Just rewatched Froch v Dirrell and......

Those were posted on boxrec. They are false.

 

Here, in case you lost yours:

This content is protected

 

Are Dirrell fans lacking basic comprehensive skills?

This content is protected

 

If you want something to compare to, this fight was like Calzaghe's vs. Hopkins. Some would say Calzaghe lost that but can you really take a undefeated streak from a champion with such a dire performance? Fair enough if it stinks the place out but he shuts him out, it was nothing of the sort. It was a trash fight, and there was no winner of Froch vs. Dirrell, there was no winner of Calzaghe vs. Hopkins for that matter.

 

Correct.

 

Ask yourselves this ......... in 10...20...30 years time what will Dirrell be remembered for ? Losing a close decision to Froch ? or the Abraham incident ?

 

I thought Dirrel fought like a ***** but won 115-112.

 

I scored the fight for Dirrell but I can understand how a case can be made for Froch wining.

 

If all boxers fought like Dirrell the sport would be completely done... Thank god for real fighters that keep the sweet science alive :bbb

 

Cocaine is a helluva Drug!!!!

 

So what I've gathered from Froch supporters:

1) Dirrell ran and held
2) Dirrell didn't do enough
3) Dirrell used spoiler tactics
4) Dirrell was falling down

In other words they like to go on the offense in attacking Dirrell with nonsense that's mostly meaningless to scoring a fight but when challenged back as to what Froch did to deserve the win based on scoring criteria they got nothing to say.

 

1st round was even. Froch won 4 rounds at least, and Dirrell got a point deduction. Given it was a horrifically scrappy affair with rounds where nothing clean landed, it was hardly a robbery.

The biggest clowns are those saying Dirrell dominated.

 

I'm American and Andrea got the **** kicked out of him. Scared, running coward with zero power. Froch won by a good 6 rounds.