who was effectively applying their gameplan? If a fighter is constantly chasing his opponent as many of you keep saying (at times I agreed), by the sheer meaning of the word, he is not dictating the pace, nor the real estate in which the fight is fought.

Froch did not win 7 rounds...and you dont deduct points for "running" anyway, especially when the runner is outlanding, outworking and outboxing the "attacker".

Tonight, Dirrell proved he not only belonged, but he proved myself and many out there completely wrong. He should be the WBC champ right now...but because the fight was not on neutral ground, alas he is not.

The bias tho by many of Froch's fans is out of line...I am a Froch fan myself and he did not deserve that win...not even close.

 

Nice smile

 

Gee and I saw it as jab, duck, jab, slide, smash, slide, duck, jab, jab, smash, run, jab, duck, smash, hold, jab, counter, duck, slide, run, jab, jab, jab, smash, hold, run, duck, counter, put on ***** street, slide, run, run, jab, smash.

 

Very good post !

 

This fight reminds me of Ramirez-Whittaker I. Froch pressed aggressivley but uneffective like (ramire) and Dirrel fighting amatuerishly at times(like whittaker) But no question to who won this fight(like pernell and Ramirez) this is the biggest roberry since then,on the same level as far as robberys. Chavez -Whittaker and Lewis-Holyfield were closer than this one.

 

:good

Id love to hear how the people scoring it for Froch scored each round...because "Dirrell ran" isnt a reason.

 

In my opinion it was a close fight. Im not a froch fan but i cant stand the "robbery" brigade thats started tonight.
It was close and the reason for that was due to Dirrells inactivity between rounds 4 - 9..Yes he threw the odd counter shot but as a whole he danced about the ring trying to avade any moment of conempt towards him. If froch got near he would either run or clinch(which is why he had the point taken off).

Froch did use rabbit punching numerous times however if you are facing an opponenet who continually grabs you a first port of call, i would imagine you would get equally frustrated.
Dirrell had a strong 10ish,11th round but it was the middle rounds that cost him the fight.

If he can get the balance between being aggressive and defensive then he will become a very all round fighter ala mayweather.
We still dont know how his chin holds up..Abraham will shows this.

 

You forget Dirrells lack of commitment to win the fight.

You are also exaggerating this part: "outlanding, outworking and outboxing the "attacker". You sound as if he threw alot of shots at will, and controlled the match - he didn't.

Otherwise a good post. But I guess we wlil continue this debate somewhere else, mate .