prove to me dirrell got robbed against froch..

[Sick/]

Carl Froch dominated, while Dirrell ran like a little *****. Carl Froch deserves extra credit for throwing that *****bitch on the floor too

[BoxingFanFirst]

This is what is annoying. Fannies like you posting on a boxing forum thinking your opinion....yes opinion....is better than everyone elses. I scored the fight for Dirrell by a point when I re-watched it. However, there are respected boxing writers who scored it for Froch. Yet according to you, they are in love with Froch? Your opinion is more worthy? Please enlighten us as to your background in the sport?

Anyone who has 20/20 vision could see the more effective fighter was Dirrell. I could have never watched a boxing match in my life and would have seen that. If I upset you ignore me, otherwise **** off.

Judges are supposedly trained pro's, and they **** up all the time. I don't give a **** who you are. It doesn't mean you are better at scoring a fight.

[boeing747]

Dirrell didn't do enough to deserve the win against Froch.

However, he did show that on the occasions he stood and traded with Froch, he had his number. I would expect that if Dirrell had the opportunity to fight Froch again, he would be more aggressive and I think he would expose Froch.

A defeated fighter usually has a good call to ask for a re-match after a SD loss. Once the Super 6 thing is over, I don't think Froch (if he still holds a belt) would be keen on getting back in with Dirrell.

[Mikhnienko]

In general Dirrell should have won BUT I am a huge proponent of the "you have to take the title from the Champion" rule that alot of people now-a-days seem to think is "old school" and irrelevant.

Had it been a non title fight then no doubt Dirrell should have won but in a title fight no fooking way can you win by the odd potshot, ruiz'ing, and marathon running.

btw Manny Steward said Froch won too, i assume because he holds a similar perspective on the title challenger rule.

[cleaner147]

In general Dirrell should have won BUT I am a huge proponent of the "you have to take the title from the Champion" rule that alot of people now-a-days seem to think is "old school" and irrelevant.

Had it been a non title fight then no doubt Dirrell should have won but in a title fight no fooking way can you win by the odd potshot, ruiz'ing, and marathon running.

btw Manny Steward said Froch won too, i assume because he holds a similar perspective on the title challenger rule.

Im a big proponent of this, too.

[Iceta Lives]

Dirrel didn't get robbed. He got what he deserved for trying to box in such a negative way. Even Chad Dawson and Floyd Mayweather show a little bit of an ability to punch without doing all that other wack **** that Dirrel does. I'm telling you, I think the guy is garbage. Froch isn't very skilled, but I think he gets a lot of flack on here and he gets underrated too. I've got him beating Kessler.

[dans]

You still on this fight man. Get over it, Froch won the decision.

[BoxingFanFirst]

You still on this fight man. Get over it, Froch won the decision.

Ya for real. Froch got the decision whether he deserved it or not. Whatever fighter goes on to be the better fighter later in there careers will get more credit for that fight IMO.

[Uturn]

In general Dirrell should have won BUT I am a huge proponent of the "you have to take the title from the Champion" rule that alot of people now-a-days seem to think is "old school" and irrelevant.

Had it been a non title fight then no doubt Dirrell should have won but in a title fight no fooking way can you win by the odd potshot, ruiz'ing, and marathon running.

btw Manny Steward said Froch won too, i assume because he holds a similar perspective on the title challenger rule.

This right here. Dirrell won the fight but it just wasn't convincing enough to become champion, Period.

[slimshandy69]

i think ive won the debate...