Enough with the Bullshit - Froch vs Dirrell was not a Robbery

One of the most important things I wanted in this tournament was good sportsmanship, competitive fights and good judging. We missed out on one of the three this weekend. Hell, I wanted good, fair refereeing as well, and it was obvious we didnt get that either. Hometown decisions? Bull fvcking shit.

One of the most important things I wanted in this tournament was good sportsmanship, competitive fights and good judging. We missed out on one of the three this weekend.

Wow, that bad? Maybe I need to watch the fight again and score it. PS - Akindwande didn't score a knockdown but he did drop Lewis to a knee with a right. Wasn't called and didn't matter. He was horrible. That was one of the worst fights I have ever witnessed, thats why I could not say one way or the other I watched it live and really did not need to watch it since. I watched this fight 4 times I could not find 5 rounds to give Froch and four is being pretty generous (I can make a case for Berto, Jaurez and Diaz and people screamed to high heaven about those fights, this fight was on another level then those because atleast those guys had moments but Dirrell messed up leaving to much up to the judges in another fighters hometown, it was not really suprising in the end).

It was the worst decision of the year in a big fight, Froch did jack shit. I know Dirrell made the fight a lot closer then it needed to be, but Froch did nothing to win the fight. Most of the time I can see the other side but in this one Froch did zero so even if Dirrell only did .5 it was much greater then what Froch accomplished. I have yet to see anyone make a decent case for Froch that is not based on what Dirrell did or did not do, to win though Froch has to actually do something. I asked you that because I have yet to get an answer to that. You know more then most of the people saying it was close so I figured I would ask. I do not recall Akinwande knocking Lewis down but when teh fight went down for him he did 0 except hold, Dirrell was always landing punches with teh holding which is a lot more then I can say for Froch atleast when it comes to legal blows. Wow, that bad? Maybe I need to watch the fight again and score it. PS - Akindwande didn't score a knockdown but he did drop Lewis to a knee with a right. Wasn't called and didn't matter. He was horrible.

2 judges had Lewis up 40-35 through four rounds and the great Dalby Shirley had it 38-37.

I think the fight stunk, I think Dirrell was a big part of the reason why the fight stunk, and I agree it was a hard choice to pick a decisive winner. But after watching and rewatching the fight, I just have the hardest time giving the win to a guy who did literally NOTHING the whole fight. Like Gambler said, Froch did jack shit. He plodded around the ring, doing his best imitation of Roy Jones Jr. on drank (i.e. slow as a sloth), and even got staggered by supposedly light-fisted Dirrell in the late rounds. I just do not see how this 'champion' retains his title by doing nothing for 12 rounds.

Hell yeah he did, he knocked Lewis down - you forgot?:lol1: Anyway, while it may have been a hometown decision, it wasn't outrageous. I could see why hometown might be swayed on certain rounds when the challenger is acting like he wants the champ to breastfeed him. I didn't score the fight but thought Dirrell was ahead - he built an early lead and closed somewhat strong. But there were plenty of close rounds, I'm pretty sure most went the champ's way. I don't know, I guess I don't think that's terrible. It was the worst decision of the year in a big fight, Froch did jack shit. I know Dirrell made the fight a lot closer then it needed to be, but Froch did nothing to win the fight. Most of the time I can see the other side but in this one Froch did zero so even if Dirrell only did .5 it was much greater then what Froch accomplished. I have yet to see anyone make a decent case for Froch that is not based on what Dirrell did or did not do, to win though Froch has to actually do something. I asked you that because I have yet to get an answer to that. You know more then most of the people saying it was close so I figured I would ask. I do not recall Akinwande knocking Lewis down but when teh fight went down for him he did 0 except hold, Dirrell was always landing punches with teh holding which is a lot more then I can say for Froch atleast when it comes to legal blows.

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. Hell yeah he did, he knocked Lewis down - you forgot?:lol1: Anyway, while it may have been a hometown decision, it wasn't outrageous. I could see why hometown might be swayed on certain rounds when the challenger is acting like he wants the champ to breastfeed him. I didn't score the fight but thought Dirrell was ahead - he built an early lead and closed somewhat strong. But there were plenty of close rounds, I'm pretty sure most went the champ's way. I don't know, I guess I don't think that's terrible.

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. http://media.thenewstribune.com/smedia/2009/10/17/23/53-Britain_Boxing_Froch_Dirrell.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.5.jpg

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. :scared::scared::scared:

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?

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.

Your argument would have merit... BUT FROCH DIDN'T THROW OR LAND EARLY IN THE FIGHT EITHER. 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.

It's only a robbery when your favourite fighter loses. I bet you any money half of these bitches crying about Dirrell losing were also trying to defend Diaz's win over Paulie. :?!: Lol @ Dirrell being my favorite fighter somehow.