How the **** did Direll not get the win?

**Special K** · 10-17-2009, 09:56 PM

I feel your pain, mate. But Froch was the deserved winner. Dirrell just wanted to dance about and hold. He didn't do enough.

**masta** · 10-17-2009, 09:58 PM

I had it 115-111 for Dirrell. Clear robbery, in my opinion.

**Shadows** · 10-17-2009, 09:58 PM

I like how Froch said after the fight that Dirrell wasn't a warrior because he wouldn't trade with him and wouldn't "fight" him.

Someone should tell him the name of the game is to hit the other guy, and not get hit. Dirrell's movement kept Froch off balance all night and barely landed anything besides one left hook. Both guys got rough, sorry.

115-112 Dirrell.

**CrackYourJaw** · 10-17-2009, 09:58 PM

I dunno. Froch looked silly. Actually, they both did at some points. But Froch was hitting air most of the night.

But yeah, Dirrell lost because he was being too "negative."

**-EX-** · 10-17-2009, 09:58 PM

Because he danced against a champion...in the champion's backyard...

**street bully** · 10-17-2009, 09:58 PM

Froch couldn't land ANYTHING, Direll could not miss, wtf is this bull****. I bet on Froch to win, and I had it 8-4 for Direll.

**kayjay** · 10-17-2009, 09:58 PM

I watched the British telecast on a stream, and the Britsh announcers had Dirrell by a round. What did Showtime people say?

**K-Nan** · 10-17-2009, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Special K

I feel your pain, mate. But Froch was the deserved winner. Dirrell just wanted to dance about and hold. He didn't do enough.

Who landed more? Was Froch not hurt? Who's fight was it, pace-wise?

If all Dirrell did was run, explain to me why he outlanded the hell out of Froch. And don't even act like those weren't hard ass shots to his dome. The only person to literally lose their legs in the whole fight was Froch. He was shaky as hell in one of the late rounds.

**MIP4P1** · 10-17-2009, 09:59 PM

Dirrell whooped his ass.

How the **** did Direll not get the win?