Does ne body here actually think that Froch won?

I'm not hating on ne 1 here. I don't want ne one comin in here callin' me a typical yank and all that. But does ne 1 think he won? Could have gone either way. Dirrell was good enough to win but his gameplan was wrong. Running (and it was running), holding and whining will never impress judges when the other guy is at least trying to engage and press the fight. None of that would matter if he had actually counter-punched effectively but, despite some of the delusional crap I've seen on this forum, he actually landed little more than Froch did, and their faces after the fight suggested Froch's were the more 'effective'. No problems with anyone thinking Dirrell should have won, but I do with those screaming 'robbery' and 'corruption'. Take a look at the first three rounds. I scored all three to Froch, many scored them to Dirrell. The reason is simply that neither fighter did anything and such rounds are almost impossible to score (remember Valuev v. Holyfield?); and when aggression is most taken into account by the judges. Froch was awful. So, though, was Dirrell... folks need to realize that compared with the real counter-punchers out there he just doesn't land enough - anywhere near enough - to reliably get decisions at this level. He needs to take a few risks; he is fast and skillful enough to reap the rewards.

I had it 115-114 Froch.

do you think he won? I had Froch picked to win before the fight...Thought Dirrell would be way too green. In a way I was right. But no, I don't think Froch won. What difference does it make, though?

yes...they do do you think he won?

yes...they do