I feel sorry for Dirrel

I think thats where he lost the fight. It looked to me like Dirrell could have gone clearly 4 rounds to nil up if he's have done a bit more work.

Instead he let Froch come forward without engaging him and those rounds were so lacking in action that I bet the judges gave a few of them to Froch just for coming forward because there was so little else happening to score on.

 

Would be intriguing to see the cards. Froch must have had a huge early advantage with the judges.

He simply must have been given those early rounds, and while he did very little to earn them, Dirrell did less - and didn't even TRY to win them.

 

He got exactly what he deserved for such a negative performance - nothing.

 

Thank **** this isn't a straight elimination tournament.

 

You had Dirrell winning last night.
Today you have Froch.
What's changed?

 

Where did I specifically say I had Froch winning? I thought Dirrell won a close fight, but he got what he deserved because he never worked for it. I'm tired of explaining, if you want to know my thoughts go and search one of the many threads for my opinion. But Dirrell couldn't expect to claim the belt with a performance like that.

 

the idea is also to hit the opponent.. Froch barely did any of that.. despite Dirrell landing on him.. its double standards..

 

Didnt like any of the post but that first bit really takes the ****;
As if he's a martyr for entering the tournament and was ever going to decline "the gamble"atsch
He was only invited to enter this chance of a lifetime("gamble") because he's American.(you think an 18 fight boring Euro novice would have been invited?)

The Euros had to establish themselves on the worls stage,Dirrell got it on a plate;Fuked if i feel sorry for him,fine runner that he is.

 

What an absolute spoiler Dirrell is, which is a shame because if he had engaged last night it would have been an absolute war. Froch showed more will to win and was always on the front foot which was enough to win IMO.

 

So in judges eyes it's ok for Leonard to do it against Hagler but not Dirrell against Froch.

 

i totally agree why leave so much in the locker when your challenging :good

 

I've seen worse, Fury-McDermott quite recently.

 

If you think what they did was even the same... *sigh*

Leonard took the first four rounds CLEARLY with fast combos and good defence. he was on his bike, but when he fired off shots he stopped and sat down on them.

Hagler came back into it but was a much bigger man - so Leonard did what he had to. Add to that the fact that Ray had been inactive for years and was fighting at MW for the first time in his career, and was well past his physical prime as a fighter, and you need to respect why Ray fought the fight he did.

Ray also made sure he was throwing good shots every round and trying to make an impression in the last 30 seconds of each round. It was stealing rounds, but it was still impressive.

People still feel that Hagler deserved the decision and some feel that Ray did - Dirrell had no excuse. He was younger, taller and faster than his opponent. He could have fought the way he did in the last three all the way through and he pissed it away being cute.

I have no sympathy for the guy.

 

Im sorry people but I've just watched the Showtime version and everybody is making this running issue bigger than it actually was. If you call backing off and counterpunching running then I don't know what to say. Dirrell has "run" to avoid getting trapped in the corner or from taking a pasting on the ropes. What did you want him to do? Stand in front of Froch so he could get hit by those winging punches.
Froch was made to look like a mug and it pains me to say that. My avatar should tell you where my loyalties lie and I was rooting for cobra. He was wobbled big style at the end of rd 10 and was very close to going down. Look at his legs. Rubber leg city.
I'd suggest some of you watch it again rather than toeing the line with other posters.

 

I pay zero attention to the commentary - i just block it out because it's so rare they make a valid point. All you're proving is that Showtime didn't make such a big issue of it and you've been swayed by their commentary.

In fact, Rawling and Thaxton were constantly praising Dirrell's movement and reflexes. They didn't consider it negative.

Anyway, you need your eyes tested if you think Dirrell was fighting off the back foot. His defence didn't set up any attacks until much much later on in the fight.