Wow. People still think Froch beat Andre Dirrell? I thought it was Consensus

I've watched it, you tool. I watched it with no agenda as i'm not a fan of either. The fact you've rewatched it numerous times when it was a pretty awful fight suggests that you are obviously a fan of one of the fighters (can't guess which) and most likely have quite an agenda on the subject. And again, i do think Dirrell won personally but it wasn't a robbery. A robbery is when a guy wins at least 7 or 8 rounds BIG and doesn't get the nod. That doesn't describe this fight.

 

I thought Dirrell won the fight. Luckily, he's in this tournament so he'll have an opportunity to make up for it. If Dirrell beats Abraham(I think Abraham wins by stoppage), and Ward, he'll be considered by many to be the top man in the division.

 

Other than ineffective aggression by Froch there is nothing that he had done to deserve a win!!!

1.Dirrell landed the cleaner shots
2.Dirrell hurt Froch
3.Dirrell out boxed Froch
4.Dirrell made Froch miss all night
5.Dirrell never used "dirty" tatics
6.Dirrell was never hurt

Let you or anyone debate me on those 6 points and I guarantee I prove you wrong!!!

I ask you to prove me wrong on any of those points and I'll shut my mouth!!!!!!

 

I scored it for Dirrell.

 

Sad part is if Dirrell actually DID trade with Froch he probably would have knocked him out or at least down.

 

Well, clearly there is no point debating with you on this. You enjoy rewatching this ugly fight over and over again and getting yourself angrier that the fighter you were supporting didn't win, i'll enjoy watching decent fights instead.

 

I had Dirrell by a round on a close, ugly fight. Plenty of press guys had it for Froch and, I believe, so did Tarver. It was a close fight that Dirrell threw away by looking like he didn't want to fight.

He waited till the final third before he actually tried to fight and looked great doing so. But he allowed Froch to dictate the pace and manner of the bout. Instead of complaining about the fouls - go and do something about it.

 

6 rounds a piece can't be assed to dig up my scorecard but i've already posted it

Anyone who thinks Froch didn't win more than 4 rounds can't score for ****.

 

refer to the 2nd part of my post.

 

I don't really know how you don't give each fighter at least 5, 6, or may'be even 7 rounds. Watch those first five rounds, those are all swing rounds and could have gone either way. Froch clearly won rounds 6 and 7 (I think, not exactly sure which rounds, but there were a couple of rounds in the middle that were clear Froch rounds) rounds 9, 10, and 11 were clear Dirrell rounds (Again not exactly sure of the rounds, but towards the end there were about 2 or 3 clear Dirrell rounds) and Froch took the 12th. Even Dirrell admited that. It was a close fight either way, there was no robbery people, but people think Dirrell beat up Froch just because he looked good towards the end and landed the "big" punch of the fight.