If you feel I am bringing up an unwanted topic, then kindly GTFO and don't post anything. I just want to ask a question to people who are interested without getting flamed in the process. Before I ask you the question, let's look at Cotto v Margarito. Cotto was being hit by hard shots and wasn't actually 'put on his backside' by Margarito - he decided to take a knee a couple of times. Taking those knees counted as knockdowns, and we all know that would give you a 10-8 for the first time, then a 10-7 if it happened again in the same round. When Froch and Dirrell fought, Dirrell had great movement and landed some counter punches. Froch hardly landed, but had the more authoritive shots and wanted to bring the fight, where Dirrell wanted to back-off and complained about being hit in the head, when he made it happen by bringing on the clinches. Froch also threw Dirrell to the floor which he wasn't warned about and should have been. When Dirrell decided to go on to the floor instead of trying to properly dodge Froch's punches, should that have counted as a knockdown? Cotto took a knee because he (obviously) didn't want to get punched in the face with the hard punches. Dirrell did this more than once. I haven't watch the tape since the day after the fight because it bored the hell out of me, but could the two judges have thought like that? Let me know.
Yes the two judges could have THOUGHT that, but they in no way could score them as KD's because the judges MUST only score KD's based off of the referee's decision. Now before I ask the question of you, please don't take offense. Have you been watching boxing for more than two weeks?
Of course the judges could have seen it that way.. but this is pure speculation... no one here can see into the judges head..
Lol how can you ask someone not to take offense then ask them if they have watched for more than two weeks? He brought up a valid point. Although you're right in saying the judges have to go with the ref's decision, it's quite possible the judges thought it was a ***** move (rightly so) and awarded the 10-9 to Froch where they would have given it to Dirrell had he not done that?
The judge can only score a KD if the referee classes it as a KD. Also, Dirrell was off-balance more than taking a knee. But, since he kept doing it, the ref could have warned him for it. Maybe dock him a point, at worst. He did stop it eventually, but not the holding.
It's called sarcasm. It was used in reference to his use of words in the original thread. Maybe not sarcasm, but rather irony.
Yes they could've thought that, which might explain why they were reluctant to give him rounds he won. But it wouldn't make it right or legal, if the ref doesn't call it a KD than neither can a judge.
It is amazing the amount of posters who question other people's knowledge of boxing, as if they are experts themselves. I would seriously doubt more than 5% of the total population of ESB members have been trained and performed as boxing officials at a world championship level. It's a fair question, same as the question recently about scoring even rounds.
Now that is a reasonable statement. I also believe that when a fighter avoids action and stalls that sometimes it will make judges give close rounds to the aggressor, whether its effective aggression or not.
Sorry no. A fair question would have been whether the judges were effected in their scoring in later rounds due to Dirrell not making a fight of it in general. The TS question was about as relevant as asking whether the judges in the Douglas-Tyson fight stopped keeping score after Douglas was knocked down because the ref didn't pick up the count at the correct time and so Buster should have been counted out. Or its the same as asking whether the judges would have been justified in not turning in their scorecards after the 12th round of Bute-Andrade because they THOUGHT Bute was actually counted out but the referee was in error.
What? Can't spot any irony myself. I believe most people don't know what irony even means. Anyway, I suppose if these two fighters rematch, we won't be seeing Dirrell pulling that particular move again.
If he realizes how much success he was having in the later part of the fight when he stood his ground and traded, then we won't be seeing that again. I just don't know if he has the mentality to do that.
His corner said afterwards that they wished they hadn't told him to box for so many rounds. Because he took the rounds clearly when he stood in front of Froch. Beating Froch at his own game. Froch needs to avoid Dirrell if he has any hope of winning the super 6. I think Dirrell will go far in life.
That may just be his corner trying to take some of the heat off of their fighter. It wasn't inappropriate on their part to tell him to "box". I think that was the smart thing to do given the two fighters skill sets. It's just the Dirrell RAN and looked somewhat amateurish at times. If he actually boxed and used lateral movement more, instead of backwards movement, he would have dominated the fight. You can box and look good ala Leonard-Hagler as opposed to what Dirrell did at times in that ring.
