The media thoughts on the froch verses dirrell fight..

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • slimshandy69
    I HAVE ***** TATTOO!
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Aug 2009
    • 3642
    • 323
    • 3
    • 16,514

    #1

    The media thoughts on the froch verses dirrell fight..

    All thought froch won...lmao at the idiots on this forum...NOT ONE SAID IT WAS CONTROVEDRTIUAL, NOT ONE...





    http://www.********boxing.com/news.php?p=21570&more=1



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...-be-a-war.html
  • slimshandy69
    I HAVE ***** TATTOO!
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Aug 2009
    • 3642
    • 323
    • 3
    • 16,514

    #2
    blanked by the yanks and calzaghe boys..

    Comment

    • Freddy Krueger
      Banned
      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
      • Aug 2009
      • 5596
      • 159
      • 213
      • 6,618

      #3
      The british announcers had Froch losing because they tried not to be as biased but still were a bit.

      Comment

      • VipersThunder
        Banned
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Aug 2009
        • 1090
        • 89
        • 125
        • 1,214

        #4
        Froch only won by default because Dirrell was running so much. Dirrell landed the better punches by far.

        Comment

        • keepthemhandsup
          lifes a beach
          Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
          • Jul 2008
          • 4419
          • 90
          • 49
          • 10,899

          #5
          Originally posted by slimshandy69
          like how all your links are from the UK

          Comment

          • slimshandy69
            I HAVE ***** TATTOO!
            Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
            • Aug 2009
            • 3642
            • 323
            • 3
            • 16,514

            #6
            Originally posted by VipersThunder
            Froch only won by default because Dirrell was running so much. Dirrell landed the better punches by far.

            so why are the action phtos im showing far better than the dirrell olnes???


            btw i was actually at the fight...live...everyone at ringsoide had froch winning..


            the bbc 5 live commentary whoi hate froch had him winning...and were amazed it was even split decision...


            Basically this forum is full of idiots like you...

            Comment

            • Sam D. Menace
              Banned
              Gold Champion - 500-1,000 posts
              • Mar 2009
              • 700
              • 28
              • 29
              • 849

              #7
              Originally posted by VipersThunder
              Froch only won by default because Dirrell was running so much. Dirrell landed the better punches by far.
              you cant lose a fight from running or floyd mayweather would've lost for running away from a baby in marquez

              Comment

              • Dice
                Undisputed Champion
                Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                • Jan 2008
                • 3324
                • 86
                • 70
                • 9,833

                #8
                Well the editors of this website had Dirrell winning as well as Ring magazine and others but they feel, as I, a fellow American, feel that while Dirrel won the fight, we dont think it was some huge robbery like others are claiming it to be.

                I agree that Dirrell ran but he hit Froch plenty of times while Froch was hitting air all night.

                Regardless I think Mikkel Kessler is going to take the whole tourny anyways unless he forgets hes Mikkel Kessler

                I also gotta say I like the UK broadcasting team, obviously they favor the English fighters but they are brutally honest and for those that say it was a hometown decision, none of the judges were English if i remember correctly

                Comment

                • slimshandy69
                  I HAVE ***** TATTOO!
                  Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 3642
                  • 323
                  • 3
                  • 16,514

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Dice
                  Well the editors of this website had Dirrell winning as well as Ring magazine and others but they feel, as I, a fellow American, feel that while Dirrel won the fight, we dont think it was some huge robbery like others are claiming it to be.

                  I agree that Dirrell ran but he hit Froch plenty of times while Froch was hitting air all night.

                  Regardless I think Mikkel Kessler is going to take the whole tourny anyways unless he forgets hes Mikkel Kessler

                  I also gotta say I like the UK broadcasting team, obviously they favor the English fighters but they are brutally honest and for those that say it was a hometown decision, none of the judges were English if i remember correctly

                  no he didnt hit froch plentty of times...i was actually live at the fight and his throwing ratio was terrible...froch continually threw the jab hence why dirrells face was a mess and froch had no scratches...


                  dirrell although veryt skillful is a horrifically boring fighter...

                  Comment

                  • The Hammer
                    Banned
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Dec 2007
                    • 50797
                    • 3,416
                    • 8,704
                    • 58,851

                    #10
                    Carl Froch won 114-113 on my card.

                    The decision was fair, I'm even happy to see it was a SD instead of a UD because the fight was very close.

                    Yes, Dirrell is the more talented fighter, but his game plan STUNK. Fighters who run, fall, hold, bend and ***** for 12 rounds don't deserve to win world titles.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    TOP