VIDEO: Andre Direll vs. Carl Froch, THE ROBBERY.

[megadeth]

Tom you maybe, to most boxing fans it was not. You're just gonna have to deal with it mate.

Keep telling yourself that, you may learn to truly believe it. This was not a close fight. Anyone that couldn't see that Froch clearly lost that fight should give up watching boxing.

[S. Saddler 1310]

Keep telling yourself that, you may learn to truly believe it. This was not a close fight. Anyone that couldn't see that Froch clearly lost that fight should give up watching boxing.

i congratulate you on a most detailed and articulate argument, sir.

[thuggery]

Keep telling yourself that, you may learn to truly believe it. This was not a close fight. Anyone that couldn't see that Froch clearly lost that fight should give up watching boxing.

You're the type of person that believes Bradley beat Pac, you're useless.

[S. Saddler 1310]

You're the type of person that believes Bradley beat Pac, you're useless.

the consensus is not always balanced or rightheaded, sadly. for me, the problem with his posts is not that he thinks Dirrell beat Froch (or that he may think Bradley beat Pacquiao), but more that he doesn't back up his conviction with a detailed argument. but that's true of many on both sides of any debate here, ofc.

[juandabomb]

that ref sucks, he has always been shady. all the behind the head shots and no real warnings or point deductions.....shenanigans ..i had dirrell winning by 2 points even with the point deduction. oh well

[teddycanyon]

IMO Dirrell should have won. CompuBox didn't track this fight so there are no punch totals available online, but it's pretty clear Dirrell probably landed more and landed at a way higher percentage. He even hurt Froch once in the 10th or 11th round, whereas Dirrell was never really caught with anything big. You can make an argument that Froch was trying to make the fight by coming forward and Dirrell was on his bicycle nearly the entire fight. But that's why they call it effective aggression—and it certainly wasn't very effective. I think this fight was somewhere in the vicinity of an 8 rounds to 4 victory for Dirrell, who in my eyes should be undefeated right now. I think if they fought again given Froch's technical improvements and Dirrell's rust and shell-shocked style post-Abraham, Froch would decision or even KO Dirrell.

[S. Saddler 1310]

CompuBox didn't track this fight so there are no punch totals available online

thank goodness. meaningful boxing discussion is no place for CompuBox.

He even hurt Froch once in the 10th or 11th round, whereas Dirrell was never really caught with anything big.

ooh, not true. Dirrell was hit with an arcing hook that was big enough to shake him up and force him to hold on tight near the end of the 8th, right off the top of my head.

But that's why they call it effective aggression—and it certainly wasn't very effective.

Dirrell wasn't consistently effective enough in counter-aggression, and he was woefully inadequate in the ring generalship battle - evacuate, evacuate, evacuate was the prevailing theme, movement employed with the primary aim of escape, rather than of setting things up, in most instances.

if you missed Froch's work, granted it didn't look spectacular for the most part, blood and swelling on the face of Dirrell was evidence of it.


i agree that Froch could have an easier night with Dirrell at this point in time.

[megadeth]

the consensus is not always balanced or rightheaded, sadly. for me, the problem with his posts is not that he thinks Dirrell beat Froch (or that he may think Bradley beat Pacquiao), but more that he doesn't back up his conviction with a detailed argument. but that's true of many on both sides of any debate here, ofc.

Seeing that my comments were done from a phone, which is very tedious and a pain in the ass to post from, I didn't elaborate.

I don't think there is much elaboration needed though, to tell you the truth. Just because you don't like how someone fought during the fight, or the fact the did more boxing and holding rather than "fight like a warrior" toe to toe slugging, doesn't mean that they should lose a fight. That has sadly has been the what most arguments against Dirrell getting the nod in this fight have been. It's not about whether he won more rounds or not, landed more, ring genernalship or anything like that. Most arguments have been "he ran and held, he didn't fight like he deserved to win", forgetting the fact that he made Froch look like a complete amatuer at times and that much of Froch's aggression was less than effective. It's been a long time since I watched this fight, so to give a detailed argument as to why would be less than accurate. I will watch it again tonight and comment again, but what I remember from watching the fight is that it was a robbery.

[S. Saddler 1310]

Seeing that my comments were done from a phone, which is very tedious and a pain in the ass to post from, I didn't elaborate.

fair enough, i dig that.

i'd hope you found more of merit in the argument i made than you did in others' arguments, even if you didn't ultimately agree.

[crold1]

I had Froch up a point at the end based on that terrible deduction in the 11th. otherwise a draw. The rounds Dirrell won, he looked really good which I think colors how BAD he looked in other rounds where he let Froch outhustle him. He didn't have a complete performance in him that night. Of the two, Froch has gone on to continue to improve. Dirrell just stalled out. We'll see if that changes in 2013.