Froch was as much to blame as Dirrell for the negativity

**The Gambler1981** · 10-18-2009, 02:08 PM

I agree, Froch was fouling up a storm and the ref really did nothing to stop it so Dirrell had to do something. Dirrell to me was effectively moving and not running like the Stevens fight although he was was moving around the outskirts of the ring and that does not look good as a form of defence though it was pretty effective.

**Chunk..** · 10-18-2009, 02:11 PM

Froch could afford to take the chances seen as the fight was in his hometown.

Dirrell couldn't. That's why he didn't get the decision.

**Dynamite Kid** · 10-18-2009, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Chunk

Froch could afford to take the chances seen as the fight was in his hometown.

Dirrell couldn't. That's why he didn't get the decision.

He didn't get the decision because the buffoons at ringside weren't aware that if the opponent outworks the Champion round by round and you know actually!! lands punches that he wins the fight.

You know i could stand for it if Froch was throwing the less eye catching shots but he was active during the rounds, but for as little as Dirrell did in the rounds he won, he still outlanded Froch so how on earth does Froch win the fight?

**Baby Monkey** · 10-18-2009, 02:34 PM

How can anyone say Froch was fouling in the clinches?

If Andre didn't initiate so many hold's then maybe this would be a mute point.

Dirrell = boring.

**THe TRiNiTY** · 10-18-2009, 02:39 PM

In my personal opinion, the fight wasn't that boring to begin with. Hard punches were thrown by the puncher and the speed guy/challenger actually did more in the later rounds.

Froch tried to knock him out from round one, really. He also seemed to get Dirrell to at the very least respect his power.

Dirrell was quick, GREAT defense, actually hurt Froch and seemed to win more of the second set of 6.

I still believe that Dirrell won but it was a close fight. In terms of the lulls and the holding. It's unfortunate. However, Froch fouled as well and hit behind the head, as well as thru Dirrell to the ground and was getting frustrated.

It was a solid fight.

**THe TRiNiTY** · 10-18-2009, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by cityfgod

How can anyone say Froch was fouling in the clinches?

If Andre didn't initiate so many hold's then maybe this would be a mute point.

Dirrell = boring.

If I cut you off on the road, I'm technically breaking the law. That still doesn't give you the right to ram me off the road.

**Crazylegs77** · 10-18-2009, 02:41 PM

Froch trash talked for a month and then when the bell rang he gave Dirrell so much repect! I expected Froch to jump on him the way he was talking.

**BOX-A-LOT** · 10-18-2009, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Dynamite Kid

Froch was as much to blame as Dirrell for the negativity. Froch was not letting it all hang out the way he did against Pascal & Taylor, he tried to fight a tactical fight but he was not successful fighting a tactical fight and he lost the fight. Dirrell fought the same game plan as Froch which was to use the jab to create openings and capitalize on mistakes, people just want to crucify Dirrell because he made it stick.

Froch did not try to make the fight because he was fighting within the spirit of the game, he ended up making the fight because his game plan was not working, fact!

Great post!

**El Angel** · 10-18-2009, 02:44 PM

There styles didn't mesh well at all.

Froch was as much to blame as Dirrell for the negativity