Froch vs Dirrell was close!!!

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Will, Oct 22, 2009.


Page 2 of 2
  1. lzolnier

    lzolnier Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,524
    34
    Jan 20, 2007

    So I guess the Mexican judge was there too. Next time, I should think about watching the fight from the kitchen and maybe I will score it differently too.
     
    lzolnier, Oct 22, 2009
    lzolnier, Oct 22, 2009
    #16
  2. jaffay

    jaffay New Orleans Hornets Full Member

    3,980
    18
    Jun 24, 2007
    Repeat a lie one thousand times and it becomes truth thread
     
    jaffay, Oct 22, 2009
    jaffay, Oct 22, 2009
    #17
  3. valdez

    valdez Grand Champ Full Member

    2,197
    0
    Jul 4, 2007
    I dropped it on Monday.

    I'm not debating the fights outcome you moron.. I've already said.. I had Dirrell winning it, but he could of and should of done more. He had the ability to embarrass Froch and didn't. Thats why he lost the decision. I'm happy with that.
     
    valdez, Oct 22, 2009
    valdez, Oct 22, 2009
    #18
  4. dmoney5787

    dmoney5787 Member Full Member

    296
    0
    Oct 7, 2009
    It was a close fight. I am just wondering why you would say no more than 3 for Froch and no more than 1 or 2 for Dirrell (I had it 8 rounds to 4 Dirrell). What did you think about the referee? I did not agree with taking a point for clinching because clinching is not illegal. However I thought he should have taken a point for all of Froch's rabbit punching because it is illegal and dangerous. Getting hit in the back of the head at the base of the skull can cause spinal cord injury or even death. I know it happens in boxing but the amount of fouls that Froch got away with was rediculous. It looked like a throwback to Ali vs Wepner. That is part of the reason I only gave Froch 4 rounds, because I can not justify giving someone rounds when their best punches were illegal blows.
     
    dmoney5787, Oct 22, 2009
    dmoney5787, Oct 22, 2009
    #19
  5. Will

    Will Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,403
    3
    Aug 4, 2009
    DMoney

    Your correct in saying rabbit punches are dangerous. This exactly why it is illegal in boxing to duck right down into an opponent. If anything this is what the ref should have been telling dirrell off for the most. It is the same as a fighter just turning his back. Froch was not hitting him on the back of the head because he was reaching around. He was htting him on the back of the head because Dirrell was only presenting the back of his head due to illegal ducking.

    The reason for the discrepancy between the rounds I could award for froch or dirrel is down to the points deduction.
     
    Will, Oct 22, 2009
    Will, Oct 22, 2009
    #20
  6. Will

    Will Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,403
    3
    Aug 4, 2009
    Lol. As long as you've got a good screen in there!

    The serious point I'm trying to make is that when at a fight the people on the four different sides see the fight from 4 different angles. How often in a football match have you seen a 'nothing' foul from one angle and then seen another angle and realised how bad it was.
     
    Will, Oct 22, 2009
    Will, Oct 22, 2009
    #21
Page 2 of 2