Froch vs Dirrell: Did Froch get a hometown decision????

Arguably I saw Dirrell beat Froch, here's how I scored it. Show your scorecards if you have them. Round 1 Dirrell / toss up Dirrell opens up the round with a body head combo and then they circled around into a jab tug of war where i saw Dirrell landing a few more punches. Dirrell landed that combo in the beginning of the round where as Froch threw single punches. It can be called a toss up as neither fighter really took control. Round 2-Froch Froch was pressuring Dirrell back as he worked behind single jabs. He also landed more and imposed his tempo in this round. Round 3-Dirrell Dirrell started landing jabs with 1-2 to the Froch's body while Froch missed his punches and was being driven back. Froch really didnt get off on this round. Round 4-Dirrell Dirrell continued landing at Froch's body while making him miss even more noticeably. Dirrells speed really showing up against Froch. Even though Froch pushed forward he just did not do any work to warrant him the round. Round 5-Dirrell Dirrell continued outboxing Froch and circling around and a frustated Froch body slams Dirrell to the ground also hit clearly after the brake, no point deducted from Froch. Round 6-Dirrell Sloppy round for both fighters with Dirrell falling all over the place and Froch airing most of his punches. Dirrell landed harder and more precise punches. Round 7-Froch Froch is outworking and outlanding Dirrel in the beginning to mid round, Dirrell shows it by holding excessively but he finishes stronger. Its looking more like a Froch fight this round. Round 8-Dirrell Froch started th eround behind the jab but its not lonog begfore Dirrell makes it a boxing fight landing cleaner shots. Froch blatantly hits Dirrell behind the head , no points taken. Round 9-Dirrell Another boxing round with more of the same as previous rounds, Dirrell landing cleaner and more often with a few counters. Froch applying ineffective pressure but hes driving Dirrel closer to the ropes. Round 10-Draw Dirrell starts outboxing him early int he round , Froch comes back outwoking/landing Dirrell mid round but Dirrell comes back clearly hurting Froch towards the end. Dirrell gets a point deducted very well deserved but poorly timed. Round 11-Dirrell Clearly Dirrells round making Froch miss and landing clean shots pushing and hurting Froch with combos. Round 12-Toss Dirrell smothering froch making him miss. At times stopping Froch's charge landing punches. Froch pushing ineffectively towards the end without landing significant punches. Dirrell won 3,4,5,6,8,9,11 Froch i gifted 1, 2,7, i gifted 12 Round 10 i scored a draw Froch tried to fight his fight but simply got outboxed and hurt at no point was Dirrell hurt. Dirrell landed the more precise harder shots but he held excessively and got a point deducted rightly so. If the ref took a point for holding he should also take a point for blatantly hitting Dirrell in the back of the head or the hitting after the break very late. Keep in mind this fight was in Froch's backyard and the crowd never really got into the fight. Froch's body language showed him a defeated fighter. Even in the post interview he said he didnt showcased his type of fight. Froch was gifted a hometown decision imo.

Comments (20)

I prefer cleaner punches over punches being blocked. Froch was made to look very amateurish by Dirrel from rounds 1-6 it was just blatant who was doing the better work and landing the cleaner shots, perhaps Froch was throwing more but he certainly wasn't landing more. My point isn't Dirrel shouldn't of been deducted a point my point is Carl should of clearly been deducted a point or two at the minimum he was doing far worse than the holding of Dirrel plus I don't score punches that hit the back of the head I don't think we're meant to do that. Mayweather vs Maidana was a close fight because Mayweather was landing effectively and Maidana was pushing Floyd up against the ropes and landing so you can definitely argue that fight going either way (although I thought Maidana nicked it) that fight was obviously close but when you're Carl Froch who could barely get close to land anything clean how can those 'close' rounds go in favour of him without taking into consideration of the BS hometown judging? Meh definitely think it was a robbery you've got your opinion n that's fair enough I respect that but I just find a hard time watching that fight and trying to fathom how Froch got the nod. Come on bro,Maidana was fighting just as dirty as Froch was..Mayweather was not being negative like Dirrell was tho bro..Dirrell was throwing himself on the floor to avoid punches and waste time..Not to mention it was blatant and continues..I don't agree with 1-6 sorry bro,Dirrell had a bust nose and all that within those rds.. Again,everyone see's the fight they see,but this fight was no robbery..Or bad decision..This was the case of a fighter being able to win the fight,and just didn't..Dirrell was so negative within that fight he took rds from himself with his actions..Floyd did not do this,Floyd landed far cleaner punches and controlled Maidana esp the 2end half of the fight..Dirrell never controlled Froch,he just tried his hardest to be negative and slow Froch's attack down by holding obsessively and throwing himself on the floor..How do you score something like that bro..I know Froch did some nasty dirty things as well,yet it was in response to Dirrell mucking up the fight..I for one was happy as hell that the ref deducted that point..It made Dirrell fight like a man,which is saying a lot about a boxer.. Let's be honest as well..He fought great against AA until he tired in the late stages of that fight..Then he started doing these same stupid antics again,and look what that got him..Froch is not dirty cause he could have done the same thing to Dirrell that AA did a number of times..That hoping on the floor was a part of Dirrell's game plan bro..That let's you know where the guy's head was at..

11y ago

M_Bison

It also was not Froch who was holding on for dear life..Trying his hardest not to engage..Listen I don't know if ya ever seen a fight live,that fight on TV was hard to score cause Froch was bringing the fight and landing good punches..Then you have Dirrell who was landing some shots,yet he was being negative in the ring..Holding and running(the literally meaning)was not a good look on TV..Imagine watching live in the building..Dirrell loss that fight,now I don't hold anything against anyone who scored it for Dirrell..Yet to act as if this fight was a blowout,is a bit foolish bro.. I prefer cleaner punches over punches being blocked. Froch was made to look very amateurish by Dirrel from rounds 1-6 it was just blatant who was doing the better work and landing the cleaner shots, perhaps Froch was throwing more but he certainly wasn't landing more. My point isn't Dirrel shouldn't of been deducted a point my point is Carl should of clearly been deducted a point or two at the minimum he was doing far worse than the holding of Dirrel plus I don't score punches that hit the back of the head I don't think we're meant to do that. Mayweather vs Maidana was a close fight because Mayweather was landing effectively and Maidana was pushing Floyd up against the ropes and landing so you can definitely argue that fight going either way (although I thought Maidana nicked it) that fight was obviously close but when you're Carl Froch who could barely get close to land anything clean how can those 'close' rounds go in favour of him without taking into consideration of the BS hometown judging? Meh definitely think it was a robbery you've got your opinion n that's fair enough I respect that but I just find a hard time watching that fight and trying to fathom how Froch got the nod.

11y ago

RomeByKo

Dirrel was decent even after the blatant robbery... It wasn't Dirrel taking cheap shots after the referee called break It wasn't Dirrel holding the back of Froch's head and punching him It wasn't Dirrel who wrestled Froch down onto the ground because he was angry that his game plan wasn't working and it certainly wasn't Dirrel who was constantly hitting shots at the back of Frochs head... Fights should be won clean and fairly, Froch cheated his way to that 'victory' he got schooled in reality but obviously hometown decision is a hometown decision... The fact Carl never got a points deduction clarifies who the referee and judges were in favour of. It also was not Froch who was holding on for dear life..Trying his hardest not to engage..Listen I don't know if ya ever seen a fight live,that fight on TV was hard to score cause Froch was bringing the fight and landing good punches..Then you have Dirrell who was landing some shots,yet he was being negative in the ring..Holding and running(the literally meaning)was not a good look on TV..Imagine watching live in the building..Dirrell loss that fight,now I don't hold anything against anyone who scored it for Dirrell..Yet to act as if this fight was a blowout,is a bit foolish bro..

11y ago

RomeByKo

9-3 Dirrel put a wooping on dat ass Me and you have a very different definition of what a wooping is..

11y ago

M_Bison

I always assumed you had to 'take' the belt off the champion? Dirrell was a highly skilled boxer. If he wasn't such a ***** he could've gone far in the sport. Dirrel was decent even after the blatant robbery... It wasn't Dirrel taking cheap shots after the referee called break It wasn't Dirrel holding the back of Froch's head and punching him It wasn't Dirrel who wrestled Froch down onto the ground because he was angry that his game plan wasn't working and it certainly wasn't Dirrel who was constantly hitting shots at the back of Frochs head... Fights should be won clean and fairly, Froch cheated his way to that 'victory' he got schooled in reality but obviously hometown decision is a hometown decision... The fact Carl never got a points deduction clarifies who the referee and judges were in favour of.

11y ago

M_Bison

9-3 Dirrel put a wooping on dat ass

11y ago

RomeByKo

Froch did not lose this fight,because Dirrell did not win it..It was Dirrell's fault..

11y ago

bradley had some supporters because they hated manny pacquiao, but almost everybody said manny won. bradley being american had nothing to do with it. pacquiao was one of the more popular athletes in america at the time :lol1: how the f#ck is that possible if we're biased? the rest of those fights were blatant robberies, and recognized as such. they were horrible, horrible examples. Look at the thread title. It's about home decisions - most of those fights I listed fit into that category. Saying they were "recognized as such" is a little paradoxical. It doesn't change the fact that the robberies occurred in reality, and doesn't mean that everyone recognized them as a robbery. There were plenty of bias fans who argued that those decisions were legit. Even some of the fight night commentators. If you personally thought they were robberies then you weren't one of the biased fans who thought they were legit. It doesn't mean those biased fans don't exist, just because you personally thought that the fights were robberies. Trawl through the threads on Boxingscene and you'll find people claiming that those boxers won those fights.

11y ago

New_England

They are perfectly legit examples, you're just being petty now because I listed off so many examples of American bias, so quickly. There are many, many more, and in fact you just showed some yourself. If you'd seen my first post on this thread you would have seen that I thought Dirrell won the fight so you can keep that scarlett B on your own chest. You just demonstrated that you have a "bias" or a prejudice against non-Americans by assuming that I thought Froch won. Thanks for proving my point. Americans have just as much bias and nationalist investment in their fighters - when they are fighting non-American fighters. How many times have you heard the crowd chanting "USA" when it's an American vs a non-American, fighting in America. I've heard it in Hopkins, Ward, Bradley, Mayweather fights, to name a few. It happens a lot. You're just guilty of looking at the issue entirely subjectively and applying no objectivity at all. bradley had some supporters because they hated manny pacquiao, but almost everybody said manny won. bradley being american had nothing to do with it. pacquiao was one of the more popular athletes in america at the time :lol1: how the f#ck is that possible if we're biased? the rest of those fights were blatant robberies, and recognized as such. they were horrible, horrible examples.

11y ago

New_England

You're stereotyping. Some Brits are biased, as are some Americans, some Mexicans etc. some brits are biased. some americans are biased. some mexicans are biased. that doesn't mean that the bias is in proportion.

11y ago

no they didn't, lol. horrible examples. saying that american fans are as biased as brits is just ridiculous. we have more boxers, and even import boxers. we don't have the nationalist investment in fighters that you guys have. mexican, PR, and one philipino are some of the most popular boxers in america. cotto, pacquiao, canelo, marquez, the list goes on. brits have a greater bias than americans. americans do have some bias, but it's nowhere near the level of the brits. just own and recognize it. there's nothing wrong with it. just wear your scarlett B on your chest. They are perfectly legit examples, you're just being petty now because I listed off so many examples of American bias, so quickly. There are many, many more, and in fact you just showed some yourself. If you'd seen my first post on this thread you would have seen that I thought Dirrell won the fight so you can keep that scarlett B on your own chest. You just demonstrated that you have a "bias" or a prejudice against non-Americans by assuming that I thought Froch won. Thanks for proving my point. Americans have just as much bias and nationalist investment in their fighters - when they are fighting non-American fighters. How many times have you heard the crowd chanting "USA" when it's an American vs a non-American, fighting in America. I've heard it in Hopkins, Ward, Bradley, Mayweather fights, to name a few. It happens a lot. You're just guilty of looking at the issue entirely subjectively and applying no objectivity at all.

11y ago

denium

Careful guyz, #1Assassin is giving out red k to people disrespecting his boyfriend Andre.

11y ago

junior_gong

that's not in the official rules for scoring. you should be awarding the rounds to the more effective puncher. dirrell could have easily won the fight based on those criteria. Dirrell could and should have been disqualified.

11y ago

denium

11y ago

New_England

Everyone can be biased, it's not an attribute restricted to any particular nationality. For example some Paul Williams fans claim he beat Lara, some Bradley fans claim he beat Pacquiao, some Rios fans claim he beat Abril, some Cloud fans claim he beat Campillo.. They were all bad decisions in the USA and a lot of biased fans supported them. no they didn't, lol. horrible examples. saying that american fans are as biased as brits is just ridiculous. we have more boxers, and even import boxers. we don't have the nationalist investment in fighters that you guys have. mexican, PR, and one philipino are some of the most popular boxers in america. cotto, pacquiao, canelo, marquez, the list goes on. brits have a greater bias than americans. americans do have some bias, but it's nowhere near the level of the brits. just own and recognize it. there's nothing wrong with it. just wear your scarlett B on your chest.

11y ago

1Assassin

So on your card Froch is "gifted" rounds while Dirrell "won" his? Agenda much? It was a close fight that could have gone either way, champ fighting at home got the decision - that's boxing. thats what happened. dirrell struggles to make 168, had never fought a world class fighter before or went 12 rounds. froch is a very physical and durable fighter and dirrell clearly had doubts about his own ability to go 12 rounds. when he went to work dirrell outboxed froch rather easily and won rounds. but then he would go into energy saving mode and try to just kill time by spoiling, handing over rounds to froch. froch never really won any rounds by putting in good work, he hardly did any good work all night. he really was gifted rounds due to dirrells unwillingness to do anything at all. i had froch winning by a point but he didnt really win the fight, dirrell threw it away.

11y ago

brits should start wearing a scarlett "B" on their chests / sigs. the bias is getting f#Cking absurd. Everyone can be biased, it's not an attribute restricted to any particular nationality. For example some Paul Williams fans claim he beat Lara, some Bradley fans claim he beat Pacquiao, some Rios fans claim he beat Abril, some Cloud fans claim he beat Campillo.. They were all bad decisions in the USA and a lot of biased fans supported them.

11y ago

denium

that's not in the official rules for scoring. you should be awarding the rounds to the more effective puncher. dirrell could have easily won the fight based on those criteria. How could Dirrell have landed the more effective punchers when Froch didn't have a mark on him at the end of the fight? Yet Dirrell was busted up? If Dirrell was robbed why didn't he demand the rematch? I don't even recall him being too upset when the result was read out. Anyway, it was a close fight, and one i'll never watch again haha.

11y ago

New_England

I always assumed you had to 'take' the belt off the champion? Dirrell was a highly skilled boxer. If he wasn't such a ***** he could've gone far in the sport. that's not in the official rules for scoring. you should be awarding the rounds to the more effective puncher. dirrell could have easily won the fight based on those criteria.

11y ago

denium

if you land the cleaner and more effective punches, you are supposed to win the round. fighting at home really shouldn't matter. I always assumed you had to 'take' the belt off the champion? Dirrell was a highly skilled boxer. If he wasn't such a ***** he could've gone far in the sport.

11y ago