New home-cooking scandal in the super-six.

[S.G.]

But landing more punches (and the more effective, might I add) and avoiding more punches doesn't win you fights? What exactly does win you fights, in a boxing match?

I'm convinced some of these guys score fights based on who takes the most steps forward. If they like watching people moving forward so much why not just go watch an egg and spoon race or something instead.

[D-MiZe]

he should take every measure to make sure he gets a fair fight after getting ROBBED in the UK.

You're a fucking idiot.

[johnm is...]

You're right counting all the punches in the fight would be easier a hell of a lot easier than just counting Dirrell hugs. If you don't understand why Dirrell then you are ******ed or a blind fan. I'm just glad the judges saw through Dirrell cowardly hustle and did not reward it with a championship belt which he clearly doesn't deserve.

Yeah, I'm the blind one, but you're glad a guy got the decision in a fight where he couldn't hit his opponent. Whatever, man.

[bolopunchez]

I'm convinced some of these guys score fights based on who takes the most steps forward. If they like watching people moving forward so much why not just go watch an egg and spoon race or something instead.

LOL.

Their argument as to why Froch won is ridiculous. They spend a lot of time talking about how Dirrell lost the fight, but not enough about how Froch won the fight.

[BMWM3P]

Yeah, I'm the blind one, but you're glad a guy got the decision in a fight where he couldn't hit his opponent. Whatever, man.

Let's just make this clear I'm in no way shape or form anything close to being a Froch fan. I'm a however a boxing fan and the cowardly way that Dirrell fought should be penalized and done away with in boxing.

[BattlingNelson]

Yeah, I'm the blind one, but you're glad a guy got the decision in a fight where he couldn't hit his opponent. Whatever, man.

LOL.

Their argument as to why Froch won is ridiculous. They spend a lot of time talking about how Dirrell lost the fight, but not enough about how Froch won the fight.

Graham Houston, who's arguably the best boxing writer on the planet, had Froch winning. He also said this about the so-called robbery:

In the Showtime coverage, which was my vehicle for viewing the fight, analyst Al Bernstein had Dirrell edging it but didn’t seem too sure. In the British broadcast, commentator John Rawling of the new PPV platform Primetime had Dirrell winning (I know this because he sent me an email to this effect after the fight), while I’m told that ex-fighter analyst Jon Thaxton also scored it for Dirrell while pundit Steve Bunce went for Froch.

That’s the sort of fight it was — open to interpretation.

[bolopunchez]

Graham Houston, who's arguably the best boxing writer on the planet, had Froch winning. He also said this about the so-called robbery:

But it's really not a fight that should be open to interpretation.

I think part of the reason why people gave more rounds to Froch, was because of the fans. They would cheer at every move he would make. Froch could hit the air and the fans would cheer.

Watch the fight, with the sound off, and then you'll get a better idea as to who won.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Nevertheless, Dirrell still beat Froch at the actual "fighting" part too.

Maybe he did but certainly not well enough to cry about a robbery.

[starjammer]

Just to add my cents, I had Dirrell winning both times I watched the fight. This is alarming news about the judges. Though the kind of fight this will be, I don't think it will come into play. But that's not the point.

[BattlingNelson]

But it's really not a fight that should be open to interpretation.

I think part of the reason why people gave more rounds to Froch, was because of the fans. They would cheer at every move he would make. Froch could hit the air and the fans would cheer.

Watch the fight, with the sound off, and then you'll get a better idea as to who won.

Tell me how you scored it?