Enough with the Bull**** - Froch vs Dirrell was not a Robbery

[Pullcounter]

Your argument would have merit if you weren't arguing in hyperbole. You can certainly argue that Froch didn't land much either, but he certainly landed more, although the majority were light jabs. He was also aggressive while Dirrell was passive. Those rounds made it a close fight.

what? froch didn't land more punches.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Your argument would have merit...

BUT FROCH DIDN'T THROW OR LAND EARLY IN THE FIGHT EITHER.

Wonder where that blood on Dirrell's face came from?

[daggum]

Your argument would have merit if you weren't arguing in hyperbole. You can certainly argue that Froch didn't land much either, but he certainly landed more, although the majority were light jabs. He was also aggressive while Dirrell was passive. Those rounds made it a close fight.

[P4P Opinion]

even the horribly biased primetime british crew had dirrell winning.

What is your point? As you have clearly missed mine, here it is again in summary:

Froch vs Dirrell was a close fight, with many difficult rounds to score which could have been justifiably given to either fighter by a small margin. In these close rounds Froch was the aggressor and landed more punches, albeit not many, while Dirrell backed off and flicked out an occasional jab. In the final rounds of the fight Dirrell dominated and had he fought in such a manner earlier he would have won comfortably. As this was not the case, the scorecards had to be close.

I am only arguing that it was close and therefore not a robbery, not that Froch definately won.

[daggum]

Wonder where that blood on Dirrell's face came from?

froch's blood splattering on dirrel's face as he pounded him over and over.

[IMDAZED]

I'm saying that if Dirrell had not clinched, Froch wouldn't have done that. I'm not the biggest Froch fan on this site. But I can't have any sympathy for a guy who did more running and clinching than fighting. When you do that, it is called non-fighting.

I agree although I don't think Dirrell ran. I'm surprised to hear that on these boards. I thought he boxed well and had good movement. I also thought he looked terrible on the inside and held more than Henry Akinwande in the latter rounds. Sure Dirrell could have gotten the decision but it's not some grave injustice. I think the nationalistic hysteria on these boards is getting ridiculous.

[daggum]

What is your point? As you have clearly missed mine, here it is again in summary:

Froch vs Dirrell was a close fight, with many difficult rounds to score which could have been justifiably given to either fighter by a small margin. In these close rounds Froch was the aggressor and landed more punches, albeit not many, while Dirrell backed off and flicked out an occasional jab. In the final rounds of the fight Dirrell dominated and had he fought in such a manner earlier he would have won comfortably. As this was not the case, the scorecards had to be close.

I am only arguing that it was close and therefore not a robbery, not that Froch definately won.

point is the british tv are severely biased and will give the fight to the british fighter if it is even remotely close. they had it for dirrell. any more questions?

[P4P Opinion]

point is the british tv are severely biased and will give the fight to the british fight if it is even remotely close. they had it for dirrell. any more questions?

So therefore Dirrell definately won? *Fail noise*

Your argument requires me to accept it as a fact that British TV are inherantly biased towards British fighters in the manner they score points, something I refute based on the BBC score for the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight - they had Hopkins winning. Now forgetting that I disagree on this important part of your argument, you also require me to make the (frankly illogical) jump that because British broadcasters are biased and that because in this instance they scored against a British fighter Dirrell has to have won the fight.

All of which is besides the point of discussion. I'm not arguing against Dirrell winning, although I personally believe he didn't win, I'm arguing that it was a close fight and therefore not a robbery.

[The Gambler1981]

I agree although I don't think Dirrell ran. I'm surprised to hear that on these boards. I thought he boxed well and had good movement. I also thought he looked terrible on the inside and held more than Henry Akinwande in the latter rounds. Sure Dirrell could have gotten the decision but it's not some grave injustice. I think the nationalistic hysteria on these boards is getting ridiculous.

That is terrible, Henry Akinwande did not throw a meaningful punch in that fight, Dirrell was holding but he was still landing punches on the outside.

It was a hometown decision, could have been in any country but what did Froch do to win the fight, make a case for him doing enough to win seven rounds because to me I do not think you can make a valid case for him to win five based on clean effective punching.

[mathed]

Now, it's justifiable to say that Dirrell won by up to two rounds, but to call a fight that was that scrappy a robbery is just plain melodramatic. I gave it to Froch by a round personally. In my opinion Dirrell could have won the fight if he'd been more active in the earlier rounds. Froch couldn't handle his speed, but Dirrell only took advantage of it seriously later in the fight. Dirrell left the early rounds very close and with close rounds judges will often (rightly or wrongly) give the round to the aggressor and everyone knows it. He has no excuses. His attitude was so negative for a lot of the fight and his holding was excessive. Not that I'm really praising Froch, who had little success with anything other than the jab, which he periodically abandoned with frustration. Froch was aggressive though and landed some decent shots on the inside that the Showtime crew in particular didn't give any credit for. Against a more active fighter Froch would have lost. Dirrell showed some devastating accuracy in the later rounds and boxed Froch to pieces at times, just a shame he didn't do it earlier.

The term robbery should be reserved for fights in which decisions are beyond even reasonable doubt. This was not a robbery, it was at worst a bad decision if you gave it to Dirrell.