Dirrell fought like a punk and he wasn't just evasive... he ran and held and did whatever he could to avoid a fight. He looked more impressive than Froch athletically, but he didn't do enough. He could have won fighting that way if he had just thrown and landed more punches. Dirrell didn't want it and he didn't deserve the decision. You can't really compare what Dirrell did to what guys like Calzaghe and even Mayweather do. Even Calzaghe was evasive and threw a lot of small punches, and had a questionable looking style.. but he never ran and he stood his ground.
Carl Froch: "Andre Dirrell Tried To Steal a Decision"
Collapse
-
WAR CARLOS FROCHOS!!!

This is good for Dirrell, next time maybe he'll come to fight and stop acting like a little *****.Comment
-
Dirrell was the who was robbed of a clear victory.
No matter what anyone says, you can't win a fight because you clinched less and came forward (landing nothing).
You actually have to hit your opponent coming forward to get credit.
The funny thing overall is Dirrell ran and clinched but he landed way more punches and threw more punches in majority of the rounds.Comment
-
Comment
-
Croch reminds me of Hamed. Flawless records fighting bums in their backyard, then get put to shame when they step up to real competition and get blasted. Cant wait for Croch to fight Abraham or Kessler and get KTFO so he can run to retirement and shame like Princess Hamed did.Comment
-
Froch missed some shots and might have had a worse percentage, but I don't think he landed less punches. Dirrell's punches were faster and more explosive looking, but they weren't really affecting Froch any more more than his slow, thudding punches affected Dirrell. Dirrell's best punches were probably better than Froch's, but I didn't think Dirrell landed as much or as cleanly as a lot of people seem to think. It was a close fight. Saying Direll won a close one makes sense to me, but to say it was obvious and that he was robbed seems like ****. To me, Dirrell is a better athlete, a more skilled boxer, and should have beaten Froch, but didn't do enough.Dirrell was the who was robbed of a clear victory.
No matter what anyone says, you can't win a fight because you clinched less and came forward (landing nothing).
You actually have to hit your opponent coming forward to get credit.
The funny thing overall is Dirrell ran and clinched but he landed way more punches and threw more punches in majority of the rounds.Comment
-
Hey Weebler, you said this in the round-by-round coverage of the fight... at the end of round 11:rofl @ all you fat yank idiots supporting a guy who runs away for 12 rounds and you call yourself fight fans? you're a ****in disgrace, nothing more, nothing less. Have a look at yourselves and think about what you're saying. You want boxing to turn into what Dirrell tried to make it?
Dirrell was like a thieving shoplifter, one hit and then run like hell, and you want to reward this with titles?
Boxing is an honourable sport, the sport of champions, the sport of warriors where the hours of dedication in training and bravery are demonstrated in a genuine contest. Let's not turn it into a cowardly farce.
Now shut the fuck up. Thanks.Comment
-
Comment
-
to Froch:WBC super middleweight champion Carl Froch is claiming that Andre Dirrell fought in a certain manner to steal rounds and swerve the judges to win a decision. Froch won a close split decision over Dirrell last Saturday night in Nottingham, England. There has been a lot of controversy over which fighter deserved the decision. Froch says Dirrell was afraid of being hit and stayed on the run for the entire twelve rounds, making their contest very ugly. [details]
you can't win if you land less punches than your opponent.
sincerely,
real boxing fansComment
Comment