Just rewatched the fight? - post scorecards here

R1 Froch R2 Dirrell R3 Froch R4 Dirrell R5 Froch R6 Froch R7 Dirrell R8 Froch R9 Froch R10 Even 9-9 R11 Dirrell R12 Dirrell 114 - 113 Froch. However a draw, or a one point win for Dirrell could be argued. I was in the arena with a good view last night, so I have experienced this fight from two perspectives. One thing that was apparent straight away, was Showtimes biased commentary. Froch landed quite a lot of jabs and inside punches that were ignored and not commented on. On top of this when Dirrell landed they were making a big deal out of soft jabs that barely knocked Froch's head back. Also Froch landed quite a few counter shots in exchanges that went unnoticed, while Dirrells were exuberantly praised. There were a lot of close and hard fought rounds in this fight, and a few could have gone either way, but I still don't think Dirrell warranted the decision. He spoiled all night because he didn't want to get caught up in the exchanges. Froch had Dirrell on the back foot for 10 out of 12 rounds, and landed enough of his own punches, and worked enough on the inside to win the fight. I don't see Froch's win as a controversial decision. Two of the judges score cards were definitely a little wide, but the correct fighter won.

Comments (20)

mrthraz

I've watched the fight 3 times on t.v, and live from the arena. I'm in a pretty good position to judge. Neither fighter hardly landed a thing, however Dirrell had 3 great rounds which I scored all for him. The rest of the rounds were close, with Froch being the aggressor and roughing up Dirrell on the inside, and landing some big shots like the big right in the third which had Dirrell falling against the ropes, and a great left hand in the tenth. His jab was just as effective as Dirrells for most of the fight, and a lot of his effective punches in exchanges went unannounced by the bias Showtime commentary. Extremely close fight. I accept that Dirrell could have won by a round or maybe two, just as Froch did. But I wont accept blatantly false and wide scores in favour of Dirrell. your blind

16y ago

Mushashi

115-113 Froch. I scored round 6 and round 10 even (9-9). If it wasn't for the point deduction I'd have the fight closer. It was a close fight either way. In the middle of the fight Froch's aggression won him his rounds because Dirrell wasn't willing to engage his punches. If Dirrell had stood his ground and chose to brawl with Froch like he did in the 10th and 11th, he could have won this fight.

16y ago

cortdawg25

Pepperred? What a joke, Dirrell barely threw any punches. Diller was more worried about Froch hitting him than him hitting Froch and that's why he lost the fight. If you can see that then you are dumber than I thought you were. what is you on? Dirrell outlanded him, hurt him, and landed cleaner. Off the 4 criteria of Effective Aggression, Clean punching, ring generalship, and defense....which of those areas did Froch do better than Dirrell in?

16y ago

cortdawg25

I rewatched the Floyd/Corrales fight. And it was basically this fight with season vets and some knockdowns. Giving froch that win is like what it would have been like if they gave that fight to Corrales. U can't come forward and land nothing and claim u were effective!

16y ago

BMWM3P

Lmao, let me guess, you scored for coming forward and getting peppered in the face. Boxing is about punches it isn't a tough guy contest. Pepperred? What a joke, Dirrell barely threw any punches. Diller was more worried about Froch hitting him than him hitting Froch and that's why he lost the fight. If you can see that then you are dumber than I thought you were.

16y ago

El_Cholo5954

Who cares. If you lose a point you can only get a max of nine. Did the judges really give him ten points? yeah it was a shutout

16y ago

Dynamite_Kid

Judging a fight is very subjective, and every fighter knows that you have to not only land punches, but look like you're in control of the pace and type of action. It's called ring generalship. And I'm not saying that you can't win simply by landing more punches than the other guy, all I'm saying is that you just can't depend on the judges giving you a decision when that's all you've done. Again, I had Dirrell a winner on my card, but I just can't call this a robbery because the judges didn't. He gave them too many reasons for them to slide rounds to Froch, and it showed on the cards. Well judges are instructed to score under 4 specific criteria aren't they? and ineffective aggressiveness, forcing the fight is not one of them. Dictating the tempo of a fight imo is having the other guy fighting your fight and there is no question in my mind that Dirrell had Froch fighting his fight, much like how Malignaggi dictated the pace of the Diaz fight. If anyne got ring generaled it was Froch, surely? Dirrell threw when he!!! wanted to throw for the most part, he controlled the tempo for the most part to.

16y ago

Stickman

16y ago

Dynamite_Kid

To be fair judges should not have to sympathize with you, if you have been scoring the better shots round by rounds and that is how they have scored it " the correct way" then it should not make any difference how you achieved it, when they have tallied up their scorecard it should read Dirrell. Clottey looked to me like he won the rounds he won bigger than Cotto and that he deserved to win the fight, but he does not auto get the fight in his favour because the impression he left on me made me think he deserved to win, there is a scorecard and what ever that scorecard reads when its tallied up is who wins the fight. It does make me laugh that people want to give Froch subliminal points for walking foward :lol1: but they dont want to give Dirrell points he has earned by scoring punches. If he did as much moving and not enough sticking he would not of outlanded Froch would he?

16y ago

Stickman

That's pretty much the way I saw it. Dirrell could have been more aggressive, but still, I thought he won clearly. When you fight scared for 12 rounds, you can't expect judges to be sympathetic. I had Dirrell ahead as well, but I can easily see why he wasn't given the nod here, and in fact I expected it before they announced the decision. And Andre did fight a scared, nervous fight. He had multiple opportunities in every round to press the action and only took advantage of a few. He spent much of his time with his head below his waist, just plain running, or tying up, to avoid getting hit, rather than using his own offense as part of his defensive game. The fight was his to win, and he could've done so in dramatic fashion. He had huge advantages in speed, skill and talent, and just refused to put them to good use. He even had Froch pretty buzzed at one point, but failed to capatalize on his advantages. NO judge is going to look favorably on this type of fighter, as I'm sure Dirrell knew even while he was doing it. I'm disappointed as hell in Andre, and I hope he's learned his lesson from this shameful performance.

16y ago

Shadows

I've seen 9-9 rounds given by Harold Lederman. He did it for the 12th round of Barrera-Hamed, and again for one of the rounds of Mayweather-Castillo I. Just sayin'.

16y ago

dans

in simple terms: Calzaghe kicked his arse. Who cares. If you lose a point you can only get a max of nine. Did the judges really give him ten points?

16y ago

El_Cholo5954

How is that possible? in simple terms: Calzaghe kicked his arse.

16y ago

dans

Calzaghe had a point deducted against Lacy and still won the round 10-9 How is that possible?

16y ago

dans

I had it 115-113, but there was a few swing rounds that I gave to Dirrell for clean effective punching. I only gave Froch 6,7, 8 and then I had two rounds even including the round where Dirrell got a point deducted. You can't honestly say that Froch deserved that round, as he got blasted numerous times and was clearly hurt.

16y ago

Rosseboi

You can't have a 9 - 9 round. One fighter has to have a 10. Ha Ha Ha!Mate did you watch the fight? That was a 9-9 rounds trust me. You may not be able to give a 9-9 round but when the ref does 'things' you get a 9-9 round..... (dude watch the fight next time :S)

16y ago

El_Cholo5954

not if a point is taken away...... then, a even round would be 9-9, not 10-10 Calzaghe had a point deducted against Lacy and still won the round 10-9

16y ago

slimshandy69

good post timbra i had it 3 rounds to froch...at best you could argue for a draw but dirrell just dodnt throw puches,look at my sig, froch was lanbding that jab all night.. I think the americans are slowly calming down, putting away there burgers and realising froch is a hall of famer in the making..

16y ago

BetterCallSaul

watch the fight again and say that. I've watched the fight 3 times on t.v, and live from the arena. I'm in a pretty good position to judge. Neither fighter hardly landed a thing, however Dirrell had 3 great rounds which I scored all for him. The rest of the rounds were close, with Froch being the aggressor and roughing up Dirrell on the inside, and landing some big shots like the big right in the third which had Dirrell falling against the ropes, and a great left hand in the tenth. His jab was just as effective as Dirrells for most of the fight, and a lot of his effective punches in exchanges went unannounced by the bias Showtime commentary. Extremely close fight. I accept that Dirrell could have won by a round or maybe two, just as Froch did. But I wont accept blatantly false and wide scores in favour of Dirrell.

16y ago

mrthraz

watch the fight again and say that.

16y ago