Who do you think won that fight, Froch or Dirrell?

Very difficult fight to score, depending on how an individual scores fights will depend on who you thought won .. For me it could of gone either way, Dirrell possibly should have got it if you score for clean punching and more fluid boxing, Froch could have got it for pushing the fight and being the aggressor much like Calzaghe did against Hopkins .. Calzaghe didnt land anything clean that night against Hopkins but was awarded it for coming forward .. It was close but by no means a robbery, if you want to see true robberies, check out these fights,

De La Hoya v Sturm
Whitaker v Chavez

And the mother of all robberies

Carlos Zarate v Lupe Pintor

 

I'm not saying Froch deserved to win, but Dirrell sure as hell didn't either. I appreciate his tactics were defensively minded, but from what I can remember, there were at least 5 rounds in which neither fighter did anything.

I just feel that in rounds like that, the scoring has to be in favour of the agressor.

 

Dirrell ran/held/fell on the floor whenever Froch got within 5 feet of him. He fought like a man trying to go the distance not a man trying to win.

 

It wasn't particularly exciting, but I was addressing your point about, seemingly, being entitled to a Gatti v Ward style slugfest. Just because you feel patronised (which says more about you than it does about me) doesn't mean I'm on my "high horse". Froch showed a complete lack of technique last night and then came out with a load of condescending crap about his WBC title. That, my friend, is just as bad for the sport we love.

 

There has to be a balance between offense and defense and Dirrell got that balance wrong last night, maybe he was worried about Froch's power but at the end of the day your in there to fight and he didnt throw enough to win. I can see Dirrells fight with Abraham being exactly the same, as good as Abraham is - you can't hit the guy when he's running to the other side of the ring all the time.... But guess what! Abraham will win simply because he will have been the the more aggressive fighter.

 

I agree. This fight was part of the Super Six tournament yet Dirrell seems to have been penalised for not convincingly taking the WBC belt from Froch. Are we to assume he would have got the win if there was no belt at stake?

Although I had Dirrell beating Froch by a couple of points, I do understand the opinion that it might not have been enough to take a title. However, what about Froch's part in this? He moaned a lot after the fight about Dirrell's tactics, but surely it was Froch's job as champ to impose his authority over the relatively inexperienced challenger?

Froch may have been trying to push the fight, but he rarely pinned Dirrell down, and even when did he didn't do too much damage. Dirrell, on the other hand, seemed to hurt Froch once or twice.

Froch can redeem himself in the tournament, but he has to improve, and I'm not sure he can.....

 

I agree. He did himself no favours at all, running, holding and moaning are unlikely to win you a world title fight. A lot of people saying he won. For much of the fight he looked plain scared.

 

Really close, I could have seen it go either way. Personally I was thinking Dirrell was edging it when I was watching it, but he didn't do enough to have guaranteed the win, and his negative approach went against him.

 

well come on man he pops a jab and ran and clinched. froch forced the fight. dirrell should of got another point deducted the holding was awful. he wasnt effective just looked more flashy. which isnt what you win a match for. the argument some fans are saying is that "froch was missing wildly"...do you lose rounds for missing punches? if dirrell was on the front foot swinging like that. it would of gone too dirrell.

i understand why dirrell should complain he did the better work and looked better. but he has no grounds to complain becuase he didnt force the fight and was coaxing the rounds. only the last 2 rounds and the round which he lost a point he won clearly yet there were 3 rounds that froch clearly won aswell in the middle rounds. the other 6 were dud rounds which went either way, which is why i would rule a draw.

dirrell looked better but didnt win which is why it's a split decision.

 

I had it 114-113 Dirrell

 

From a very good seat in the house, I had it 114-113 to Froch.

Six each, with the point deduction (entirely justified) sealing it. That said, I wouldn't have any objections to someone scoring it for Dirrell.

It seemed that Dirrell was looking to keep a distance from Froch at all times, not quite 'running' but nearly as good as, whilst taking the jab away effectively at times. Carl didn't stick to any kind of gameplan, there were no backhand leads, just telegraphed bombs that could be evaded easily.

I wouldn't say Froch WON the fight..... Dirrell LOST it.

Everyone close to me in the arena had Froch winning handily, I said to the guy next to me when the 12th round started that Froch would need that round, and when the bell went I wasn't surprised to hear Jimmy Lennon jr calling a split decision.

Seems everyone scores on aggression these days.

 

I had it 114-113 to Froch but really looking back at the 11th or 12th I could have scored a round for Dirrell and easily had it 114-114. From the 6th round on I think Dirrell could have only won two rounds the the 10th, and the 11th possibly which I didn't score for Dirrell at the time. If judges scored the 10th 10-8 for Carl, you can see where the 115-113 came from on my card.

Dirrell wasn't as easy and Froch thought, he certainly was no Jeff Lacy in there.

 

It wasn't a hometown robbery, I had Froch winning by one round, the ref should have warned Dirrell before taking a point away though.... but Froch is the champion and you know what you have to do to beat the champion and Dirrell didn't do it did he? half the time he was holding on for dear life! spoiling your way to victory ain't the way to beat the champ in hios backyard.... not that it was a hometown decision.

glad the brit forum is honest and inbias as usual though.

 

I can easily see how the fight could have been scored a draw or favoured either fighter. People who think boxing scoring isn't subjective are naive. It always has been and always will be, hence the reason for three judges and the frequent wide variation in fight scores. Since this fight was in Frochs hometown and he is the reigning champion it was foolish of Dirrell to think he could nick it by fighting so negatively. I genuinely suspect a lot of those who favored Dirrell expected Froch to come out swinging wildly and allow himself to get stupidly countered. He didn't. Froch fought a smart fight with improved defence, arguably landed the more effective punches in the fight and retained his title. Who won the fight is open for debate, but there was no robbery.

 

I'm getting a little sick of this whole "didn't do enough to take his title" thing. So is the inference that, you would have scored the fight differently had there not been an alphabet strap on the line?