Froch Vs Dirrell Was The Worse Robbery Since __________

Amigo, 75% of ESB is American, you too-wool.

75% of an online boxing forum is not qualified to score professional boxing matches.

 

Yeah, sure, okay.

BTW, when did you pass your professional boxing adjudicator's exam? :huh

 

110% correct mate:good seeing we live in planet America

How long do you think it will take for the yanks to turn on Dirrel as they did Lacy who they bigged up & now hezzar BUM heezar BUM ect:yep

I don't recall Tim Bradley getting ****ed over against Junior Whitter:smoke

 

Worst robbery since lewis/holyfield 1

 

It wasn't a robbery but Dirrell should have goten the decision.

 

no robbery at all. close fight. why can't people deal with a close fight going for the other guy?

 

co-sign i scored that fight even, no clue how anybody can call that fight a robbery.....but this fight was controversial to say the least

 

Correct.

Dirrell lost the fight due to a lack of bottle to actually fight.

This is a FIGHT, and supposedly entertainment, not a track meet. People should remember that

 

Because they are morons, that's why

 

Look.. Direll vs froch seemed like the Fight in Madagasgar 2, when Alex the Lion thought it was a danceoff...

Dirrell had no clues that it was a boxin match..

 

dawson v johnson. p.s froch won.

 

since mayweather - castillo 1

 

since Sturm-de la Hoya

 

no you tool its boxing... the point of boxing is hit and dont get hit. I hate people that can't appreciate this. Not every boxer should stand there and trade punches.. especially when they are skilled enough to not get hit.

 

re watch it without sound, and dirrell won 8 rounds to 4.