A serious question for those who believe Dirrell won

[Syf]

He didn't start doing that until late in the fight. Early when Froch would come inside, Andre would just tie up ( in a scared way) and lean on Froch to wait until the referee broke the action.

So yes, i give Froch rounds for stalking since Dirrell wasn't active for the majority of the fight. If you look, you will see Dirrell in extreme panic mode every time Froch would get close to him. He didn't start gaining confidence until he staggered Froch though that was very late.

I saw a different fight. Apparently

Dirrell started the fight with a nice clean jab. Landing it cleanly and crisply to the body and head.

he used this jab throughout the whole fight...from round 1 to 12.

If its stalking vs. a jab and an occasional counter right hand, I give it to the latter every time.

But that's just me, maybe

[jrosales13]

Look at the red-bolded part of what you just said and tell me what Froch landed that was effective.

As I saw it, he only landed in the clinch and even those shots had zero effect on Dirrell.

If Dirrell clearly landed more and the only telling shots in the fight consistantly, how do you suppose he lost?

I am not saying he lossed. I myself was not keeping score of the rounds. I have to watch it again and score it round by round to see who won. However. I know Dirrell did not land anything effective the first half. While Froch did land an effective blow in round 6. But, I didn't score the fight round by round. But, I know the first half of the fight was ugly, messy, horrible, and very hard to score. Neither fighter was landing anything effective. I think Froch landed 1 or maybe 2 and thats it. While Dirrell was landing pitty pats. That is not effective. This is pro fights not amateur. You can not score it like an amateur fight.

[Chase8400]

That's just the way boxing is. Things like this has been happening for years and years.

Dirrell didn't take Froch's belt away from him. He ran!

Chunk, boxing is about connecting without being hit. One cannot win a fight solely on workrate in a fairly scored fight. It just doesn't happen, I'm afraid.

That's all I have to say about it. You know I respect you.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Okay, so slicksouthpaw16 seems to think ineffective workrate wins fights and Chase8400 doesn't. Glad we summed that up for everyone. There is a poll on here that shows what the general verdict of the way the scores should have read. I suggest you just go take a look at that and I'll leave the subject alone.

Let me guess, they have 100 votes to Dirrell and like 2 for Froch? I haven't seen it, but this forum is extremely predictable now and Ive been here for 2 years.

That's why, you have to seperate other's opinions from your own and see what really happened. If everyone in this forum all voted that they would rob a bank, would you join?

[NachoMan]

Only if your opponent is not throwing punches and retreating, and not even counter punching. You give the rounds for the fighter who did more, and in many of the early rounds, that was clearly Froch.


That's the point. I'm a fan of Dirrell and i thought he lost.

Impossible. No fan of Andre Dirrell thought he lost tonight. "Froch did more?" More of what??

[mathed]

How in any way, can you tell me that someone who fought extremely scared early in the fight, complaining to the referee every time Froch would get close, was barley throwing any punches, (and didn't start landing anything significant until after Froch was hurt) beat someone who was trying to press the fight and make it exciting? I give Direll credit for putting up a fight late and coming to Dirrell's home town, though IMO he lost.

This isn't a hate thread, and i think Andre will become a better fighter after this, but he was clearly out worked.

chill with the crap card calling, would you rather be Froch, getting hit 70% to 30% a rd or Dirrell, tagging up the foreigner and getting hit behind the head?

You know who won this fight, don't lie to yourself, I won't lie to you!!

[Dirt McGirt]

I'm British, wanted Froch to win badly, and prefer aggressive fighters. But this was a Dirrell victory, no questions.

Saying Dirrell ran away the whole fight is just completely ignorant. His holding was annoying i agree, but i can see why he did it.

This is a boxing match, not a street fight. Its a technical sport, you have to combine offense and defense and thats exactly what Dirrell did. Froch came forward but he didnt land anything! Dirrell showed good effective aggression, always counter-punched and tried to hurt Froch, jabbed, threw power shots, and what about those reactions, the kid is sharp!

You dont like his style, fair enough, but that dosnt mean the other fighter wins, you have to take effectiveness of style into consideration. I cant see how anyone can argue against the fact that a very one dimensional Froch was completely outclassed tonight by a far more skilled boxer.

[jrosales13]

doesn't matter who initiated more clinches... that's now how you score rounds... who ever lands more punches win. dirrel outboxed froch.

You took my question out of context. That question had nothing to do about who won the fight. I asked that question cuz he was saying that Froch should of been taking points out for rabbit hitting. Which I agree. But, clinchinc and hugging is against the rules. And, the ref did a horrible job taking control of the fight. All the rabbit punches Froch should be for a DQ also all the clinching Dirrell should be for a DQ. Both, are against the rules.

[Chase8400]

Carl Froch was not effective. He was annoyed and ineffective. Any time he did land a clean power punch the rest of the attack was blunted by Dirrell holding.

There were no clinches in that fight. There were only instances where Andre Dirrell was holding Carl Froch.

Dirrell hardly landed telling shots consistently until the end of the fight. The shot where he staggered Froch was a great shot, but otherwise clean, hard power shots were few and far between. He did land more punches over the course of the fight, but that wasn't hard as Froch couldn't really find his mark at all.

You only just reiterated my point. I'm not really sure what the porpose of your post was but I'll comment back anyways.

Direll didn't land a ton of effective stuff in the early going but he was landing. That's more than I can say for Froch at any point. He was clearly beaten and anyone who thinks otherwise is a homer or delusional, in my opinion of course.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Impossible. No fan of Andre Dirrell thought he lost tonight. "Froch did more?" More of what??

Thats it! I don't pick winners of fights because I'm a ''fan'' of them. Sometimes you have to put that aside and score unbiasly. My cousin ( who bet on Dirrell) was even talking about how scared Dirrell was fighting and screamed his head off.