My thoughts on the Froch/Dirrell fight..
Collapse
-
It's just ****** to think that a fighter is supposed to win a fight simply by being aggressive. if you're being aggressive and not landing punches in combination with getting hit and hurt more that your opponent then you don't deserve a win. EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION MEANS YOUR coming forward is enabling you to put your hands on the the other guy--not that your'e chasing a guy and swinging away at the air while the other guy is boxing. And what is this stand and trade tough guy dumb **** I keep hearing? Hit and not get hit is the idea, clowns.. Bull**** decision!!!
Comment
-
Froch dictated everything. He had Dirrell running around the ring all night who had to hold on for dear life, even resorted to hugging which was hilarious.
When Dirrel let those combinations fly he caused Froch a world of trouble
.Can't remember the round but Dirrel hit Froch with a left to the temple forcing Froch to the ropes and he used his right as a measuring stick to land his left.
But apart from that Dirrel looked scared and unsure of himself.Comment
-
landing one punch per round does'nt win you fights if the other guy is hitting you 20 times more even if they are pitty pat, which they were'nt, froch just does'nt bruise and cut easilyComment
-
Froch won the fight, end of.
Andre and his team knew, KNEW! they were coming to Nottingham, his trainer said in the last round he would have to KO Carl to win.
When you got all these factors and all Andre done was backtrack and jab you can't blame the outcome.
Froch is still a overhyped bum and Mikkell would beat him but to take the belt you have to beat the champion convincingly because he has all of advantage as seen last night, backtracking and jabbing isn't the same as someone coming forward and landing the shots.
By beating the champion convincingly it means beating them so badly each round it would be blue murder if he didn't get it and suspect fixing, but it wasn't it was close.Comment
Comment