Stop saying that Carl "So easy a caveman could do it" Froch beat Andre Dirrell

What is hilarious is you assuming the guy is a "Brit". What's also hilarious is you assuming that because he is a "Brit" that he justifies Hatton's style of fighting. Why do you assume that because they are "Brits" that "Brit" fans excuse their tactics?

Further more, surely you can differentiate between the inside work that Hatton did and the holding that Dirrell, Wlad etc. do?

 

He doesn't get told because he fights in Germany and he's the HW champ of the world. To bring up Dirrell holding in that fight (Although it did get bad only because he held for little to no real reason at times, although it wasn't always his fault) as a reason for him to have gotten taken off multiple points forces you to really reflect and re-evaluate boxing because there are countless far worse examples. There needs to be some consistency, and I'm not sure where the line is but what I do know is Froch was fortunate to get no points taking considering all of his tactics which were far worse and more dirty. I don't know how this is disputable.

It isn't something that needs to be done ten times. Doing it once is bad enough, especially when you've mastered the art of rabbit punching and hitting while holding.

And it doesn't happen in boxing. The only real examples I can think of are Chambers against Wlad early in that fight and this fight. Cotto and Clottey happened on the spur for some other reason I can't quite remember but holding wasn't an issue in that fight. Your excuses for Froch as some means of a justification are rather poor considering Froch did it at times when Dirrell wasn't holding. If you have that mindset of you can do almost anything to retaliate to something borderline wrong their would be chaos. Imagine what Bowe could do to Goloto after the first two low blows. The ref needs to deal with it, and the holding really wasn't as excessive as you make it out. Had Froch held and hit and didn't blatantly rabbit punch after his missed combinations and breakups that would be one thing.

 

It doesn't need to correct. This happens all the time with countless fans from England that love Hatton and thought Froch won and complain of Dirrell's holding. You guys are very nationalistic with your fighters because they are few and far between I've observed it enough to know just on this site. Obviously I'm making assumptions, but considering how the guy who made the video didn't complain or comment once about Froch's hitting while holding, continuously rabbit punching, and the WWF move he performed. And the fact that he attributes clinches to Dirrell that weren't his fault and simply occurred due to bodies clashing and never showed the moment in I believe the 9th round where Dirrell badly stunned Froch while showing almost all of the rest of that round while using a British broadcast of the fight... well I think my assumption is pretty safe.

Hatton hits, then holds, and mauls. That's not just inside work. That's John Ruiz work because Hatton doesn't want to get hit back. He did it immensely against Collazo as well as in pretty much most of all of his fights. Just because he's the aggressor and doing some inside work before doing this things doens't make it any better or more justifiable. I actually have a soft spot for Ricky and when watching fights get more aggravated with Wlads holding. But Ricky's actions can get annoying to because their excessive and generally just perceived as harmless because bodies fly into each other at times. The reality is someone is clearly enacting this type of rough fight, though. If you want great inside work watch Frazier, Marciano, Chavez, Duran, and Armstrong.

 

nobody is (case in point above quote) addressing MW's argument.


If you watch the fight, Dirrell is landing the cleaner shots.

 

Well it was seemingly irrelevant to the outcome so it's not really important to address, especially since it seems subjective and extremely difficult to ref. Holding or rabbit punching is a little more blatantly clear cut.

 

...because in your world all british fans should blindly nuthug any british fighter atsch.

 

This was a year ago. Some people need to get over it. It wasnt a robbery, it was close. Froch won a close one at home and lost a close one away. That's boxing. Get a grip and move on!!!

 

andres speed = running

andre landed 105 punches in 12 rounds

how does that equate to winning if he threw 200 punches less than froch, landed 50 fewer and was in reverse.... :huh:think:think

 

Yeah you must be the kind of guy that thinks Holyfield doesn't take steroids. Fact is Holyfield was caught in the end (as good as Holyfield was it was far from a prime Mike anyway) and Kessler was getting back in the fight with one eye. Those 2 need a rematch because there was a lot of question marks left after that fight wheather you want to admit it or not. I'm not saying Kessler would be the favourite by any means but he definitly desereves a rematch whether you'd like to admit it or not and those head butts were definitly a tatic by Ward maybe he would have won with out the cheating but what he did definitly affected Kessler.

 

Lifetime ban bet that if they rematch Ward wins in even greater fashion?

No, I think Holyfield took steroids. Like you said he was basically caught, not sure how that's the same as what we're saying with whether Ward's headbutts were intentional or not.

If those headbutts were definitely a dirty cheating tactic do you think Ward should've been disqualified? Had the fight been outside the US would he have been ducked multiples points or possibly DQed?

 

Agree that Wlad's holding is a **** take though.

 

The forum joke still cant live with the facts atsch.
Froch beat Dirrell. The official reports from Boxing News & The Ring magazine both scored for Froch :smoke.
Froch outlanded Dirrell also.
Still, just watch the parts of the fights you want to see :smooch and forget that Dirrell spent the majority of the fight holding and running.

Dont worry about my scorecard, it isnt important and changes nothing.

LIVE WITH IT. FROCH BEAT DIRRELL :happy

 

There were reports from all major news sources saying------------------------IRAQ HAD WMDS. Doesn't mean the shits true . Just kidding.

Anyways. Maybe froch did land that many punches if you count grazing shots or shots that were dodged to fast for the eye to see (matrix). Those numbers mean **** and you can't go against your own eyes and say froch landed that much. The human error is with all people including those who do these (suspect) so called punchstats and compubox (in the moment). Like I always say " People bring up punch stats when it's convenient to thier point". They are BS and simply do not tell the story mixing grazing shots with clean shots.

Thier jabs and body work were equal in production but the clean power shots belonged to Dirrell period. Froch landed maybe 6 clean power shots up stairs while Dirrell land 40+ blatant, head snapping power shots (hooks and straights). If you got more than 6 clean power shots from froch upstairs then post the fight and the times of those clean power shots.

This debate will live on obviously and people from both sides will keep repeating thier arguments, or lack there of far after these guys retire. Just like all other contriversial decisions including fighters at worldclass level.

IMO Dirrell won the fight. Maybe I'm critical of certain guys who used that tactic of "I can't really beat this guy, so let me throw flurries because I'm at home, and the fans will cheer unconditionally, which influences the judges, who don't know what punches are landing either".

I just feel an arguement that looks at anything else without acknowledging that dirrell landed close to all of the clean power shots up stairs is weak from the start. You got to acknowledge that and then tell me why something that froch did beat that besides his ineffective aggression. I understand the reasons why both were fighting as they were. If Dirrell does not want to give froch a chance, then froch has to make his chance and do something. It's not dirrell's fault that froch couldn't track him down. When Dirrell wasn't moving froch was scared to swing. Froch would not release one of his airball flurries unless he knew Dirrell was fully on defense. Froch still couldn't do nothing. Sadly Dirrell found out later that Froch couldn't do nothing with him when he became aggressive. It was ugly but from the chief scoring criteria CLEAN PUNCHING, Dirrell won this fight even though it was his fault that he had a bad gameplan that gave too much respect to froch.

 

Quit whining and deal with it

 

Changed it for ya...