If You Average Out All 3 Judges Score Cards... Dirrell Won The Fight

Massimo Barrovecchio (Italy)
1: Froch 10-9
2: Dirrell 10-9
3: Froch 10-9
4: Dirrell 10-9
5: Dirrell 10-9
6: Froch 10-9
7: Froch 10-9
8: Froch 10-9
9: Dirrell 10-9
10: Dirrell 9-9
11: Froch 10-9
12: Froch 10-9
Froch 115-112

WTF this dude gave Froch rounds 11 and 12? If he scores those rounds correctly and Dirrell wins the fight.

 

why so much hate?.. he's merely suggesting a method of scoring.. its hardly 'unfair'.. maybe its because it comes to a conclusion against the fighter YOU want..

Personally I'm done with the who won the fight debate.. Dirrell didn't do enough to take it basically and came with the wrong tactic.. but I can almost guarantee you wouldn't be in here trolling if it was in Froch's favour..

Just my 2 cents..

 

You know that's bull****, because I've already stated a thousands time I think Dirrell probably edged the fight. This has nothing to do with bias on my side, it's just a ridiculous way of trying to score fights. Who's to say that this system wouldn't somehow work against a fighter?

And if you add up the final average scores, he didn't. But it's a stupid way of doing things. You can't expect to solve the many different ways of subjectively scoring a fight by using simple maths. So tell me again, why do you think your opinion is right over the judges?

You've only developed this because you feel Dirrell won the fight, if it was vice-versa and Froch was in his position you wouldn't of made this thread. So tell me, why is your opinion right over that of the judges sitting at ringside scoring that fight?

 

I had it by three points for Dirrell, so that's actually 8-4 in rounds because of the point deduction.

Some very close rounds that could have went either way but 8-4 is 8-4, so for me i have to call it a hometown dec.

 

Isn't this all a matter of individual taste, i.e. what style of boxing you prefer? You could see Dirrell using the edges of the ring, making Froch follow him, and call that "ring generalship". Or, you could see Froch controlling the centre of the ring, forcing Dirrell to run, and call that "ring generalship". You could see Dirrell as the more effective aggressor in terms of quantity of clean punches thrown, or you could see Froch as the more effective aggressor in terms of the effect his punches were having on Dirrell (causing Dirrell to hold/run, physical damage to Dirrell vs physical damage to Froch). Given that it's largely down to subjective opinion, I can't see how it was a "robbery".

 

That's not averaging, that's aggregating a score. If you average the scores, which is the only way you can really assess it numerically, Froch still wins.

But if you aggregate, Dirrell wins, but it's by a point.

 

I already know you scored it for Dirrell.. your one of the few who I actually respect for doing so despite being a Froch fan and British..

however, surely theres more chance of the current system working against a fighter than the suggested one?

e.g.

If judge A is blind.. and has a 9-10 in one round.. where the other 2 judges have a 10-9 in that round.. then the 10-9 round stands as it is the majority score..

Therefore the blind judge's 9-10 round is overruled..

make sense? it cancels out bad round scores..

 

It's a matter of acknowledging that boxing is highly subjective as an artform and not a science, then recognising that you can fight/box more than one way to win a fight. Then you watch the fight, assessing it round by round and ask yourself who was more effective, regardless of what is your favourite style to watch.

 

I'm English, Dirrell by three points i had it, 8-4 in rounds. Patriotism is gay, watching fights open minded isn't it.

 

thats how it should be.. I began the fight hoping Froch would KO Dirrell.. It wasn't a robbery.. just a questionable decision.. especially now the scorecards have been released..

 

I'm just waiting for Froch to call out Calzaghe again, its priceless everytime.

 

I personally think you need five judges watching a fight. One each side of the ring and one watching the tv coverage (without commentary). Then, after the scorecards come in, you take the middle three cards, ie losing the most favourable score for each fighter.

But yes, averaging out would be a decent system.

Boxing is so subjective that sometimes even legit decisions seem corrupt. A system that takes the average consensus would hopefully help eliminate some of the controversy.

EDIT: not to mention that what we see on screen and what judges see from ringside can be very different - especially due to bias/inept commentary.