find me worse booing from uk crowd than Froch dirrell??

Anyone who believed that direll lost that fight really need to get their eyes checked and definitely don't know **** about boxing. direll was whooping arthur abrahams ass too before he had to fight dirty and hit direll while he was down after slipping on some water in the corner. the froch fight was a robbery and that's another reason why americians dont like to fight over there. then why did most top youtube and boxing pundits such a dan rafael, jimmy iowa, manny stewart, steve bunce and graham houston all score it to froch?were they paid off? Why did the press row score it to froch more convincingly than the main judges?were they paid off? Way did boxrec a unbiased source score it to froch and show punch stas showing froch completely outlanded dirrell?? Why was froch unmarked and dirrell a bloody mess?? good luck

Anyone who believed that direll lost that fight really need to get their eyes checked and definitely don't know **** about boxing. direll was whooping arthur abrahams ass too before he had to fight dirty and hit direll while he was down after slipping on some water in the corner. the froch fight was a robbery and that's another reason why americians dont like to fight over there.

No brits are probably the worse when it comes to booing, I think it's because of he fact football (soccer) is so big here and it crosses over, alot of boxing fans are soccer fans and well they get away with it there.

Andre Dirrell completely out boxed Froch. It was a decisive robbery and Hearn is a conscious fraudster

Long time ago, but Hagler v Minter was shameful.I remember that. Hagler came to England and beat the hell out of Minter but he fought clean. His only crime was winning.Some of the crowd could not deal with that and they threw bear bottles at Hagler and he needed a police escort to get out of there safely. The English invented boxing in the 1700s and they have never liked to lose to non English fighters and they have been terrible sports about it for centuries.English referees will often cheat to help the Englishman win. I know there are many great fair minded boxing fans in England and many fair referees. But the fact is lots of English fans want their fighters to win at all cost and don't take losing well at all. American fans and fans all over the world are guilty of doing the same thing but England is pretty bad. I live in New Mexico and I was booing Dirrell from my tv set along with the English fans. Froch came to fight. Dirrell came to hit and then wrestle, clinch, hold or run.

Its cool to rewatch fights,, i do it all the time,, i may score them differently, but im just trying to say is that the judges only score it one time, and its easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment type stuff, whereas if you know the outcome, it will alter your opinion later on Yes, but try scoring it live,, you may get a different result, than when you rewatch it the next day, with or without sound,,, watching something live can easily sway your scorecard, and if you are a judge you dont have the ability to rewatch and get a "perfect" scorecard i'm not a judge, and don't hold myself to those same limitations. a judge is more limited, watching a live fight from a fixed position at one side of the ring. i can watch a round twice if it's close. he has to give his best guess about who won if the round is close. it's a different procedure. his follows the rules of judging a boxing match, but mine makes a more accurate determination about who actually won the rounds.

I just remember this fight as the one that dirrell did matrix type defense to froch.. dropping his hands low and dodging all froch's shots, in parts of the fight

Gonna watch this fight now. Froch is a glorified club fighter. Good luck. That's a dreadful fight to watch, I've never rewatched it.

I scored it live for Dirrell but according to the Englishmen I didn't even see it so I mentioned that. Which I do watch fights again anyway Its cool to rewatch fights,, i do it all the time,, i may score them differently, but im just trying to say is that the judges only score it one time, and its easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment type stuff, whereas if you know the outcome, it will alter your opinion later on i never score fights live. it takes away from my entertainment on some level, and i watch this sport because i love it chiefly. i can put together a very good card the following morning if i turn the sound off and watch the fight. all you need to do is determine who landed the more effective punches round by round, and it's not too tricky to block the other stuff out. Yes, but try scoring it live,, you may get a different result, than when you rewatch it the next day, with or without sound,,, watching something live can easily sway your scorecard, and if you are a judge you dont have the ability to rewatch and get a "perfect" scorecard

Gonna watch this fight now. Froch is a glorified club fighter. It's an awful fight. Dirrell fought scared and Froch couldn't land anything worthwhile.

I like how people debate, and use the line i watched multiple times or i watched this fight a couple of times,,, truth of the matter is, you or judges can only score the fight one-time while its live,, judges cant go rewatch it, or have slow-mo replays,,,, You should just score the fight the first time you saw it, especially live,,, that would be an accurate score,,, reviewing the fight again wont change the scorecards, even though it may change your personal score of the fight.... I watched dirrel-froch one time, when it was live on tv,,, I thought Dirrell won an extremely narrow decision, 114-113 Now i could rewatch it, look for things i missed, maybe have froch winning it, but that doesnt change how i would have scored it live,,,,,,, i never score fights live. it takes away from my entertainment on some level, and i watch this sport because i love it chiefly. i can put together a very good card the following morning if i turn the sound off and watch the fight. all you need to do is determine who landed the more effective punches round by round, and it's not too tricky to block the other stuff out.

most people thought dirrell won that fight. he behaved like a girl, so i have no problem with him not getting the nod, but let's not act like froch beat him up. dirrell teed off on froch. people forget that. if andre dirrell had nuts and a chin like andre ward he'd stop froch.

I like how people debate, and use the line i watched multiple times or i watched this fight a couple of times,,, truth of the matter is, you or judges can only score the fight one-time while its live,, judges cant go rewatch it, or have slow-mo replays,,,, You should just score the fight the first time you saw it, especially live,,, that would be an accurate score,,, reviewing the fight again wont change theorecards, even though it may change your personal score of the fight.... I watched dirrel-froch one time, when it was live on tv,,, I thought Dirrell won an extremely narrow decision, 114-113 Now i could rewatch it, look for things i missed, maybe have froch winning it, but that doesnt change how i would have scored it live,,,,,,, I scored it live for Dirrell but according to the Englishmen I didn't even see it so I mentioned that. Which I do watch fights again anyway

Every time they came together, dirrell just threw himself onto the floor to avoid frochs punches! Even his promoter said he needed to stand and fight more if he was going to win big fights. Good skills but zero bravery. QFT. Dirrell fought only the 2nd half of the fight. He did nothing in the 1st half so conceded it on negative tactics whilst Froch attempted to engage. I can't remember my round-by-round scoring (certainly not going to watch it again) but I'd given it to Froch and mainly due to Dirrell being so negative. You can't run away like that. It's a boxing match, not a game of tag. The irony is that Dirrell showed he was technically the superior boxer in the few rounds he actually did stuff. However he didn't want to fight, so brought the loss on himself. Just because Froch looked sh*t, that does not mean he should have lost. You have to score it round to round, not on who you feel looks better over the course of 12 rounds.

Long time ago, but Hagler v Minter was shameful. Another world, friend.

I like how people debate, and use the line i watched multiple times or i watched this fight a couple of times,,, truth of the matter is, you or judges can only score the fight one-time while its live,, judges cant go rewatch it, or have slow-mo replays,,,, You should just score the fight the first time you saw it, especially live,,, that would be an accurate score,,, reviewing the fight again wont change the scorecards, even though it may change your personal score of the fight.... I watched dirrel-froch one time, when it was live on tv,,, I thought Dirrell won an extremely narrow decision, 114-113 Now i could rewatch it, look for things i missed, maybe have froch winning it, but that doesnt change how i would have scored it live,,,,,,,

What punch stats? Lol there was no compubox. Froch probably landed 30 punches total half being rabbit punches. Froch was so frustrated he couldn't land so he started getting desperate. In fact the biggest, clean shots were landed by Dirrell. But hey we all know you love Theltic c0ck and that's what this is truly about, just like all your threads. Boxrec relased punch stats that had froch landing more punches. Manny stewart, dan Rafael, graham Houston, steve bunce the press row and the main scorers all agreed with me, whom was actually there, live at ring side...and you are randomer on the net... as I say ill leave it to bigragu t break down the fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxWNh7QjoKo&list=PLE0151C6DE4CF7488

Calm down and deep breathes? Youre the one feeling all hurt that i think he lost. And whats up with you going all in with the nationalism? Just cause im an american doesnt mean i was rooting against him or trying to come up with things to discredit his "win". But go on thinking he won if it makes you proud to be English cause thats whats important to you and it shows mate you debate to me, no shame in that. Just don't take it to heart. Next time though, actually watch the fight if you want a chance to even get close to outdebating me. Good luck with your life though mate.

calm down and deep breathes..you watched the fight once(if im to even believe that), your opinion and others are simply against all fights. Facts are dirrells nose and eyes were a bloody mess, froch was unscathed FROCH outlanded dirrell according to unbiased punch stats Froch landed the best punch in the 8th round(if you watced the fight you would know that) DIRRELLS best round was a draw as he docked a point for illegal holding and illegal ducking of head. Throw in Top youtube pundits from America and dan Rafael, many stewart and graham Houston all scoring it to froch, then facts are froch won... But chin up mate you might get one over me one day, but take deep breathes next time. Calm down and deep breathes? Youre the one feeling all hurt that i think he lost. And whats up with you going all in with the nationalism? Just cause im an american doesnt mean i was rooting against him or trying to come up with things to discredit his "win". But go on thinking he won if it makes you proud to be English cause thats whats important to you and it shows

I had it to Dirrell by a point, but my god did he fight like a queer that night. I'm actually glad they gave it to Froch. I never ever want to see that fight again as long as I live. I thought Calz v B-hop was horrible to watch, but Dirrell's 'performance' made me ashamed to be a boxing fan. Fook him and Dr.Shaw-High.:nonono: