This Froch bashing is a disgrace

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:good

 

totally agree! it was a VERY close fight that coulda gone either way but as the champion and the more aggressive fighter Froch deserved the win. Maybe a draw woulda been the best outcome. People have to agree that Dirrell produced a poor fight to watch. Remind me alot of the Calazaghe/Hopkins fight!

 

The reaction on the general forum is close to hysteria...its hilarious...its as though Froch didn't just job Dirrell but raped their mothers in the process. I've never seen grown men act in that way, truly funny.

 

Dont normally post on these threads but i bloody agree mate! Calzaghe gets slammed for having a career that didnt take on the best opposition. Now froch gets slammed for being flawed! Yes hes flawed, yes hes not my favourite fighter ever ( far from it!!) But you cant doubt that he is taking on the biggest challenges out there win or loose youve got to respect that. And this Direll won by miles and the decision was a fecking disgrace is rubbish. I had Direll winning but i saw it as a close fight and accept the judges saw it differently to me.!

 

I would like to agree. I do admire his willingness to fight anyone.

But Froch's comments after the fight blaming it all on Dirrell's negativity, and all this stuff where he's been calling out the retired Calzaghe, and even now seriously saying he'd have beaten Marvin Hagler with a "half-Leonard, half-Hearns" style, it's beginning to grate on me.

He needs to concentrate on being a BETTER fighter and improving on his performances. He looked shabby Saturday night, and for most of the Taylor fight too. So talking about how he's better than Benn and Eubank and even Hagler (!) and how Calzaghe avoided him, and sniping at young Dirrell without addressing his own shortcomings first, it doesn't impress.

 

How do you know they were grown men, anyway?

It happens every time there is a fight which could be considered debatable. From a decent view in the arena, I had Froch winning by one..... maybe I might have Dirrell winning from the sofa in front of the telly.

There isn't much Froch bashing, not on the Brit forum anyway, just the usual realism from where I am sitting. It was a less than stellar performance from Froch, as he indeed admitted, but all this 'exposed' BS that we are reading over there is just nonsense.

What did we really find out that wasn't already common knowledge?

Froch is easy to hit.

Froch has sloppy footwork.

Froch has a decent chin.

Froch can get right hand happy.

Froch sometimes has dodgy punch selection.

Froch has a big heart.

Thanks very much, I appreciate your input, Mr General Forum :roll:

 

What i enjoy is how everyone on the GF has become an expert at scoring fights - it's incredible. One close decision and they are all go-to guys for boxing analysis.

 

Froch did look poor on Sat night. Having said that I think Dirrell's style would make anyone look poor. When all's said and done no robbery took place, just a close decision which could have gone either way. If it had gone to Dirrell I don't think (even as a Froch fan) I would have bitched about it this much. Time to put this one to bed and move on methinks. I'm disappointed with Carls performance but he still gets my support.

 

Yeah, but all his talk of KOing Dirrell, and winning the whole tournament and the excuses he gave for his shortcomings in the Taylor fight makes it reasonable for us to expect or demand some improvement.

He's talking like "I can do this, I can do that", so he's setting himself up for serious flak when he falls short.

 

The weird thing is, Froch HAS to take on the biggest challenges cause he's not popular enough to make easy money. That's the reality of this.

 

agree with most comments ...most of his fights recently have been belters so it's safe to assume that dirrells style was the deciding factor in the performance. let's see what the opinion is after a few more rounds of this tourno are finished.

i reckon Carl will take a lot of punishment against MK and AA but i also think it will be more suited to his style and he will land more so they are by no means foregone conclusions in my eyes.

 

Well, it shouldn't be rocket science.
The one who scores the greater quantity of punches and better quality of punches should win.
IMO, Dirrell had both those areas sewed up in more than 6 of the rounds.

 

Plenty of fighters talk themselves up into something they are not.
And they all take flak for it. :deal

(Audley Harrison being the pinnacle of examples.)