Froch won the fight!

I watched Showtime.

I heard the UK commentary referred to Dirrell as showing a 'defensive master class' - they must think Usain Bolt is a defensive genius then

Didnt they also reckon Froch needed a KO to win in the final round?

Doesnt sound to Froch friendly to me.

 

His best punch of the night for dirrell was his counter hook...and it faded IMO the longer the fight went...when he boxed and counter he won rounds, when it got ugly and dirrell held, froch did his work on the inside, and a lot of the rabbid punches people say froch threw were legal, yes he did rabbid punch, but froch did his best work inside and people sleep on carl's jab it was effective at stopping dirrell's offense, and making dirrell a stationary target in the corner and on the ropes...I didnt see this defensive wizard people claim dirrell was...when he stick and moved and countered was when he was at his best but froch fought his fight for 6 rounds to get the win with the point deduction...

 

I had Dirrell up by 1 (would have been 2 had it not been for the deduction).

But the fight was pretty close imo.

 

I scored it by 2 rounds for Dirrell but I thought he held when he got caught by any glancing blow and he "slipped" constantly to avoid punches.

I also thought Froch hit him to the back of the head but that was because Dirrell just grabbed him and put his head down so it was the only place he could be hit.

If you go to someones hometown it is very difficult to get a victory on points and if you run and hold like Dirrell did you will never get it.

 

And had Dirrell winning, come the last round actually.

 

i think that dirrell landed the cleaner shots throughout the fight-fact! but froch kept up the pressure and threw more shots although not landing cleanly! its hard 1 to score! but im an amateur boxer so thought dirrell was winning good few rounds!even though froch won ya couldnt argue! froch was probably exposed a bit because hes not a good boxer and people realise this now even his supporters! never would of lived with calzaghe any of these guys!

 

Too many people want to make out that Dirrell was dominating the fight - he wasn't doing anything beyond making Froch miss until the last few rounds.

This fight would ONLY have been a robbery if Dirrell was taking it to Froch every round, landing multiple sharp, hard shots and avoiding everything coming back.

He did the last - otherwise Froch was going forwards and Dirrell was running away and clinching for large stretches of the fight. It was an awful performance by both men. Both deserve a loss on their records for that garbage.

 

Mate, you can't say you think something and then say it's a fact. It's either opinion or a fact, not both. It is a fact though - but they were largely ineffective till the later rounds.

 

I agree.. Dirrell took it clearly.. but not by that margin..

 

I had Dirrell winning by a point. I thought Dirrell won the last 3 rounds.

 

It was close, but I had Dirrell edging it by 2 as he actually landed the better shots throughout, albeit sporadically. But he was never going to get the decision in Froch's back yard. He should have done what he did in the last 3 rounds a lot earlier.

 

I had Dirrel winning 7-5.

After the point deduction it was 114-113 for Dirrell, which I believe is exactly what the Mexican judge had it.

Although I had Dirrell winning, on the round by round I referred to Dirrell being a ***** on more than one occasion. Dropping to your knees several times to get out of trouble is almost a bigger ***** move than Hopkins faking a low blow the way he did.

You can't call a close fight a robbery, so in my opinion, this was no robbery.

I hope Dirrell cleans up his methods.