why Dirrell blew it (video)

**SplitSecond** · 11-13-2009, 04:00 PM

yep that's it, nothing to do with biased judges and biased audience
someone should've given the belt to eastman in that hopkins bout
too much clinching and running away = automatic loss

seriously, there has been plenty of extremely boring fighters, does'nt mean you should take the win off them if they landed all the shots and the other guy landed non, you can be angry all you want
but styles is opinion anyway

**Bigchill79** · 11-13-2009, 04:06 PM

Dirrell - No inside game whatsoever in that fight

**Junito-Rulez** · 11-13-2009, 04:06 PM

Dirrell was losing, with or without that ****** point deduction. THe fight was 7-5 period, Froch won 115-113. With a point deduction for Froch, it'd be 114-113.

**Klitschko2010** · 11-13-2009, 04:12 PM

No way should a champion loose his belt like this. Froch won that fight but it was scrappy. He was forced to land anything to score. Dirrell was holding... Froch was HITTING.

Also, Dirrell hit A LOT of air as well. His huggers make out as if he was landing with 80% of his shots. It was more like 20%.

**SplitSecond** · 11-13-2009, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Bigchill79

Dirrell - No inside game whatsoever in that fight

one of his big problems, he actually CANT fight on the inside
it's very important he learns how to, cuz atleast even if he decides to hold he can do some damage and not make it look like just holdin on to survive

still tho, pretty clear he was robbed
froch was hitting nothin

**SplitSecond** · 11-13-2009, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Klitschko2010

No way should a champion loose his belt like this. Froch won that fight but it was scrappy. He was forced to land anything to score. Dirrell was holding... Froch was HITTING.

Also, Dirrell hit A LOT of air as well. His huggers make out as if he was landing with 80% of his shots. It was more like 20%.

froch must've landed 1% then

**Klitschko2010** · 11-13-2009, 04:16 PM

Pretty clear it was robbed? Lmfao and yet the majority of people who are not ******ed scored the fight 114-113 or something similar... A close fight with rounds that could have gone either way. No robbery at all.

**Princemanspopa** · 11-13-2009, 04:16 PM

Quite hilarious that the Froch apologists have to list such tactics on Dirrells parts to justify Froch winning.I suggest some of you actually learn how to score a fight.Andre Dirrell won that fight and it wasn't even close.You score a fight based upon clean punches,no ineffective aggression,not clear missed punches.

Dirrell got robbed in quite possibly the worst decision of this year.Carl Froch will always lose to a fighter with great speed and decent enough boxing skills.Pascal fought Froch in his own fight,had he boxed then he would have shut Carl "the sloth" Froch out of the fight.

**Bigchill79** · 11-13-2009, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by tehMatrix

one of his big problems, he actually CANT fight on the inside
it's very important he learns how to, cuz atleast even if he decides to hold he can do some damage and not make it look like just holdin on to survive

still tho, pretty clear he was robbed
froch was hitting nothin

Respect your opinion but not even close to a robbery

why Dirrell blew it (video)