I think that people accept Dirrel's win without any discussion that Froch was robbed. Some may complain about the holding, but I don't think the outcome would be heavily disputed. I still havn't heard a good analysis of why Froch won. Thoughts?
Well, obviously you'd have less threads about the "robbery" seeing as there are more Americans here, that definitely plays into it. I think both fighters would have been unlucky to get a loss to be honest. Dirrell due to the fact that when he did throw, he landed cleanly and when he engaged, he seemed to show himself to be the far better fighter. Froch due to the fact that he came all night, didn't have a mark on his face after the fight, pushed Dirrell around the ring time and time again and had to put up with run/hold/run/hit/hold/hit/run/run/hold tactics all night from the other fighter. Too many close rounds in this fight, basically. Froch only had to take six rounds to win.
I just thought that since Dirrel landed so many more punches the cries of robbery would not be as loud, although it sounds like i might be wrong.
Most of the people who are saying it was a fair decision are baseing it on what Dirrel didn't do as opposed to what Froch did. One guy even claimed he gave credit to Froch for "punching air". The fact is that at times Dirrel looked a bit amaturish with his complaining and flopping. But at the same time he's the only one that did ANYTHING remotely offensive. Froch just did not win on his own merit.
