Froch vs Dirrell controversy thread

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by darryl1914, Aug 24, 2009.


  1. Intense

    Intense Active Member Full Member

    904
    40
    Apr 30, 2008
    His perfomance wasn't graceful I must admit, but he won more rounds. You win fight by winning rounds so...
     
  2. valdez

    valdez Grand Champ Full Member

    2,197
    0
    Jul 4, 2007
    I'm sorry.. but I think your wrong..
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,885
    45,665
    Mar 21, 2007
    I hated the way he took a knee upon losing balance; IMO that's the most serious infraction of the rules we saw last night.

    But as has already been pointed out to the OP, that's neither here nor there. Unless the referee scores these fouls, we ignore them on our cards - and so do the judges.

    So it's irrelevant.
     
  4. StreetsOfGold

    StreetsOfGold Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,252
    1
    Nov 9, 2008
    Yea technically he won but there's countless other fights where technically someones won but lost on the cards.
     
  5. Boom_Boom

    Boom_Boom R.I.P Boxing 6/9/12 Full Member

    38,281
    13
    Sep 21, 2006

    Valerie Dorsett
     
  6. StreetsOfGold

    StreetsOfGold Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,252
    1
    Nov 9, 2008
    Well lets see how you feel when dirrell does this in his next fight then.I am not saying he didn't technically win I had him winning by 3 rounds but he didn't deserve to win like that is my point.ANYONE can fight like that imagine if froch had ran the entire fight landed his shots then ran and held fell over to stop the other guy landing any meaningful blows ? you'd all be criticizing him for for doing it.
     
  7. socrates

    socrates THE ORIGINAL... Full Member

    7,559
    1
    Sep 30, 2008
    just rewatched on sky plus whilst responding to the lemmings on here,im of the same opinion i had on first viewing, froch by 2 rounds. dont get all the fuss myself! chavez whitaker was a robbery not this. bet a lot of these direll nuthuggers have'nt even seen it,idiots.
     
  8. make_the_weight

    make_the_weight Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,433
    26
    Mar 21, 2009
    it wasn't a robbery just a really bad decision.

    Bunce had Froch winning and he even justified Froch's cheating.......way to go to drag the sport in the mud.

    There is NO justification for cheating, this is just patriotism gone bad........

    If one cannot be just in their judgements then do not take a role as a pundit.

    Froch won that fight based upon being the aggressor.......without hitting properly......
     
  9. socrates

    socrates THE ORIGINAL... Full Member

    7,559
    1
    Sep 30, 2008
    its not the olympics! theres no scoring machine for pitter pat punches every now and then,its a ****ing fight not a benny hill script! .'direll won' ****off!
     
  10. lastletter26

    lastletter26 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,856
    1
    Nov 13, 2008
    Talk about whatever you want but I haven't heard one person talk about froch landing shots because he didn't. Dirrell did on a regular basis snapping froch's head back. SO you idiots can talk about his style all you want. Tell me what froch did to win because you don't win in boxing by swingin at the air while getting your head snapped back. Froch has no class at all and his fans are either loyally blind or can't tell when punches land or miss. All froch did was miss and all dirrell did was Snap froch's head back. FROCH DIDN'T HIT DIRRELL'S FACE 20 TIMES THE WHOLE FIGHT and some of you got the nerve to justify froch winning 7 rounds. When froch threw his flurry you would have to ask if it landed and then they show the replay of him landing 1 out of 10 if he was lucky to land 1.

    I have see alot of post from those that think froch won but all they do is talk about styles and not who landed punches and who didn't. Froch didn't land hardly anything. This is a disgrace
     
  11. radab

    radab Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,721
    1
    Dec 14, 2008
    Totally agree. It was similar to Floyd against Hatton and Marquez - all that ducking and turning the head





    [/quote]But I think the way he fought didn't deserve a victory it was all the lunging in and falling over and holding had he not done that it would have been a fantastic boxing display and earned him his victory.[/quote]

    Agree with that too



    Good post :good
     
  12. lastletter26

    lastletter26 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,856
    1
    Nov 13, 2008
    The Cleaner, harder and ONLY big shots came from dirrell. Head snapping. Froch didn't hit dirrell 20 times the whole fight while you could see dirrell snapping froch's head back the whole time with blatant punches that you didn't have to question.
     
  13. king s

    king s Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,912
    1
    Jan 7, 2009
    Yeah ive re-watched the fight and froch won for sure and yeah dirrell was lucky he only had a point taken away.I think froch fought a good fight as dirrell was just spoiling.
     
  14. lastletter26

    lastletter26 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,856
    1
    Nov 13, 2008
    you must think froch was landing too so if you are imagining froch landing while dirrell was on the ropes then it was a close fight. If you see the truth that froch wasn't landing then dirrell won the fight easy. That's the difference I guess. People who feel froch won think he landed those airball flurries
     
  15. gorgse

    gorgse Active Member Full Member

    1,393
    0
    Oct 20, 2008
    i scored it 2x since everyone was crying robbery. had it 115-113 froch first time and 114-113 froch the second time(2nd time when in doubt i scored for dirrell). I am an american too, so no need for nationalism bias here. Just the way i seen it. It was an ugly fight and alot of the rounds could have been for either fighter or a draw. the people calling this a robbery are just pissed because their fighter lost a close fight.