Tweet
To mention Froch in the same breath as Ali says it all. Stop running your mouth.. You don't understand boxing.. At all. You don't learn boxing watching it on tv or reading. You don't know sports you watch sports and talk cause you have no athletic ability.. Your a wanna be **** rider.
-
-
Stick to commentating.. All you have is an opinion because your not an athlete
so all you do is talk **** on forums. A chat forum is the only place you can pretend to be a man.. That's why you have letters and **** that you've written about your opinion on boxing. Quoting the rule book because all you can do is write and talk about. You were never man enough to play sports all you ever had was an opinion. Like I said, I train at Main Boxing Gym if you want to learn this sport. In the meantime chill with the insults it doesn't make you a man in this sport... If you got beef step in the ring. Otherwise shut your ***** ass up.
Comment
-
Dan Rapael, of ESPN wrote:
Dirrell also fought in his normal negative, agonizing style. He ran, he cried to the referee about just about everything and he held. And grabbed. And wrestled. At times, it was like watching a smaller, faster, more skilled version of John Ruiz. It was ugly. When Dirrell, who has all the talent in the world but still fights like an amateur, would stand and fight, he landed some nice counter right hands. But he didn't do it nearly enough. The first half of the fight was an abomination because of Dirrell's unwillingness to do anything but run and grab. All the while, Froch was making the fight, coming forward and firing in what degenerated into a somewhat dirty fight. But in the eighth round, Froch nailed Dirrell with a left hook late in the round that definitely rattled him. Both fighters fouled each other often with low blows, elbows, blows to the back of the head and punches on the break. Referee Hector Afu did his best, but had a very hard time maintaining control. Both guys could have had points deducted at various times but Afu did not pull the trigger until finally docking a point from Dirrell for holding and hitting in the 10th round, during which Dirrell hurt Froch with two hard left hands. In the end, two judges gave it to Froch, which was the right call. How can you give Dirrell the fight when, for the most part, he fought scared, complained to the referee about everything and barely threw any punches in the first half or two-thirds of the fight? He finished very strong, but it wasn't enough to warrant or deserve the decision. At best, he could have had a draw, which would have still not given him the title.Comment
-
-
I don't see that as being the case at all and I don't get why people say he ran the entire night..... Yes, he played the "hit and don't get hit" card but nothing more than what Jones jr did or what Mayweather does. He didn't hold nowhere near what Hopkins would do... So the point deduction was just BS. by the ref who was just a pos the entire night..... no control and horrible communication.
What Dirrell did was called effective counter punching and that is exactly what he did the ENTIRE fight. Clean, Crisp and at times powerful punches. Did they effect Froch? Not really. But Dirrell CLEARLY won or at worse a draw.
Just because your NOT the aggressor doesn't mean you didn't win. I would like to see the punch stats. I cant beleieve SHOWTIME didn't even mention that at all. The stats will truly tell the story. I watched Dirrell counter Froch the entire night while Froch was getting clearly frustrated by the "GREEN" contender.
Froch looked pathetic and embarrassing at times. The ref warned Dirrell most of the night while Froch was fighting dirty and very Joe (sloppy) Calzaghe like. I've watched the fight 3 times and I only gave Froch 4 rounds...
What did people expect Dirrell to do? Stand there and go toe to toe? Dirrell fought a perfect match but lost to the home town crowd and that is all there is to it.
and where are the punch stats??????? That will tell the TRUE story on who won... not all this "he ran the entire night" bs.... he countered the entire night and landed more punches while Froch hit him in the back of the head more clearly than anything else.Last edited by WESS; 10-19-2009, 11:57 PM.Comment
-
He did very little punching and most of what he did was ineffective. Unlike Roy, who did always punch effectively even when on the back foot. Roy never out and out ran. Dirrell counter-punched effectively in short spells but not consistently - if he had, he'd have won.
Even Gary Shaw admitted it was extremely close and difficult to score (and therefore that is was not a robbery), and admitted that Dirrell should have been more aggressive.
No, it's one of four factors that the judges are supposed to consider, and it's the second most important one, but of course it's not the only one. But if you're out-and-out running for much of the fight, which in the eyes of most people Dirrell was, of course that is going to count against you to some extent. To what extent is down to the judges to decide. It's a subjective decision. Some judges favour aggression more than others do, when it comes to scoring, but all judges take it into account. They have to. It's the rules.
Punch stats are completely irrelevant because they do not have anything to do with whether the punches were clean or effective - and because they are subject to human error. If you went on punch stats, Calzaghe would have won 11 rounds against Hopkins, but in fact everyone agrees that fight was extremely close and some respected boxing experts scored it to Hopkins, because many of the punches Compubox chalked up to Calzaghe were actually blocked, many of those that landed were not clean punches, and those that did land cleanly mostly had very little power behind them. (and how powerful the punches are is part of the "clean and effective" criteria). Hopkins landed far fewer punches, but they were cleaner and much more powerful, hence almost all commentators scored it extremely close, by one round either way.Comment
-
But those short spells won him 8 rounds on my card. Froch was running and being the aggressor but he himself hardly EVER landed and was being effectively countered regardless if Dirrell was running or not. I think people expected him sit there and **** with Froch because if that where the case he would lose. I also think they knew he likes run so this is what people use to suit there agenda as to why Dirrell lost. Running or NOT its a hit and don't get hit game called boxing and Dirrell won the boxing match. EASY. Froch won the "MMA" match. The incompetent REF should have deducted at least 2 points from Froch. It was unbelievable what he was turning the fight into. I cant imagine Froch fighting Hopkins. Froch would be DQ'ed because as a limited fighter he would result to dirty tactics and be DQ'ed due to Hopkins style.
I watched it on SHOWTIME and was shocked that they used the term "a close fight". I think they didn't want to sound biased. Because in no way at all was it a close fight "IMO". The rounds I DID give to Froch where out of sympathy. I just couldn't give him rounds when he hardly landed or when he did it was to the back of the head. Yes he kept coming forward but that was about it..... he didn't know what else to do and Dirrell is a green contender and all he knew was box and stay away from the inside where Froch wanted to be. It wasn't hard to see. Just because Dirrell didn't give Froch the fight he wanted does not make Dirrell the loser. In fact he fought a PERFECT fight. The judges just wanted to see a slugging match due to that being Froch's style...Even Gary Shaw admitted it was extremely close and difficult to score (and therefore that is was not a robbery), and admitted that Dirrell should have been more aggressive.
I understand that but when all you do is chase and never hit anything or hit to the back of the head, use elbows, throw a fighter to the floor, push etc you cant score that as being effective. Froch was embarrassed and used dirty tactics to get points. He was CLEARLY being out boxed and out classed by a GREEN contender in Dirrell.No, it's one of four factors that the judges are supposed to consider, and it's the second most important one, but of course it's not the only one. But if you're out-and-out running for much of the fight, which in the eyes of most people Dirrell was, of course that is going to count against you to some extent. To what extent is down to the judges to decide. It's a subjective decision. Some judges favour aggression more than others do, when it comes to scoring, but all judges take it into account. They have to. It's the rules.
In Dirrell's case his punches where clean and effective to the point that Froch was getting frustrated. I had Dirrell winning and out landing Froch the entire first 6 rounds. I think it was 7,8,9 and10 Froch won, MAINLY due to dirty tactics and an incompetent ref. 11 and 12 Dirrell won and ultimately won the fight. It was CLEAR. More clear than the Clazaghe Hopkins fight. Joe slaps and has a windmill style that he just swings away. Dirrell did not.Punch stats are completely irrelevant because they do not have anything to do with whether the punches were clean or effective - and because they are subject to human error. If you went on punch stats, Calzaghe would have won 11 rounds against Hopkins, but in fact everyone agrees that fight was extremely close and some respected boxing experts scored it to Hopkins, because many of the punches Compubox chalked up to Calzaghe were actually blocked, many of those that landed were not clean punches, and those that did land cleanly mostly had very little power behind them. (and how powerful the punches are is part of the "clean and effective" criteria). Hopkins landed far fewer punches, but they were cleaner and much more powerful, hence almost all commentators scored it extremely close, by one round either way.Comment
-
Almost every boxing expert had it close. Boxingscene's fight report scored it to Dirrell by one round. So did Gary Shaw. So did The Ring. Showtime scored it to him by two rounds. Raphael scored it to Froch by one round. If you think it wasn't close, then you're entitled to your opinion, but almost every boxing expert disagreed with you.Comment
-
Scoring alone does not allways reflect if fight was close
Scoring does not always reflect how close or not close a fight was. In this fight for example the ref took a point away from Dirrell when Froch was clearly guilty of more infractions ie hitting on the break and behind the head for which he was never penalized for. Had the point been deducted from Froch instead of Dirrell as most boxing experts would likely agree then you have scoring with a 3-4 round advantage for Dirrell which represents how the fight should have been scored. The fight was scored according to the refs deduction or lack therof so the scores were closer than the actual fight itself which is what most people observed. If Dirrell had received a disqualification for holding would the scores reflect who was winning the fight? Obviously not. So using scoring alone as an argument of a close fight is poor evidence to support how close this fight was. If there were punch stats available for this fight it would not be consistent with the scoring. The scoring was closer because of incorrect decisions made by the ref. So what you saw Wess I agree with you a fight which was obviously not as close as the scoring alone would suggest.
Comment
Comment