Froch vs Dirrell controversy thread

+1 on that

 

:happy:happy:happy

 

if Dirrell's a disgrace to boxing....then what the hell does that make you?

 

He was walking to his corner, thats what all fighters are suppose to do when the bell rings! Stupid!

 

And 0 seconds shouldn't allow you to keep it!

 

O O.. you got me there...

 

I was at the fight, and this my take on it:-

Froch was there for the taking. He was clearly well off form, especially his timing. I think Dirrell and his team realised this, but they realised too late into the fight. Dirrell was obviously, initially wary, of getting into a war with Froch and he ran and complained for 9 rounds - that is'nt going to look good in a World Champion's back yard!!

I think when Dirrell realised that Froch was completely off form, he stepped his game up and looked the better fighter in the final rounds. But, a challenger cannot expect to arrive back from a Champions home town, with his world title belt, by not engaging with his opponent for a large portion of the fight. Dirrell's team should have known that running and pot shoting for most of the rounds would not have been enough to get a decision in a champions home town. It's up for debate, but that's boxing. A home town fighter will get most of the close or even rounds.

If they face each other again, I can see Dirrell winning clearly, by using different tactics. I think Dirrell can handle Froch's power (this power I think is getting found out a little at World Title level) this was confirmed when Dirrell looked the more accomplished fighter when he decided to stand and trade in the latter rounds. As I said earlier though, this was too little, too late in the fight.

Dirrell took too long to change his gameplan, if he'd changed by the 6th round I think he'd have clearly won and possibly even stopped Froch late in the fight.

In Summary:- Missed opportunity for Dirrell.

A more attacking game plan would have put Froch on the back foot and Dirrell would have clearly won more rounds than he did on the night. Froch is tough as them come, but thats a few fights in a row where he's looked largely unconvincing. He walked away with a victory here because Dirrell allowed him to take the role of the agressive chamnpion. Froch was happy to do this and was constantly on the front foot as Dirrell moved back to the ropes and danced around the ring too often for my liking. Holding, complaining, falling to his knees etc hardly helped Dirrell's cause either.

I'm worried for Froch though, I dont give him much chance against Kessler if he performs like that again. Kessler will take him out.

 

lets not forget froch was made to wait until 2:35 am to fight ? hey maybe he was out of sorts because of this ? which clock was froch on and which clock was dirrell on ?

 

The most frustrating part about watching that fight was Andre not throwing anything in those clinches, on the way into initiating them, or on the way out of them. Froch did, and even though half the shots were either light or rabbit punches, he was the only one doing the scoring when that happened- and it happened far too much.

Along with not countering on dozens of chances he could have, that was Dirrell's biggest tactical mistake, and I have to put a good chunk of that on his corner. He's got to be aware of who he's fighting for and whose opinion he needs to win over, and his corner needs to know that when you're dealing with live ringside judges, appearances matter. What gets chalked up as ineffective bull**** on Froch's part was scoring Carl a shitload of points because Andre didn't contest anything on the inside and handed Froch his offense on a silver platter from the point in time that he initiated the clinch until he got space again. Turning to the ref and talking to him in the middle of getting hit on the inside, even if they're nothing but love taps, isn't going to get points with the judges.

 

Actually you have to land your punches to score points. How can it be that Froch got points for not landing. You may dislike Dirrell´s style, cause it is not made for toe to toe wars, but he was effective, which Froch wasn´t.

BTW your only scoring criterium is being white. That´s easy to read out of your postings.

 

Good post.

Best of the day - October 19, 2009.

 

and that as his problem and why a lot of people like myself have the fight very close.
Dirrell simply did not throw enough!
You can pick his best 56 secons of the fight but the fact is he only really did that for 2 rounds namely the 10th and 11th.
the odd jab and clinching aint gonna win you the belt in a guys backyard!

 

You've obviously shown that your just a casual fan who doesn't understand what boxing actually is.

Shouldn't you be asking yourself this, if you think that all Dirrell was doing was running and backing up then how comes Froch almost got knocked the hell out.

If your able to fight with that style and fight off the back foot whilst counter punching then why should he stand infront of Froch like Taylor and Pascal did.

It begs the question of do you really know what you are talking about?

Froch was hitting thin air for the majority of the fight and he was made to look like a guy who had no balance, no rhythm, clumsy, flat footed and he was made to look ordinary and to add on top of that, he was outlanded in the punch department and most importantly he almost got knocked out and buzzed in the rounds where all of you Froch Nuthuggers thought that Dirrell would be fading.

Dirrell outboxed him and this is boxing, if you just want to see 2 men slug it out with not much thought for what they are actually trying to achieve then go and watch MMA or Bar room fighting because this is boxing not brawling.

I will admit that there was times when Dirrell could have capitalised on his work but this is all a learning curve and for someone in his 1st major fight away from home he did more than what he was expected to do in the eyes of many.

The sweet science.

 

You wpould be wrong then. I love technique more than a tussle like Gatti and Ward. I liked Calzaghe-Kessler far over Gatti-Ward for example, exactly because I love the high technical level in boxing. I liked RJJ-Toney. I liked Kalule-SRL for the same reason and so on.

But the problem with Dirrell is that while he has all the natural abilities in the world, his balance between defense and offense is completely off. The other fighters in the tourney better wish he doesnt learn from this. They better hope he gets all "I won and they cheated me, because if he just learns, then everyone will have a huge problem. Then we have some prime RJJ stuff on our hands.

But - for now Dirrell is still a raw diamand with great talent, but lacking tactics, guts, sense of context etc. If he lives up to his potential he will be bigger than Hopkins, Taylor etc. He has more natural talent than them for sure.