Froch Vs Dirrell Was The Worse Robbery Since __________

U said it.

 

edit

 

THere were close rounds if you were scoring froch's flurrying misses equal with dirrell snapping his head back with blatant shots. Wasn't even close and I don't see how froch won more than 4 rounds when he didn't hit dirrell's face 20 times through out the whole fight.

 

Holyfield-Valuev.

 

Holyfield vs Lewis 1

 

I had Dirrell winning by two rounds, but it was in no way a "robbery". Chavez-Whitaker is a robbery. This was a relatively close (and ugly) fight that went to the hometown fighter. This level of close decision going to the hometown fighter happens every weekend in club fights and larger venue fights. It sucks, but that is how the sport is.

At least you can make an argument for Froch winning, where as a robbery is an instance where an argument just sounds ridiculous, such as arguing that Whitaker didn't beat Chavez.

 

This was by no means a robbery but I'll follow your game..... this was the worst robbery since Quintana vs.. PW #1....... c'mon, you know you want to say it! Don't fight that thought, AGAIN, YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO SAY IT, or at least would love 4 somebody to suggest it!:yep

 

BTw, all you guys thinking Dirrell gave the performance of a lifetime will get your break later on .... the tournament isn't over yet.... as for me , I'll bet anybody he doesn't win it!

 

The worst robbery since..

This content is protected

 

In yo opinion who landed more shots (please exclude hitting the back of the head and after the bell)
Who landed cleaner shots?

 

Bhop vs Joe....if you even want to call it a robbery. I just thought it was a close fight and the challenger wasn't able to "TAKE" the belt from the champion in his own backyard. It was a decent decision in my opinion.

 

Sturm vs Del la Hoya

 

someone has to dominate and then in turn lose in order for it to be a robbery.....and dirrell didnt do jack **** but run the whole fight.....he didnt even in theory win....he blew the fight big time....no way should "robbery" be in the same sentence as froch vs dirrell

 

From Kevin Mitchell in "The Guardian"

Andre Dirrell the grand illusionist has magic but he is missing a trickCarl Froch's American victim lacks the killer touch to fulfil his dazzling natural talent

Andre Dirrell was upset he didn't get the decision against Carl Froch on Saturday night. Andre Dirrell better get another job.

If he thinks he can grab, run, slip and slide, fall down, swing his head below his knees while staring at the canvas instead of his opponent, and generally fight like some sort of circus clown, someone has been feeding him the wrong oats.

Maybe it's his very nice granddad, Leon Lawson, who used to spar with the master magician, Muhammad Ali. The difference is Ali threw plenty of punches while looking good and mesmerising his opponents.

Or maybe it's his promoter Gary Shaw. "It's called boxing," Shaw lectured us afterwards. I've got news for you, Gary. That's not boxing. That's cycling with gloves on.

Dirrell is seduced by his own amazing athleticism, switching hands with ease, floating in and out, swivelling out of clinches. But he might as well be shadow-boxing. He won't do the tough yards, which means staying in the hitting zone, making the other guy miss and then scoring – much as Arthur Abraham did towards the end of his fight with Jermain Taylor earlier in the evening in Berlin.

Froch-Dirrell was close, granted; I had Froch winning by a round because a lot of rounds were tight and downright awful to watch, as well as score. But you do not deserve the decision if you don't at least take some of the fight to your opponent, especially a champion and especially on his own turf.

Dirrell could have won this. Froch has slowed a little the past couple of years and he struggled to catch up with the American. He missed clumsily at times, too. But you don't get points for making the other guy miss (maybe you should – then we could call it anti-boxing). Although Froch got a little flustered when Dirrell decided to fight near the end, he hung in there. He did what he had to do.

It's a shame for Dirrell, because he has so much natural talent, beautiful footwork, brilliant hands and heart. But he's tactically naïve. He let rounds go that he could win with more commitment and less posing. He lacks killer.

The people around him have kidded him for years that he can go through his career as an illusionist who throws the occasional dazzling combination. He got away with it against B-list fighters. Not on Saturday night, though, when he stepped up.

Commentators who had Dirrell winning fell for the illusion, as Froch's angry trainer Robert McCracken reminded a few of my colleagues at ringside later – except not quite as politely




http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/oct/19/andre-dirrell-carl-froch

 

and as a parent I find this to be in incredibly poor taste.