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

[crold1]

Originally Posted by S. Saddler 1310

Dirrell wouldn't have beaten Ward back then and certainly won't now. Ward was and is just too much for him, possesses too deep a utility-belt and too great an advantage in the intangible areas.


btw, this was by no means a robbery.

here's my card. bear with me. for the sake of fairness, in addition to stating my score, i've tried to show the points where the fight was most open to interpretation.

minus the point deduction against Dirrell, i could be swayed to give either man the 10th, as each made a case for himself.
* denotes four other rounds that i felt were open to interpretation, but that i personally would not be inclined to score differently (an even split, at two a piece).

Round 1: 10-9 Froch
Round 2: 10-9 Dirrell
Round 3: 10-9 Dirrell *
Round 4: 10-9 Dirrell
Round 5: 10-9 Dirrell
Round 6: 10-9 Froch
Round 7: 10-9 Froch
Round 8: 10-9 Froch
Round 9: 10-9 Froch *
Round 10: 10-8 Froch or 9-9 even (point deducted from Dirrell)
Round 11: 10-9 Dirrell *
Round 12: 10-9 Froch *


if i give Froch the 10th: 115-112 Froch (115-113 Froch without the PD)

if i give Dirrell the 10th: 114-113 Froch (114-114 draw without the PD)

it's conceivable that someone could give Dirrell the 10th and score three out of those four marked rounds (3, 9, 11, 12) in his favour, awarding him a 114-113 win after the PD. but that would be generous to Dirrell.

upshot is, it was a close fight and not a robbery or even a gift.


points to note:

-Froch's jab. consistent and overlooked by those who cry 'robbery' over this fight.

-Froch's left hook counters. he touched Dirrell with these and scored more often than is given credit for by those who cry 'robbery' over this fight.

-Froch's professional work up close when in clinches.

-Dirrell's punching is praised for its supposedly consistent effectiveness by those who cry 'robbery' over this fight, but the number of wide and slappy shots thrown by Andre, that either cuffed or else ended up with his arm draped around Carl's neck, far exceeded the number of eye-catching, sharp, straight ones (of which there were some, of course, which i'll address next).

-Dirrell would too often land an eye-catching shot or two and then give away the rest of a round by just retreating and not fighting while Froch worked. Froch's work may have been scrappier and less easy on the eye than the best of Dirrell's stuff, but he would control the bulk of a round in which Dirrell might land a pretty punch or two. for too much of this fight, Dirrell refused to even try to establish himself as the ring-general, gave the ring-generalship battle away - his movement frequently had a panicked, desperate appearance and was often employed primarily for extended evasive action rather than for setting things up. Froch's defence is also overlooked in the fight. he was not being tagged at will the whole fight, as some like to pretend.

-round 10 is the only round i personally would be inclined to deliberate over in my scorecard above. i felt Froch controlled the most of the round, but you can make a case for Dirrell stealing it away on the back of the big left he landed near the end of it and the subsequent flurry. it's hard to say Froch was too badly shook, he was knocked off balance and backed up to the ropes as a result, but Dirrell's follow-up effort didn't produce any cleanly landed blows and Froch was composed the whole time. it was hardly a DLH-Quartey type of onslaught from Dirrell, but i can understand anyone giving him that round.

-i may not have deducted a point from Dirrell in the referee's position, but i can see why he did.

Really good post.

[megadeth]

Originally Posted by S. Saddler 1310

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.

I most certainly did and it's appreciated. We can agree to disagree, that's cool. Like I said I will go back and watch the fight again and try to be as objective as I can be.

[daggum]

sven ottke schools them both 114-113 114-113 114-114

[Own3d]

Originally Posted by Freedom.

Rawlings was rooting for Dirrell.

A Klitschko fan posting a video that is highlighting clinches as bad. LOL Wlad held 55 times in 3 rounds against Mormeck.

[Biolink]

Robbery getting thrown around loosely again.

The fight from what I remember was competitive through and through. I remember Dirrell figuring Froch out by the 2nd half, but I can't call it a robbery. Dirrell himself knows he is going into hostile territory, he is already gonna have to do THAT much extra to get a decision.

I remember Dirrell running around for no reason the 1st half, and the 2nd half he stood his ground and was nailing the shyt out of Froch. I'd definitely like to see a rematch of this one.

[thuggery]

Originally Posted by Freedom.

Rawlings was rooting for Dirrell.

Damn that's just absolutely pathetic on Dirrell's part. Sickening.

[TX_BOXNG]

i thought Dirrell won it but the fight sucked n neither deserve to win, especially Dirrell for holding, Froch is always in entertaining fights but Dirrell stunk this one

some fighters clinch n fight a dirty inside fight with holding, but Dirrell was just hugging him the whole night

but in no way was it a robbery