I doubt it. There was a reason he didn't fight that way against Froch, because Froch, unlike Abraham, doesn't just sit there and take punishment. Froch will happily take two to land one and that's the key thing. His opponents can throw as much as they want at Froch, but he won't sit there and take it. He'll throw back and that's why Dirrell was so inactive, because he didn't want to get into that type of fight. Against Abraham though, he was ok to get his combinations off with any fear of shots coming back at him. If Dirrell was more aggressive against Froch, the chances are, he'd have been hurt too and that's not a fight Dirrell would have won.
You're digging a bit far into Dirrell's strategies and mentality aren't you? The point is he fought against a bigger puncher in abraham and he didn't hold and run like he did in the Froch fight. He would have stopped Froch if he had turned up the gas. He took bigger punches from Abraham and kept fighting. He was definitely scared of Froch though, first big fight of his life and his cold feet cost him.
Wtf were those voting options all about. I'm not even black and voted the last option on principal. This is the most biased forum I've ever seen. Dirrell fought Froch in his what, 18th, 19th, professional fight and basically showed there was a HUGE disparity in skill. God, the man was landing at will in the later rounds. Will I say that Froch hung on to his title by a fingernail? Yes, I am comfortable with that, I am not overly distressed with the decision. Let's get serious here though. Froch, and experience veteran was supposed to blow the inexperience kid out. Since he was not able to do this, Dirrell is clearly not so bad as the creator of this thread would have us believe.
These brits have the nerve to say that dirrell held when their hero Hatton brothers hold 5 times more than dirrell did. Sorry **** pour excuses. Dirrell outclassed froch easy that night. Froch didn't land squat.
this is a racist azz poll u are an idiot..do u feel so negatively toward dirrell because he is black or because he beat ur hero?
Joshua clottey vs pac takes the crown ... dirrell beat froch in my card .. but that's irrelevant because froch dub is going anywhere ... froch looked worst .. didn't land anything significant other than a body slam
Any of the top four really, but 'absolutely disgraceful' is probably the most accurate.At least he redeemed himself v AA
What did dirrell do that was soo "disgraceful"? ... wlad does the same **** and he is the man ... froch didn't look good that fight ... he got he more, harder, didn't land any shots of his own and even started fighting dirty because of the facts I just stated ... now don't get me wrong I don't like saying anyone got robbed or a decision should've went the other way if its a close fight ... indeed it was a close fight
Bad gameplan from the dirrell side. They gave froch too much respect and that's what lost him the fight. Dirrell gave the other side an excuse for froch winning without landing anything. It was obvious dirrell was better and got better results from his tactics that froch. Froch couldn't land anything. Still to this day, This fight was the first fight I've seen someone win while landing so little. They knew this and said this right after the fight that they had the wrong gameplan. They faught AA like they were supposed to and that's why AA was looking like a caveman in there. If he faught froch the same way, froch prolly goes down hard mid to late. If they fight again then froch is definately getting KOed.
What a stupid ass poll...Jack has shown that he's the most bias poster at times...This is a prime example of it! How are you gonna get a serious answer with a **** poor poll like this! Get real!:verysad
Jack, you are bordering on the moronic with your opinions on this fight. Those poll options are just ridiculous. I'll re-post my response on this issue from earlier: I don't know if your position on Froch-Dirrell is based on the pathetic UK-US mutual hatred that is sadly so common on ESB, but it is indefensible either way.