Froch vs. Dirrell

Shane is done and lost to Mora IMO.

As for how I had Taylor Abraham, think I had it 7-4 AA at time of stoppage I think, maybe even 8-3, but definitely 7-4 was the best Taylor could've hoped for IMO.

 

we'll have a better idea if he fights berto or cotto next IMO.

i definitely remember gving taylor the frst 6 rounds.

 

Sorry no it is not.

The rules of scoring a boxing fight are

Clean effective punching - The only clean punches landed all night were Dirrell and Froch was the only fight hurt in the fight.

Defense - Dirrell made Froch look foolish

Effective aggression - Froch was aggressive but he missd 99% of everything he threw. Thus he doesnt win this

Ring Generalship - "comprised "such points as the ability to quickly grasp and take advantage of every opportunity offered, the capacity to cope with all kinds of situations which may arise; to foresee and neutralize an opponent’s method of attack; to force an opponent to adopt a style of boxing at which he is not particularly skillful."
Retrieved from "

This content is protected

"


"Skillful" Basically Froch loses this everytime he enters the ring. :rofl


Dirrell clearly won 2 of the 4. And Froch didnt win any.


There is NOTHING in boxing rules that says anything about having to do more to beat a champ away or otherwise. Both fighters give up any titles they won previously agreeing to win the fight. You are BOTH fighting for a title.

You dont get it because its completely made up and bull****. It doesnt exist. It is not in any boxing criteria whatsoever.

no he wasnt. If he was thinking that he wouldnt have thought he won the fight. After the fight his corner said he was robbed. "Not winning a decision here" means. You are in a piece of **** no history boxing venue. You are going to get screwed by European judges who have no boxing background. You better knock this no skilled clown out or you'll get robbed.

 

Oh man you are thick as ****. I know it's not written in the rule book you ****ing tool.

ANYONE who knows boxing knows you are NEVER going to win a title as the challenger in your opponents backyard fighting like Dirrell did.

ANYONE who knows boxing knows that in a close fight it's usually the home town fighter or champion who wins.

Do you deny this?

 

So fightng like Dirrell did equals landing more punches, making Froch look like an amatuer with his defense and actually hurting him in round 10.

So what exactly does qualify you to win a championship fight. :rofl Listen ****** there is nothing in the rules of boxing that says a fighter must fight a certain way to win a fight against a champion. Floyd Mayweather certainly didnt beat Oscars ass when he took his title at 154. A win is a win. Not some bull**** you and your ***gy friends made up.

utter nonsense. The fight goes to the winner regardless. Where the fight is, or who is the champion does not matter. You are whats wrong with judging in boxing. You obviously dont know **** about the sport. A judge would be roasted over a spit if he said he scored a close fight for a fighter because he was fighitng in his hometown or the champ lol. He'd never judge again.

 

When did you start watching boxing? I'm serious.

Close fights usually going to the home town fight is "utter nonsense"? Are you serious?

 

If a close fight goes to the hometown fighter in boxing and the other guy did more and won more rounds, it is a robbery. Simple as. Just because somebody is stupid as you in judging doesnt mean thats how its supposed to be.

Basically your dumbass is giving the hometown fighter and champ the edge before he steps into the ring. Madness.

 

Yeah Lewis-Holyfield would have been a draw too if it was in England. Whittaker would have lost to Ramirez if the fight was in the USA too.

 

Again your reading comprehension and knowledge of the sport fails you. Every one in boxing knows you have to do more when you are the challenger or are fighting abroad. I thought everyone did, then I met you. Hold on, are you the guy who claimed "floored" meant "stunned?" Oh yes, yes you are. You have no credibility and know nothing about boxing, period.

 

Nope you're just a moron. You are basically legalizing fight fixing. You are saying simple for the fact that someones popped out of a vagina on a speck of dirt he gets the nod in a close fight even if he lost more rounds. Its the most idiotic thing every concieved in boxing. Honestly just kill yourself right now and save boxing from disgracing itself more.

 

MW acting like a dumb **** yet again.

the term "you have to beat the champion to become the the champion" is something the americans started.this goes back years and years.watch some old fight footage and you'll hear them using the term many times.max kellerman says it all the time also.

it means you can't just come in against the champ and get the win by the skin of your teeth.you have to rip the title from the champ.

it's not something i subscribe to.but a lot of people do.

 

Dirrell did a better job on Froch then Leonard did with Hagler.

 

Dirrell lost that fight and it was not even close. You can't fall down on canvas, complain, run, hold, etc., and win a fight.

 

The term you have to beat the champ to be the champ refers to the draw advantage that the champ has. Other than that...scoring should be the same no matter what. Unfortunately Boxing is not as straight laced as that. The home fighter wins too often with Froch like; pathetic, performances.

The Cobra got snake bit..plain and simple.

 

I scored the Froch-Dirrell fight to Dirrell, and I think Dirrell's win over Abraham is better than any win that Froch has, so for me Dirrell has to rank higher than Froch.

If they rematch, expect Froch to get embarrassed. Carl Froch is a good fighter and an admirable warrior, but Dirrell is on a different planet to him in terms of ability.