round by round froch dirrell

[77Ritchie77]

ok folks here it is... first 5 go to dirrell. Next 5 are close and i could see them going either way. take a point away from dirrel (for holding). last two go to dirrell. i think these seven rounds were CLEARLY won as froch landed nothing, and dirrell looked like a combo of pbf, rjj, and paul williams.

[DLT]

I had it scored similar to that and thats why I think Dirrell lost. I say that because I also gave him something like the first 5 but unless you totally dominate a guy, judges never give you all 5 rounds. I think thats why he may have lost. They probably gave 2 of those rounds to Froch just because it didnt seem like an 5-0 fight and Froch may have done better in some rounds than others but he still was losing them.

What's crazy to me is that I come on here after the fight and hear alot of people say that he lost mostly all of the 1st half of the fight and came on late. What were they watchin? Froch did nothing in those first 5 rounds or so. Infact, I may have even given the first 6 to Dirrell

[Doctor_Tenma]

Froch didn't win a round untill the 7th, then he went on to win the 8th round. I was being nice in giving him two extra rounds. It's simple, you can't win if you don't land.

[one-Punch]

My scorecard was 115 for Dirrell and 113 for Froch. And this was me being very generous to Froch, plus the point deduction for Dirrell.

Only thing I didn't like about this fight was the amount of holding. Dirrell defiantly would of got hit a lot more if he would of quit that bs. But whatever, it's boxing.

All in all, I was impressed by Dirrell's speed. This guy has some quick hands.

I thought Froch was going to dummy Dirrell, but my prediction was completely incorrect.

[Walterson]

It's funny how the same people who say that Hopkins lost on inactivity against Calzaghe, are the same people that say Froch won based on inactivity against Dirrell.