Who beat AA more convincingly?

Excellent post, this is how my ignore filter has so many people on it, threads like this are a blessing in disguise :happy

 

I believe you may have mental issues..

 

Yes froch's performance was more one sided but your dumb ass doesn't know what running is or **** else for that matter. You're prolly an unathletic hating as clown to say some stupid **** like that. Go watch that Dirrell vs AA fight again clown and take your hater goggles off. If dirrell ran against AA then everyone runs. Sergio Martinez ran against all his opponents too and every other mobile fighter is a runner if you wanna say Dirrell Ran like a ***** against AA.

Clown ass fans like you are what's wrong with boxing. Hate dominates reality with all you dumb ****s.

Dam I hate stupid ass haters. Call him an actor or whatever and that's cool but don't say he ran like a ***** against AA because that just shows how stupid or hateful you are.

I can't believe nobody else caught that stupid ass post.

 

Dirrell mentally hurt AA. He opened that door of SMW doubt, where as before the fight AA was believing his own hype. Post fight AA and Co didn't know what to do to fix it so he was talking about Aerobics classes and stuff when in reality he need to fix his head movement and stanima to fight more actively. It was apparent by AA's strategy (or lack there of) as well as froch's strategy. AA might have had heart trying to comeback against Dirrell but after that fight he probably came to a conclusion that he didn't wanna be hit that much again. So next he faces Froch who knows what to do which is get on AA when he's taking his usual 2:30 breaks during each round in the shell and dodge anything he comes back with. The proof was in AA's words pre dirrell fight and pre froch fight or lack thier of.

Dirrell and Froch did one thing very different from eachother in thier fights against AA. Dirrell countered AA, Froch didn't. They both brung it to AA but Dirrell countered AA with unseen shots when AA tried something. Froch on the other hand was offensive or defensive while not being both at the same time. Froch would be on AA and then drop to the back foot and throw the jab stopping AA in his tracks from trying something. AA would then try his ungrounded, pre-amatuer bum flurries which froch saw coming. Froch figured that this was all AA had after a few rounds because AA wasn't even attempting to counter froch. AA was either gonna come with his comical flurry or sit in the shell throwing jabs here and there. Basically AA didn't know what to do. It seemed like they had no strategy in the prefight talks and I think some of that can be attributed to AA and Co thinking that they were gonna hit froch because of froch's leaky defense. They are some idiots because you have to counter froch. Froch or any world class fighter is not gonna let themselves be hit by telegraphed flurries.

So yes I feel AA wasn't the same man against Dirrell as he was against froch. The fact remains that Froch's win was more onsided but some of those aspects can be attibuted to Dirrell mentally ****ing AA's mind up with all that embarrassment from thier fight. It was written all over AA's face that night and he looked like the same dumbfounded, unconfident, desperate man in there with froch.

 

Nah, I wouldn't say Abraham is a nobody. he's a top class fighter, no doubt about it, but there is absolutely no question that he had flaws and people knew about it. My argument about this, is the idea that Dirrell set the blueprint but there are two points to that, which I think disprove it.

1. The 'blueprint' had been talked about on ESB for years.

2. If Froch followed anyones blueprint, it was Taylor's, not Dirrell's. One of the reasons Froch won so convincingly, was he used strength and bullied Abraham. Dirrell didn't do that.

Am I anti-active American? The obvious answer is no because I don't make my mind up without seeing these guys. That said, there are a lot of active American fighters who I dislike but to say I'm "anti-present day American boxer" indicates I dislike them because they're American, which isn't true. If there was a modern Joe Frazier, Ike Williams or Harold Johnson, I would be a massive fan of them, without question. It's just that there is a massive difference between Frazier, Williams and Johnson, and then Eddie Chambers, Andre Dirrell and so on.

Did you just have a breakdown in between typing this post?

Absolutely not. Martinez isn't a pure boxer at all and it's funny uo should mention that, because I actually got into a debate a while ago, where I said that Martinez wasn't a pure boxer. He isn't and I say that as a fan of his. He's a good fighter but pure boxer? Not even close.

There's a big difference between guys like Pep and Whitaker who moved a lot and Dirrell and Martinez.

I don't though. I hate the way Dirrell fights but I don't hate the style. Like I said, the idea that Dirrell is a pure boxer is an insult to actual pure boxers throughout the history of the sport.

 

Froch. It's not even debatable.

 

Appreciate this fella! As good as analysis as any i heard.. Personally i think abraham post dirrell must have been asking himself questions and lower on self confidence..

I would like to think that froch had all the tools to do the number he did on AA regardless of what dirrell did before. As mentioned earlier by another poster - froch didn't counter AA, he was first to the punch, i also happen to believe he hit AA consistently harder and therefore hurt him more than Dirrell did. For me this alone means froch was always going to school AA.

 

Thanks brotha. I also think froch would have beat him either way but I feel there would have been much more drama with the confident AA. I don't know if froch would have been as confident either. I felt froch was genuinely very confident coming in while AA was silent. Froch knew what was gonna happen while AA was going on a hunch that he could catch froch.

Froch is a very smart fighter which makes up for the tools he lacks.

Here was my prefight prediction (analysis). Almost to a T minus the drama I expected from AA.
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=271001&page=3

 

Dirrell was putting on a master class, but AA was getting closer in the latter rounds, Dirrell then faked being KO'd by an illegal punch and did not finish the fight. Froch beat the crap out of AA and despite not knocking him down, AA was in more pain for sure. Dirrell's KD was sweet though.

I liked Dirrell, I thought he showed good skills vs Froch and AA, but in the Froch fight he held way too much and in the AA fight he just bailed. Froch EASY has the best win.

I hope fighters today aren't that weak that after the first defeat they lose all confidence, because that's what people in this forum suggest. But not really it's just stupidity from a ridiculously biased poster (bald head slick). When a fighter loses once you can't tell how he is, he could be more motivated than ever before now that he lost. I guarantee had AA won, everyone would be like OMG, AA's loss vs Dirrell was a miracle for him, he got the motivation he needed. Blah, blah, but since he lost, he was shot and had no motivation. Riiight.

 

12

 

I agree with your post besides the part about AA being the same. I don't know about you but I feel AA wasn't the same after the embarassing Dirrell fight. His hype was through the roof and he was believing it. Almost everyone was believing it. I feel all the shots he took against Dirrell really let him know what a natural SMW feels like. After the fight and in the recovery stages, I know he thought about it how it felt to take that many shots as well that he was powerless to do anything against a fresh, aggressive Dirrell. Knowing that he couldn't have done anything different put the dent in his mental armor. I say he knows he couldn't have did anything because after the fight, his excuse was I started slow which is BS when looking at why things happen from a stretegic standpoint.

We don't know how much of a change it was but I stand by my personal belief that AA was not the exact same fighter mentally

 

froch completely boxed abrahams head off

if the fight went on for another 12 rounds abraham wouldnt have won more than one or 2 rounds

if the dirrell abraham fight went on for 2 more rounds abraham had a good punchers chance

 

I give props to Carl Froch for actually winning the fight on the jab, but was it really that interesting to watch for any of you? I don't even remember AA landing a punch before the 12th, and pretty much the rest of the fight Froch's wide shots landed on the guard of AA while Abraham had nothing to come back with.

It wasn't quite as bad as the Green - Ward bout, but it's around that area of dominance over a fighter that has NOTHING to bring to the fight.

When Dirrell fought Abraham, there was much less running than you saw before (including Froch fight). He came out with the whole bag of tricks for Abraham. You saw straight rights, quite good body work, KD's, great counters, slips, etc, from Dirrell in that fight. AA also seemed to have a bit of fire still under his balls later in the fight.

Against Froch, AA just had nothing. What makes that more sad, is the fact that Froch's jab was the only real thing to get to AA. If Froch put him down or out when AA was obviously done, I wouldn't give Froch ****. But he sat back and continued to fight that boring ass fight.

It's just sad that Froch had the tools to really put on a show against AA, but he chose to simply continue jabbing all the way to the end. It always sucks when someone on a world stage level chooses to sit back and do nothing. Abraham and Green being the main ones in the Super 6 to do this work.

In the end, I think Dirrell showed a better ability with his boxing skills, counter punches, and defense. Froch did his boxing, but that is simply not what he does best. When he knew he could easily do what he wanted with AA, he should have brought the whole thing together then. Maybe I'm just pissed that Froch showed no intentions of fighting his style, especially after he should have known AA was done for.

 

There is an old saying in boxing that says: "Win this time. Look good next time" I read that Froch and McKracken actually had an argument in the corner at one point. Froch wanted to go for it, but McKracken told him to keep boxing and stay disciplined.

That sort of thing happens now and then. In Pavlik/Rubio after the 3rd Leow told KP "Stick to the plan" KP asked, "What if I get a chance to land something big?" Leow emphatically stated, "stick to the plan." KP rolled his eyes and looked at the floor, but went out and did what the corner told him to.

In other words, "Win this time. Look good next time." The ability to maintain that sort of discipline is one hallmark of a good fighter.

 

<i>There is an old saying in boxing that says: "Win this time. Look good next time" I read that Froch and McKracken actually had an argument in the corner at one point. Froch wanted to go for it, but McKracken told him to keep boxing and stay disciplined.

That sort of thing happens now and then. In Pavlik/Rubio after the 3rd Leow told KP "Stick to the plan" KP asked, "What if I get a chance to land something big?" Leow emphatically stated, "stick to the plan." KP rolled his eyes and looked at the floor, but went out and did what the corner told him to.

In other words, "Win this time. Look good next time." The ability to maintain that sort of discipline is one hallmark of a good fighter.</i>

I can understand what your saying, but in the case of Pavlik, he's pretty much had the same style throughout his career. Pavlick, coming up towards the championship, was simply much more aggressive in his style. But basically, Pavlick can do a good job with the 1-2's, but he has to mix in a few other punches like he used to. After Taylor, Pavlick lost something...

Froch is not a normal boxer, but a decent puncher when he's not running in and trying to trade recklessly. He did show good jabbing skills no doubt, and those jabs did look crisp and nice when they got through AA's guard. However, when he started throwing LIKE he should, he was simply hitting on the guard. If he can time and use an accurate jab, why not his other punches?

It seemed like Froch was trying too hard when he wanted to fight his fight, so he went back to the jab. I think if Froch really got close, and set off an inside battle, however, that he would have KO'd AA in at least the last 4 rounds. It just seemed like he was too insecure with his normal abilities, so he resorted to what Dirrell used (speed, long shots, range) to deal with AA.

The problem is that he really didn't need to do that for 12 damn rounds. AA has had his late winning streaks, and I'm sure the corner was afraid of that, but they should have really had Carl take his chances, or he should have done so himself. He would have looked like a SMW that could easily take on Ward. He didn't...

That said, I don't like Ward's style either. On top of having all his fights at home, that let him do that wrestling, headbutting, Hatton/Holyfield BS, Ward just doesn't look like he has the full set of skills needed, especially if he thinks he can take down Bute after the S6.

It might be a far fetch, but Glen Johnson looked better than Green than Ward did, and that's hard to argue about. Glen has looked past the ball in his latest LHW bouts, but it seems like that weight loss (and possibly being at the end of his career) did wonders for his confidence in the ring. If Carl Froch thinks he can beat Johnson with a jab, and hope for Johnson to look as meager as AA in the ring, he needs to think again.

It will be a good bout, unless Carl tries to stick with his jabbing confidence. I have no doubt a man with the age and ring generalship of Johnson can get past a damn jab. Carl Froch, is sadly, no Klitshcko. If he CAN beat Johnson with a jab, I will give Froch more credit for boxing knowledge than I give now.