Froch vs Dirrell controversy thread

good read fella

 

This is almost 3 to 1 odds..cant believe people are still defending this decision.

English fans cant even recognize when their boy got a home decision. At least germans will say their boy got a robbery

 

you should not be a judge. and also round 10 dirrell raped Froch after he got deducted and u had that round for froch. Shows what u knowatsch

 

Im curious as to how th ehell anyone could have had Froch winning. Every thread I look at on the topic is either someone saying Andre won and was robbed, or Froch won because Andre ran, bitched, fell to the canvas etc. So to the blind fools who actually feel Froch won, please explain what the hell you scored the fight on and give examples of the rounds you feel Froch won and why.

 

Dirrell has nobody but himself to blame for losing this fight. Lunging in from 6 ft. away to hold pffft... the judges should and they DID penalize someone obviously trying to prevent a fight from breaking out.

Dirrell outclassed Froch in every way physically. He could have stepped back the whole time, making Froch pay for every step forward, but he often outright ran until his back touched the ropes or blatantly held. More likely than not he could have stopped Froch had he decided to fight him.

I think Dirrell is the most talented fighter in the super 6 and Froch shouldn't have been more than a speedbump for him. I'm very disappointed in Dirrell and the way he fought, and he deserved this loss.

 

I thought Dirrell won, but to call anyone who thought Froch won 'blind' is a bit silly. It was a very close fight.

Dirrell lost because he wasn't fighting enough. Threw a few good 2 or 3 punch combos, and showed good reflexes. As soon as Froch got near a position where he could land a punch, Dirrell clinched. And he clinched far too often. Only once in the whole fight did he really try to fight back, when he landed a massive hook.

 

I had Froch 114-113. I can accept someone having 115-112 to Froch or 114-113 to Dirrell though. Having said that if Dirrell had won it would be very hard to take as a boxing fan. He fought like a man trying to go the distance rather than actually win the fight - running/holding/jumping on the floor. It doesn't seem like boxing is his natural sport.

 

i had it a draw...noone can expect to win a title figthing like that

 

Oh yea we know Direll was dodging every punch Froch was throwing and in return he would stand his ground and fire 4-5 clean combinations that would all snap Froch's head back. What you need to do next time is to focus on the fight not on one fighter.

 

I Was convinced when i voted for Dirrell id be in the Minority i know Froch isnt well liked on this forum but usually guys coming forward and making the fight no matter how ineffective get the benefit of the doubt on here.

 

When you land the greater number of punches and the cleaner punches inspite of it !

 

Oh the irony. I've been subjective & open-minded throughout this whole discussion, and I've even told you I think Dirrell may of edged it, yet I've tried to present the other side of the arguement. All you've done is cry about Dirrell not getting the decision.

 

Literally just watched the fight and thought dirrell won clearly, he hit and didn't get hit that often. Froch seemed off and sloppy and I am amazed at his post fight comments, it's a fair point that dirrell held a lot but that should not negate the otherwise positive attacks he made.

 

So you had Froch taking 2 rounds out of 10-12.
Buddy, you don't watch boxing, you watch your favorite fighters.

 

On Primetime PPV John Rawling and Jon Thaxton both had Dirrell winning, by 2 and 1 point respectively.

How did American ringside team have it ?