Of this video, make of it you want. I call him running, others call it Froch Missing

I'm not really making any huge claims for Froch's performance, but he did more than most of the Dirrell boosters are crediting him with. His jab was fairly constant and it did touch Dirrell. I agree. Dirrell suffered a bloody nose just from a damn jab :lol1: :poke:

such a biased highlight..****ing hater

Damn that fight looks booooring. I'm not that upset I didnt get to see it.

LOL @ Froch's girl. Telling it like it is. yeah, real classy...all men should strive to have shrill voiced shrews as their ladies...

LOL @ Froch's girl. Telling it like it is.

God, I'm glad he didn't win this fight because landing 1-2 clean shots a round while clinching, ducking and back peddling to try and steal points is something of a joke. You don't see someone like Cotto going in landing one good shot and then running around the ring trying to secure the round, I didn't like it, the fans didn't like it, the judges didn't like it. Carl Froch didn't land more effective punches because hmm... maybe because he couldn't because he was being clinched to death, I thought someone of Dirrells calibre would overwhelm someone limited like Froch but Froch did well considering he was facing someone who's motive was land an effective shot and then run and clinch the other 2:30 of the round. I love the comments by Rachael "He's running like a ******", pretty much sums it up I didnt like it, but i still thought he won.

Frochs jab alone won him the early rounds. How the phuk do you think Dirrell got a bloody nose? Froch also won in the rough house tactics dept. You add the point deduction into the equation and you have Dirrell maybe wining one or two of the later rounds? That is a big maybe too. That had nothing to do with my post. Why not make a video showing us the scoring punches landed by each fighter? When a man has to literally RUN after you to hit you, that is no longer boxing. Carl Froch had to RUN and jump to land a punch and it landed but Carl had to run to catch him. This means the other fighter was running backwards. He was not moving, he was RUNNING, that is a big difference. He ran after Dirrell after he got caught with a good clean punch. Dirrell wanted to win by using his speed, movement and countering. And thats what he did. Froch wanted an opponent to stay right in front of him, and thats not how boxing works. It just wasn't enough to win a title belt. Beat the champ and you can go home with your head held high. Run and run and run and you might not get the decision. Sorry :( A title being at stake has nothing to do with it. Every boxing match should be scored in the same way, round by round. Dirrell, like Floyd, wants to hit and not be hit. Winning is all that matters. The notion that a boxer has to stand toe to toe with an opponent to feel proud of a win is nonsense. Look at Ali, Whitaker, Pep etc, yes they threw much more than Dirrell, but they still wanted to hit and not be hit. Had it not been for Froch, there would be no fight. What if Froch would have ran all night? LMAO! Froch should have just stayed in a corner and just watch Dirrell run all night U cant really believe that? Dirrell ran because of Froch's bad attempts at pressure. If Froch had moved and fought defensively Dirrell would have been forced to come forward, and use his speed. Its a shame Froch didnt try that. He looked very one dimensional and had no idea how to fight Dirrells style.

Dirrell not only landed more punches, but landed the harder punches. This was too blatant of a robbery for me. It wasn't a masterpiece by Dirrell, but he did way more than Froch. Those judges that scored it for Froch gave Froch a 6 pt swing. that's a robbery!

Had it not been for Froch, there would be no fight. What if Froch would have ran all night? LMAO! Froch should have just stayed in a corner and just watch Dirrell run all night or he could have cut the ring off and show some skill. U say dirrell ran all night. Well he hit and outlanded Froch all night and ran. That guy is multi-talented to run all night and outland your opponent.

that's the point right there. Opposing your will and making them fight your fight. Dirrell fought his fight and landed more clean punches and just was plain more effective. Froch was unable to do anything and in 1/2 of those photos, he really misses. He couldn't cut off the ring, didn't utilize his jab enough and got beat to the punch in every exchange. i'm all for taking the belt from the champ, but the champ just can't show up expects to remain champion. he gots to be productive and effective....and that night Dirrell was more productive and effective. rabbit punches are illegal and it seemed like most of Froch shots came from rabbit punches, holding and hitting. Now granted Dirrell did most of the holding, but u can't take a pt from him for holding when he wasn't holding. That ref sucked and those judges too and so did Froch that night. Had it not been for Froch, there would be no fight. What if Froch would have ran all night? LMAO! Froch should have just stayed in a corner and just watch Dirrell run all night

Ahem, mikedb1984, it's a matter of ring-generalship to me. Again, I have no issue with someone scoring the fight for Dirrell. I scored it for Dirrell. But his performance was lacking in accomplishment and he didn't seize command of the fight at any point, it was the clueless leading the clueless, not Pep, Ali, Whitaker or Mayweather. And in that, you can't feel too sorry for him that his attempt at taking a championship away from the titleholder in his back yard fell short in the judges' eyes. Also, most of you arent scoring any of Carl's work, which, while much less flashy, was actually present and did show up in the form of swelling and a bloody nose on the face of Dirrell. Froch did very little...it was so far inbetween that it felt nonexistent. In comparison to his opponent he got outboxed. And he supposed to be a pressure fighter and he can't cutoff the ring...WTF!

I'm pretty much done with this thread. I kills me that these guys don't know sh!t about boxing. I don't like to come off as a condescending poster but threads like this disgust me. People get pissed because a fighter doesn't fight a style that is pleasing to them. If you really respected the sport, then you would realize that their are countless fighting styles.The thing is this; boxing is about 1 style matched up against another, and which one can prevail. It's always been like that, so don't get mad at Dirrell for making Froch miss all night (Froch did land some big shots..no doubt). If Froch was really good at his style, then he would have been able to cut the ring off and slow Dirrell down with effective body punching. He does that then there is nothing to complain about. Fact is he couldn't, looked bad because of it...and now people b!tch because the fight didn't look a certain way. BTW There have been countless opponents that have tried that against Tyson, Foreman, Tua and other come forward fighters. The difference it those guys were good enough to Impose their style of fighting on their opponent, and not the other way around. Again fights are won by opposing your will on the other boxing and making them fight your fight. that's the point right there. Opposing your will and making them fight your fight. Dirrell fought his fight and landed more clean punches and just was plain more effective. Froch was unable to do anything and in 1/2 of those photos, he really misses. He couldn't cut off the ring, didn't utilize his jab enough and got beat to the punch in every exchange. i'm all for taking the belt from the champ, but the champ just can't show up expects to remain champion. he gots to be productive and effective....and that night Dirrell was more productive and effective. rabbit punches are illegal and it seemed like most of Froch shots came from rabbit punches, holding and hitting. Now granted Dirrell did most of the holding, but u can't take a pt from him for holding when he wasn't holding. That ref sucked and those judges too and so did Froch that night.

LMAO That guy I quoted said it, and he's not the only one. Go read his post. And the constant digging up of those names to justify Dirrell's sorry showing is frankly embarrassing. I should have been more clearer. I was talking about round 10-12..the championship rounds. That was a defensive masterpiece.

Thank you. Green K for you. I'm pretty much done with this thread. I kills me that these guys don't know sh!t about boxing. I don't like to come off as a condescending poster but threads like this disgust me. People get pissed because a fighter doesn't fight a style that is pleasing to them. If you really respected the sport, then you would realize that their are countless fighting styles.The thing is this; boxing is about 1 style matched up against another, and which one can prevail. It's always been like that, so don't get mad at Dirrell for making Froch miss all night (Froch did land some big shots..no doubt). If Froch was really good at his style, then he would have been able to cut the ring off and slow Dirrell down with effective body punching. He does that then there is nothing to complain about. Fact is he couldn't, looked bad because of it...and now people b!tch because the fight didn't look a certain way. BTW There have been countless opponents that have tried that against Tyson, Foreman, Tua and other come forward fighters. The difference it those guys were good enough to Impose their style of fighting on their opponent, and not the other way around. Again fights are won by opposing your will on the other boxing and making them fight your fight.

No, those guys didn't fight like that. And that's the whole point. No problems with scoring the fight for Dirrell. There is a problem with using those guys' names to prop up such a weak tilt at becoming a world champ, though, because those guys fight nothing like that. There is a lot more to those fighters' styles than just athleticism and being 'elusive'. This is why I object to people tagging the like of Malignaggi and Mayweather as 'runners' and would invite them to view Dirrell's performance against Froch if they want to see what a runner looks like. And that was NOT a masterpiece of Defensive Boxing. Seriously. It was shabby. again you need to rewatch some of those old fights. Those fighters did mix it up, I'm not denying that, but just like Dirrell they went long stretches where they did the same thing as dirrell...especially ali. Ali would move side to side, keep distance and slip and duck punches for long periods of times. Pernell whitaker was also notorious for that too. BTW...I'm just really curious as to what you consider running? That is the real question, because according to these guys bashing Dirrell, its not engaging, which in fact would prove my point that Ali and others did the same thing.

No, those guys didn't fight like that. And that's the whole point. No problems with scoring the fight for Dirrell. There is a problem with using those guys' names to prop up such a weak tilt at becoming a world champ, though, because those guys fight nothing like that. There is a lot more to those fighters' styles than just athleticism and being 'elusive'. This is why I object to people tagging the like of Malignaggi and Mayweather as 'runners' and would invite them to view Dirrell's performance against Froch if they want to see what a runner looks like. And that was NOT a masterpiece of Defensive Boxing. Seriously. It was shabby. nobody has every said dirrell fought a masterpiece fight...i dont know where youre getting this stuff... all were saying is he took care of business, and clearly beat an overrated, overhyped, slow, untalented, loud mouth, arrogant, crooked nose boxer in froch... BIG difference...

no you get points for runnin and hittin not for coming forward and missing

If you can not overlook a guys style you should not be scoring fights point blank. A guys style really has no bearing on who is the more effective fighter in the ring on a given night, there is more then one way to skin a cat~.

again some poeple need to learn the history of the sport and realize there are different styles of fighting. The way Dirrell fought is a style that has been used by some of the greatest boxers in the sport. Its just idiots who watch a Gatti or Trinidad fight and think boxing is just limited to that.

It's called defensive boxing....ali, leonard, sweat pea, willie pep...all hall of famers, and all guys who fought like that. Outside of the hugging and complaining...what you called running I call a defensive masterpiece. They way Dirrell hand control over distance all night, slipping/ducking, his lateral movement...everything was a thing of beauty. I just think it's idiotic to bitch and complain about a style just because you don't like it. I don't like Hatton's mauling style but I understand the science behind why he does it and how it is effective for him. To say dumb sh!t like dirrell "ran" or didn't want to engage, just shows your lack of boxing knowledge. Not everyone is a come forward fighter because brawling is not a style that is effective for certain fighters. If you are quick and a good counter puncher like Dirrell, that is exactly how you fight a brawler with poor footwork like Froch.