Froch vs Dirrell controversy thread

No worries!:thumbsup

 

I figured I was crossing the line ... but damn ... If I can't get my point across ... it seems like a majority of the thread are about the tournament. I can't hate on your for considering the obvious but **** man ... its giving boxing a bad name when you have to have a knockout just to win a "boxing" match

 

It gives boxing a bad name for one guy to run and hold all night in a title match people paid good money to watch.

Dirrell's team gets the blame for this one.

 

same argument.. same lack of addressing who landed the more punches despite running.. :good

 

I don't care if Dirrell landed one punch or a thousand. He ran all night and held and fell over a ridiculous amount.....that was his game plan and the judges were unimpressed with his antics and decided to reward Froch's aggression.

It's not rocket science to know how title matches are judged and gameplan accordingly. Dirrell had the tools to win but forgot to dig.

THIS IS NOT THE OLYMPICS.

 

i never knew it was that bad, i have seen bad refs before and hometown bias **** as well.but the direll and froch fight took it to another level.yo direll should have went ape **** in the ring, but i think he was smart, cause going ape **** would have got him koed ?

it would have been a chance worth takin, his people told him in the last rd he needed a ko, they should have told him that after direll was deducted a point.i would have pulled a zab judah and ****ed that ref up after the fight.probally would have got a riot statred and would have been banned for bout yr from boxing.

thats how ****ed up i thought it was, and direll talking to the ref while getting hit.damn where is the goon at in him, after the 2nd hit behind the head i would have bit the corba's head off.that hiptoss froch did what have got me dq, cuz then i would have went ape ****.

so im not a good boxer, to emtional like judah lol.direll held his composure well.it was a good and ugly fight.


ps i thinks it bull **** when fighters are called runners because the try not to get it, froch has strenghts and so does direll.froch comes forward and is a strong fighter and direll is a slick boxer.why cant the brawler brawl and the slick be slick.why make the slick guy fight in a manner he does not fight in.you cant turn mayweather into a brawler and you cant make hatton a slickster.so let the boxers fight like how they are taught to.

if there were runners in boxing they need to be in track in field, can complain about matrix, when the cobra hit and held.by the head, in the kidneys.helll i would have fell and ran to.froch, rabbit punched, hip tossed, hit and held in from of the ref and hit after the bell.i just wish direll would have done the same.but that would have got him dq, but i would have just got dq.

 

Direll only has himself to blame. Overweight before the fight, poor tactics during the fight. Another would have, could have, should have boxer who has been found wanting at a high level. Froch is probably the poorest of the boxers in this tournement, Dirrell missed a great opportunity. Real shame.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

please never judge a boxing match again..

 

You don't care who landed punches? lol what is wrong with you. Seriously.

You idiots are all over this place saying some of the stupidest **** I've ever heard. Get out.

 

That's the thing, though.....so many of you are telling the judges how they SHOULD have scored it......instead of learning the lesson from why they scored it the way they did. Dirrell's team had a poor strategy.

I like Dirrell's skillset, but he's gonna have to break out of the style of boxing he's gotten used to. The good news is, he's young enough to change.

 

Try reading my WHOLE post and understanding the context.

Bottom line, the judge's didn't agree with YOU. It's not because they were 'wrong'.....you have to understand why they scored it that way.

Seriously, if Dirrell takes the attitude you're taking he'll amount to very little.

 

Wow 84 pages. Did anything good happen, anyone want to summarize?

 

its about 40 topics rolled into one.. the mods have merged topics covering similar subjects..

 

If a judge scores a fight for the guy who lands fewer punches, lands fewer meaningful punches, spends most of the fight missing, and has no upside except for the fact that he walked forward then the problem is with the judges, not with the other boxer. Boxers shouldn't have to pander to judges, nor should they have to "take the belt" from the champion, or be willing to "put on a show" to win a belt.

There are pretty clear criteria for scoring a fight that have nothing to do with marketability. Dirrell won based on those criteria. He may not be deserving in whatever arbitrary and irrelevant sense many people have concocted to score against him, but based on the rules of boxing he should have won.

Claiming that boxers should fight the fight judges want to see, rather than judges scoring fights properly, and not for the hometown favorite, or based on whether or not one guy "wanted to fight" or "looked less negative" is ridiculous. How the **** is any boxer supposed to focus on learning to box when the judging criteria are treated as completely arbitrary. It is unfair to the boxers and the fans.

If Dirrell fights ugly then people will not pay to see him, he will not get big fights, and his career will falter. That doesn't mean he also deserves to lose fights he rightfully won.

 

Pray tell, what context should I put the comment "I don't care if Dirrell landed one punch or a thousand" in? What possible context would prevent that from being one of the dumbest things ever typed on east side boxing? This isn't politics. You don't get to say you were taken out of context and then move on without explaining yourself.

Do you know what an appeal to authority is? It's a common logical falacy and if you can't begin to explain why the judges are right then it's a falacy you're commiting.