Who beat AA more convincingly?

Yes. So he beat AA more convincingly.

 

How much film of the Dirrell-AA fight did Froch watch.

I bet he watched it a lot. I bet he spent countless hours poring over it.

 

Froch did, He boxed AA safely, but at the same time stood his ground. On the other hand Dirrell just ran like a ***** and acted the whole fight.

 

Froch.

 

Froch and quite clearly. Though by his own admission Dirrell laid the blueprint. The Abraham Dirrell fight was being won quite clearly by Dirrell, however he was fading in the latter rounds and could have plausibly been on the way to being sparked.

 

Froch dominated him every single round, got hit less and when he did get hit it didn't even phase him

Froch and its not even close.

 

Direll also got knocked on his ass and then knocked out even though it was a dirty hit but it was still Dirells fault for slipping and falling all over the place like a bum.

Froch was never even remotely in the danger zone with AA, in fact, he won quite easily and with no risk to himself.

 

Dirrell would by DQ and was knocked down. He still dominated for the majority of the fight but its no contest. Froch won a complete shut out and Abraham hardly landed a punch.

 

No. He beat the diminished version of AA more convincingly. Being hyperbolic, Danny Williams also beat Tyson faster than Lennox Lewis. :blood

Please keep statements in their context. I take nothing away from Froch's talent. I am a fan.

 

It took him so long because in the first 20 fights of his career, his best win was an old Eastman. In the first 30 fights of his career, his best win was Miranda. The best win of his entire career is an old Jermain Taylor and he's faced one world class fighter in his career, Carl Froch, and lost every round.

Just because nobody had done it, it doesn't mean there wasn't a clear blueprint. Go back and look at posts from other people. You'll find them talking about how movement, a jab, strength etc., is going to beat him. I know I poked fun at Boo after the Pavlik/Martinez fight, but he was absolutely spot on with his analysis of Abraham well before Andre Dirrell made a name for himself.

Abraham's competition was limited, yes.

If I'm anti-pure boxer, who exactly are you getting at? I hope you don't mean Andre Dirrell is a pure boxer because he serious, seriously, ****ing seriously isn't.

I actually like pure boxers. When I think of a pure boxer, I think of a guy like Harold Johnson. That's boxing at it's absolute purest. The definition of the sweet science. I love watching these guys and they are as appealing to me, as any of my favourite 'action' fighters like Joe Frazier or Bobby Chacon. The idea that I don't like Dirrell so I musn't like pure boxers is completely bull****, mainly because Dirrell is a long way away from being a pure boxer. He's an insult to guys like Harold Johnson.

 

How was Abraham diminished?

And you have to take into consideration that everyone knew Dirrell's style would give Abraham fits for all 12 rounds. It's the easiest styles match up of any Super 6 fight, by a long way. Froch, however, was considered to have a good style for Abraham.

 

You are a funny guy.

 

We are not talking about the condition of Abraham. The question asked who beat Arthur Abraham more convincingly. The answer is clearly Froch.

And Danny Williams did beat Tyson faster than Lewis.

 

Abraham diminished..get the ****kkkkkkkkkkk out of here!

 

Wow. So your contention is AA was/is a nobody? Carl Froch was getting solidly out boxed and beaten down by a diminished (by Pavlik) Jermain Taylor. Go figure. AA KO'd him clean. Whose win was better? IMHO, Froch's > AA's. Froch did it first and broke the guy in the tournament.

You are anti-present day American Boxer. Andre Dirrell is a Pure Boxer. Again man your agenda is transparent.

Now you go to the black and white days? This is just :barf. I guess you would like to reason that the reason most men fight less but are still brain damaged now versus back then was that they were just "better men" back then? Nothing to do with the evolution of the sport. :roll: Quit living in the past.

Pure Boxing has evolved into a few versions. Dirrell practices the extremely athletic, fluid, and cunning version. To you, disengaging when a fighter has momentum is known as "running". As always, you hate upon that school of Boxing or Boxing tactic. Parrying shots is nice, but a slip and counter is better. The thing is that the latter is harder to pull off without certain "gifts". Now I am sure you would say Sergio Martinez qualifies as a "Pure Boxer". :roll:

If you like a certain aesthetic? Just say so man. The constant transparent rationalization of hate is just annoying. The thing is that your line of hatred is quite apparent.