There seems to be a whole load of controversy as to the result last night. On the umaronline.com twitter feed, me and my two colleagues scored the fight 117-111 to Dirrell due to his slick work and domination of the majority of the rounds. However, it seems like others have a different opinion. In the post fight reaction poll, I'm asking:

WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF FROCH V DIRRELL FOR YOU?
Vote now:
http://www.umaronline.com/2009/10/boxing-post-fight-reaction-froch-v.html

In the earlier poll, before the fight, 70% predicted Froch will win by stoppage with only 14% having it as a points win for the Cobra. Full results are here:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A3tEJ6CiSTc/StpfoZ_a7ZI/AAAAAAAAAlk/VRs2XZYhd4A/s1600-h/Froch+Poll+Results.jpg

Thanks! :boxing:

Hi all.

Well,once again we see the real froch,"not the one who mouths his way through a fight when interviewed",but the real one who has been exposed,"again" for what he is.

Froch is lazy,can only rely on punchers luck,has no class,but relys on a reasonable chin to absorb the punches,that is, until he fights Hessler,who will embarress him. He will be shown up to be what he actually is,a big mouth and just a club fighter.

Froch has no class what so ever and was extremly lucky to get the hometown decision.

it was a ****ing robbery, im british and there is no way that froch won that, not at all!

Hi all.

Well,once again we see the real froch,"not the one who mouths his way through a fight when interviewed",but the real one who has been exposed,"again" for what he is.

Froch is lazy,can only rely on punchers luck,has no class,but relys on a reasonable chin to absorb the punches,that is, until he fights Hessler,who will embarress him. He will be shown up to be what he actually is,a big mouth and just a club fighter.

Froch has no class what so ever and was extremly lucky to get the hometown decision.

All I have to say is watch the fight in its entirety again (in case you all were intoxicated the first time around) and count the number of clean blows landed by Dirrell and compare that to the minuscule amount landed by Froch. People want to say Dirrell held too much and ran...ok I give you that he did hold and used intelligent evasive tactics to avoid punches.

If we want to say that "running" is a means and reason for losing a fight, what about Cotto? What about Mayweather? What about Vitali? They all "run" in the ring straight to victories.

Where were the point deductions for Froch hitting behind the head and body slamming Dirrell onto the floor? I think that many would have changed their tune had the actual punch stats been shown because I can't see where Froch landed more than 15 solid punches the entire fight and Dirrell was outboxing him all night (clean, effective punching)

This WAS a robbery in my opinion and I don't know what fight the judges wee watching, I had Dirrell winning 7 clear rds and like 2 rds even, leaving Froch winning 3 rds......if you want to give him the other 2 rds then fine but to have him winning that fight is absurd to me.

My final advice for all who think that Froch won is to look at the expression on Froch's face when they announced him as the winner; he had a clear look of disbelief and did not even smile because even he expected to lose the fight based on his own performance.

Boxing is not about talent, it is about money and payoffs.

I think there is this misconception that boxing is like fighting. ITS NOT. The game is hit an dont be hit. Dirrell executed that well. This was almost like Mayweather- Baldomir or Mayweather-Corrales. Froch couldnt get anywhere near him and I cant remember him landing too much. Dirrell outboxed and outlanded him. There is no question Direll won. People say the Dirrell ran and whatever but all he is a pure boxer. Excellent footwork and counterpunching.

Only the idiots that think fighting is better than boxing think Froch won. Dirrell won by at least 3 rounds

EXACTLY hit and not be hit is the point of boxing and takes great skill...brawling doesn't take much skill because anyone can brawl (although some can better than others) I think its stupid when people say "he's a runner" etc especially when the so called runner is connecting with more punches...bit silly isn't it. Some people just want to see all out wars all the time and see both fighters bloody and hurt with extensive drama.

I enjoy that at times too but I prefer to see a classy performance by a classy operator stickin and bein evasive I love seein crisp accurate well thought out punches as opposed to swingin hooks and knockouts from punches where the fighter isn't even really looking at his target.

I think there is this misconception that boxing is like fighting. ITS NOT. The game is hit an dont be hit. Dirrell executed that well. This was almost like Mayweather- Baldomir or Mayweather-Corrales. Froch couldnt get anywhere near him and I cant remember him landing too much. Dirrell outboxed and outlanded him. There is no question Direll won. People say the Dirrell ran and whatever but all he is a pure boxer. Excellent footwork and counterpunching.

Only the idiots that think fighting is better than boxing think Froch won. Dirrell won by at least 3 rounds

Have to agree 100%. Hatton would never win by brawling with PBF, then how can Froch win when the slicker man Dirrell has employed the hit and move so well. He was robbed.

Dirrell had a knee touch the mat at least four times by my count. I'm not saying Froch or Dirrell won clean. What I am saying is let's save the nuthugging for a more worthy bout. Also, Dirrell needs to learn to work his way out of the corner, he was getting bullied here and there a bit.

I had Dirrell winning.

i had it 118-109 Froch.(seriously)

115-112 dirrell and thats being generous too the average froch

I had froch winning by two rounds after watching the fight again.

Dirrell did not fight in the spirit of boxing, was negative, didnt throw anything for long periods, was hurt by anything froch landed and was generally poor.

that dont win fights against a hometown undefeated champion.

How can you score the "spirit" of boxing? I haven't seen compubox numbers but it looked to me that he landed way more shots than Froch, he controlled the tempo of the fight, and his ring generalization was very good. Froch couldn't land good clean shots and didn't show any ring control until the last few rounds.

I don't know how to score spirit but if it's scored like this then there are a number of fighters that may as well retire, because technical boxing and skill seem to have nothing to do with this "spirit of boxing".

Dirrell won clearly and Froch was hitting air all night, And Froch had the cheek to try and call out Calzaghe! Please

There seems to be a whole load of controversy as to the result last night. On the umaronline.com twitter feed, me and my two colleagues scored the fight 117-111 to Dirrell due to his slick work and domination of the majority of the rounds. However, it seems like others have a different opinion. In the post fight reaction poll, I'm asking:



Thanks! :boxing:
The fight was not even close,Dirrel dominated Froch.

I had froch winning by two rounds after watching the fight again.

Dirrell did not fight in the spirit of boxing, was negative, didnt throw anything for long periods, was hurt by anything froch landed and was generally poor.

that dont win fights against a hometown undefeated champion.

the spirit of boxing?
haha that S*it right there is classic
keep making up rubbish too try and convince yourself
your boy got beat,end of

I thought Dirrell won it by 3 rounds while i scored the 10th round a draw as he lost the point but i thought he still won the round.

I gave it to Dirrell. The people in Europe are making sure they keep the titles there. There should have been 1 judge from USA.
Rematch!!!!!!!!!!!!

i gave to dirrell to by a large numbers of rounds . even with the point taken away from dirrell he still won by 9 rounds.

"that dont win fights against a hometown undefeated champion"

This qoute in itself tells me that you base your view of a boxing match on what the dip**** commentators say...

The sport is called "Boxing" not "Knockout"...If fights were judged by the way you view them, then there would be no need for a points system, because you are saying that the champion should only lose by a knockout...

I gave Dirrell the last 2 rounds and had him winning by 2 rounds.

It was closer than people here made it out to be. IMO.


I thought Dirrell did some good stuff but then would lose the round by running and clinching. Yet he landed the bigger, cleaner punches and made Froch miss all night.

i thought dirrell was the clear winner. not a great or dominating performance, but he definetely fought well enough to win. on the other hand, i wasnt surprised at all when the judges gave it to froch