My belated Froch-Dirrell scorecard (second viewing)

[PittyPat]

First viewing with a ****ty live stream, late at night, buzzed out of my mind on ice cream and whatever other Red Bull****, with a buzzed out best mate (tired out of his skull), biased towards Froch going into the fight:

F || 10 | 10 | 10 | 9  | 9  | 10 | 10 | 9  | 10 | 10 | 9  | 10 || 116
D || 9  | 9  | 9  | 10 | 10 | 9  | 9  | 10 | 9  | 8  | 10 | 9  || 111

Second viewing last week with HD cap, each punch slowed down and analysed, close rounds re-watched, early in the morning, clear head, on my lonesome, no bias for either fighter:

F || 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  | 9  || 108
D || 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9  | 10 | 10 || 119

Just goes to show that first viewings really are the worst on which to form an opinion about a controversial fight. That's why I've refrained from joining in with the discussions on who won - I knew I needed to watch it again to get a better idea of what went down, rather than attempt to state anything on the basis of a horrendously pixellated live stream.

Basically, Froch looked like a pile of elephant **** and Dirrell boxed a truly beautiful fight. He didn't run, he boxed. I wish him all the best against the man-beast Abraham (it could be close), and for Kessler to further embarrass Froch. Yes, you people are right - it was one of the worst robberies of '09, if not the worst (Funeka-Guzman still edges it IMO).

And for those who think Froch won even a single round, let alone the fight...

[Ben_London]

I think that's a bit extreme but I did score it 116-112 for Dirrell.

[BritishBoxing92]

alot of people say that Dirrel won....i dunno really...not much can be done know

[PittyPat]

I think that's a bit extreme

Initially I thought so too, but upon watching numerous rounds again just to be sure, I just could not give Froch any of the rounds - and at times I really wanted to. He was utterly crap from bell to bell.

Downright shocking.

[Method Checker]

No doubt it was a complete robbery. The only excuse people have for Froch winning is that Dirrell didn't fight like they wanted him to. How much more biased can they get?

[Hitman932]

Initially I thought so too, but upon watching numerous rounds again just to be sure, I just could not give Froch any of the rounds - and at times I really wanted to. He was utterly crap from bell to bell.

Downright shocking.

If you don't count mauling someone in a clinch and hitting them behind the head as legal scoring blows it's hard to give Froch more than 3 rounds.

I thought Dirrell won the fight clearly but was not surprised that he didn't get the decision.

Ultimately he has only himself to blame because the gulf in talent was so great that had Dirrell just stood and traded he could have knocked Froch's sorry ass out and it wouldn't have bern left up to debate.

[gingeralbino]

i gave it to Dirrel by 1 point on first viewing (on primetime tv), and i gave Froch every round that i could. I refuse to watch it again. Horrible horrible fight imo.

[FloydTBE]

I scored it 115-114 for Froch. It was a very close fight but I thought Froch edged it.

[Easy-E]

The judges should be tried for theft.

[PittyPat]

I refuse to watch it again. Horrible horrible fight imo.

On that second viewing, I actually found it to be a rather fun and enjoyable fight to watch. Dirrell absolutely schooled the so-called champion (who had been nearly shut out by Taylor before) and made him look pathetic in front of a bunch of rabid Nottinghamers - all of whom whilst cheering his every rabbit punch and body slam, failed to acknowledge in their caveman brains that Dirrell did all the fancy work in there by scoring effectively and moving out of harm's way like a pro.

Mayweather-esque, I might say.