Mcguigan: Dirrell Beats Abraham, Froch Will Do Better

[davidoff]

Man I remember when I got Knockout Kings 99 for the Playstation. I always used to be Ali and beat the crap out of McGuigan in a slug fest. Man that was brutal.

[handsome1-1]

no way froch beat dirrell, no way! not only froch is aboslutely rubbish as a boxer and has also flooked his way getting lucky everytime but he is also a very very jealous, bitter person bad mouthing successful boxers. staright after his lucky win with taylor hopkins offered him out, froch **** himself...bottom line the man is an absolute wanker

[handsome1-1]

froch is going around saying calzhage retired because he wouldn`t have to face "the froch"...he is for real....froch if u do read these views well read this , u r pile of **** as a boxer, a very very jealous twisted man and if i ever see i m gonna give u good slapping...and i mean frochy !

[NachoMan]

Some fighters and former fighters scored it narrowly to Froch, and in any case, the idea that fighters are necessarily experts at analysing fights is ridiculous. A classic example of how untrue that is was the Mayweather-Boldomir fight. Almost every boxing journalist predicted correctly that Floyd would win an easy UD, but when the other top Welterweights were asked for their prediction, all of them said it would be extremely competitive, and some of them predicted Boldomir would win.

Dirrell didn't land many clean punches - neither of them did. And he only buzzed Froch once, not several times; and he was hurt himself more than once. Aggression is the second most important criterion that judges are supposed to use when scoring a fight. Two of the judges just gave the aggression criterion slightly more weight than you did, that's all, plus they felt that Froch landed more effective punches than Dirrell. You can disagree, and I scored it narrowly to Dirrell myself; but no way was it a robbery. And you can't pretend that aggression isn't one of the criteria that judges are supposed to use.

And people who make their living from their boxing expertise are not self-proclaimed experts. They are only able to make a good living from it because their level of expertise is respected in the industry. Those whose analysis is not respected in the industry can't make a good living from it. You certainly don't get to write for publications like The Ring if you are not respected in the industry.

Please point to the round where Froch had Dirrell anywhere close to hurt. I could barely count five punches that Froch even landed in the entire fight, much less hurt Dirrell with. You are completely delusional if you insist on saying Dirrell was ever close to being hurt. Dirrell landed many more punches on Froch and buzzed the guy several times in the fight, particularly in the later rounds when he started showing a little more balls. His best moments in the fight were clearly the tenth round when he had Froch out on his feet. Seriously, man, go back and watch the fight; especially rounds 8-11.

With regard to your point about scoring. I believe you mean, "effective aggression." The key word there being effective. Not sure if you omitted it intentionally or really just thought that any old type of aggression wins a round. Carl Froch sure did try. Too bad for him that his effort couldn't overcome his ****ty balance and amateur style. You can jump into every thread and scream that Froch was actually doing something with his aggression, but it won't make it so.

Regarding your defense of boxing scribes as being more qualified analysts of the fights, I am quite sure that many boxers, active and retired, picked Floyd to handle Baldomir, just as a few writers picked Baldmomir (though they would be loathe to admit it now). The way I see it, boxing writers, in general, particularly the more established ones, play the party line when it comes to calling fights. Most say the exact same thing, nearly verbatim it seems; ostensibly for fear of being cast as fools for saying something silly (read: against so-called conventional wisdom). If they get it wrong, well they picked wrong together. Crazy **** happens, but logic dictated that their guy should have won anyway. Bottom line is anything can happen in a fight, so predictions are largely luck. Having said that, I have much more regard for and interest in hearing the thoughts of somebody who has actually been in the ring.

[Dave Rado]

Please point to the round where Froch had Dirrell anywhere close to hurt.

Round 8.

I could barely count five punches that Froch even landed in the entire fight

Then you're biased.

Dirrell landed many more punches on Froch and buzzed the guy several times in the fight

He threw very few punches, and the only round in which Froch was hurt was the 10th. Dirrell was certainly by far the better boxer, but he spent too much time on his bike and too little time countering effectively. Even Gary Shaw said it was very close and only scored it to Dirrell by one round. I agree that he should have got the decision, but you have to be very biased to call it a wide one.

the tenth round when he had Froch out on his feet.

Now you're being ridiculous. He was temporarily buzzed, but nowhere near being out on his feet.

With regard to your point about scoring. I believe you mean, "effective aggression." The key word there being effective.

If both fighters land about the same number of clean punches in a round, and of similar power, but one of them is being more aggressive, then he will generally be given the round on the basis that he was showing more aggression. Sure when he was swiping at air that wouldn't have got him any marks for aggression, but he landed a lot more than you pretend.

Regarding your defense of boxing scribes as being more qualified analysts of the fights, I am quite sure that many boxers, active and retired, picked Floyd to handle Baldomir, just as a few writers picked Baldmomir (though they would be loathe to admit it now).

As an example of boxing scribes' picks for that fight: The Sweet Science - see here - 12 out of 12 picked Floyd by UD, most said it would be easy. Whereas the top Welters at the time were far from certain who would win, and all said it would be very competitive - see here.

[The_Demon]

british_fan hates Froch with a passion.

just telling it how it is chunk
sorry,but your boy is S*it

[Finn73]

I agree that styles makes fights, that's why I'm also picking Direlle to win against Abraham, Direll is the fastest tallest fighter in the tournament with the longuest reach, going against a one dimensional fighter with a slow work rate who's the slowest, shortest fighter in the tournament plus he's fighting him at home. I think he will take it because of what he learned in his last fight. He just needs to watch out for those thunderous flurries.

I think Ward will lose in a close fight to Kessler but gain a tone of respect from everyone. He's more technically mature then Direll I'm really hoping he takes it though because he has an opportunity to be a poster boy for American boxing.

Well, that's your opinion, but let me clarify that AA isn't one-dimensional and - more important - that his punches are much much faster than most people think. He throws his punches from every possible angle and his right hand can be lightning fast. Also he is really good at feinting a punch and then surprizes his opponent with something else. His ring intelligence is also very underrated. I predict that he will KTFO Dirrell.