Nope, sorry. Froch cannot count Dirrell as a win on his resume.

[Baracka Flocka]

I had Dirrell win easy.

It was a clear robbery.

The most decent thing Froch could do is give Dirrell a Rematch... however decency for Froch might be stretching it.

This should be the first match for both after the tourament.

[Pacquiaoo]

Dirrell won easily in my opinion.

[SoldierWarrior]

They both hit alot of air, it was a very sloppy fight. Should have been a draw for being so boring.

[DiLLiNGER]

Froch made Dirrell look like a straight up *****.

If Dirrell had any balls, he would've got k.o'd again.

Dirrell is a puzzy, he should be called andre "dramaqueen" dirrell.

[Pacquiaoo]

They both hit alot of air, it was a very sloppy fight. Should have been a draw for being so boring.

Not both, just Froch. Dirrell landed some nice combo's.

[SirTomJones]

I know what I saw; Carl lumbering forward, hitting thin air, getting beaten to the punch, and even getting rocked a couple of times.

And now all these discussions about resumes, and people are casually stating Froch beat Dirrell.

Nah. Sorry, that's bull****. Carl's got a nice resume, he beat Pascal and Taylor, but he didn't beat Dirrell.

check boxrec

[Baracka Flocka]

Btw I don't believe those boxrec stats for the fight for one second.

Blows- Froch 153/475 32%, Dirrell 105/315 33%; Controls- Froch 123( 25 attacks), Dirrell 126( 29 clinches, 17 circles).

I refuse to believe Froch landed that many punches.

[P4P Opinion]

I had Dirrell winning by a round, but I can see an argument for Froch winning or a draw. Many of the rounds were debatable and the reality is that Dirrell cost himself the fight by not engaging enough. Dirrell could have coasted to a decision if he'd had the heart to be just a little more offensive. He just about deserved the nod, but he left far too many rounds close when he clearly could have taken them. The good news for Dirrell is that he appears to have learnt his lesson from the loss, judging by his performance against Abraham.

I'm a little weary of hearing 'robbery' in regards to fights like this that were legitimately close, even if there is a consensus winner. A 'robbery' should only apply to absolute farcical decisions (EG: say Lacy had got the nod against Calzaghe). At best, the Froch-Dirrell verdict was a bad decision, not a robbery.

[SirTomJones]

I had Dirrell winning by a round, but I can see an argument for Froch winning or a draw. Many of the rounds were debatable and the reality is that Dirrell cost himself the fight by not engaging enough. Dirrell could have coasted to a decision if he'd had the heart to be just a little more offensive. He just about deserved the nod, but he left far too many rounds close when he clearly could have taken them. The good news for Dirrell is that he appears to have learnt his lesson from the loss, judging by his performance against Abraham.

I'm a little weary of hearing 'robbery' in regards to fights like this that were legitimately close, even if there is a consensus winner. A 'robbery' should only apply to absolute farcical decisions (EG: say Lacy had got the nod against Calzaghe). At best, the Froch-Dirrell verdict was a bad decision, not a robbery.

Exactly. The word robbery gets thrown about so much.

[SoldierWarrior]

Not both, just Froch. Dirrell landed some nice combo's.

I personally only saw those combos you speak of like in the last 2 rounds of the fight. This fight was dog**** boring and reminded me of Calzaghe/Hopkins with its boredom ****.