How could you score that fight for Froch? Based on what criteria?

[MJ406]

finally watched it again

had it 114-113 for Dirrell but Froch certainly won his rounds .... had him winning 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9

so to say he was "completley ineffective" is foolish, cuz Carl had Dirrell holding after he landed good body shots in the 6th and after a left hook in round 8.

but yeah hometown decision in a close fight.

[loui_ludwig]

Each judge scores each round using the following criteria:

* Clean Punching
* Effective Aggression
* Ring Generalship
* Defense
Based on the above criteria, how could you give Froch more than a round or two? All the clean punching came from Dirrell. Froch was aggressive but completely ineffective. Dirrell showed ring generalship. He dictated where the fight was fought and fought at his style/pace for 90% of the fight. Defense defintely in Dirrell's favor, as Froch landed very few clean punches on Dirrell.

I don't understand how Froch excelled in any of the aforementioned categories on anyone's scorecard.

Dirrell didn't do enough clean punching.
The aggressor thru out the round was Froch. He was trying to make the fight.
Ring generalship, hmm, i say to Froch cuz Dirrell was running and holding thru out the fight.
Defense, Dirrell has better defense. But the British commentators(just like their American counterparts) sometimes exaggerate. Sometimes when they said Dirrell was landing punches, the punches were landing on Froch's gloves.

Dirrell was effective when he is attacking but only did it in the last 3 rounds. If Dirrell and his team knew he wasn't gonna get a decision in Britian, then his team should have told him to attack more.

[Pullcounter]

Dirrell didn't do enough clean punching.
The aggressor thru out the round was Froch. He was trying to make the fight.
Ring generalship, hmm, i say to Froch cuz Dirrell was running and holding thru out the fight.
Defense, Dirrell has better defense. But the British commentators(just like their American counterparts) sometimes exaggerate. Sometimes when they said Dirrell was landing punches, the punches were landing on Froch's gloves.

Dirrell was effective when he is attacking but only did it in the last 3 rounds. If Dirrell and his team knew he wasn't gonna get a decision in Britian, then his team should have told him to attack more.

come on! 8-4 dirrell.

froch's aggression was ineffective (ie. it didn't help him get in position to land punches)...

froch got outboxed by a green prospect.

[loui_ludwig]

come on! 8-4 dirrell.

froch's aggression was ineffective (ie. it didn't help him get in position to land punches)...

froch got outboxed by a green prospect.

If Dirrell was declare the winner, i don't have a problem with it too. But too me, Dirrell wasn't doing enough to clearly to win the the 1-9 rounds. Only at the last 3 rounds, when he started attacking, that he clearly won.

[savorduhflavor]

Just rewatched the fight.

This fight was not that close.

If we had compubox numbers...I guarantee that Froch wouldn't have anything higher than like a 15% connect rate....if that.

Dirrell got ROBBED. No "close decision that could have gone either way", he got ****ing robbed and it really effects how I'm looking at this tournament going forward.

[street bully]

Just rewatched the fight.

This fight was not that close.

If we had compubox numbers...I guarantee that Froch wouldn't have anything higher than like a 15% connect rate....if that.

Dirrell got ROBBED. No "close decision that could have gone either way", he got ****ing robbed and it really effects how I'm looking at this tournament going forward.

Glad to see some Cotto fans have brains. Champ BWWM and Dap are all saying Froch owned and ****.

[boxa_ali]

Froch is a hopless fighter against fast boxer he has no skill what so ever and didnt do **** against dirrel. Why is it these english fighters look so ****** with their styles froch and calzaghe are an embarrasement to boxing.
I think kessler is gana destroy froch like he destroyed Librado Andrade

[daggum]

Dirrell didn't do enough clean punching.
The aggressor thru out the round was Froch. He was trying to make the fight.
Ring generalship, hmm, i say to Froch cuz Dirrell was running and holding thru out the fight.
Defense, Dirrell has better defense. But the British commentators(just like their American counterparts) sometimes exaggerate. Sometimes when they said Dirrell was landing punches, the punches were landing on Froch's gloves.

Dirrell was effective when he is attacking but only did it in the last 3 rounds. If Dirrell and his team knew he wasn't gonna get a decision in Britian, then his team should have told him to attack more.

ok who did more clean punching? dirrell or froch? yea dirrell so he wins that category. he did "enough" cause he did more than froch. simple. there is no set limit of how many punches you have to land all you have to do is be better than your opponent and he clearly was.

froch was the ineffective agressor which scores you zero points. credit to dirrell for picking his spots and being effective on his terms.