Froch fans prove Dirrell was not robbed

[TOBYLEE1]

IMO Dirrell won the fight by a slight margin. But he did keep on falling or dropping to the canvass and complaining to the ref. That did not help his cause, he should know that you have to take away the belt from the champ. He didn't convincingly beat Froch and all the holding didn't help either. Dirrell did it to himself

[Weebler I]

IMO Dirrell won the fight by a slight margin. But he did keep on falling or dropping to the canvass and complaining to the ref. That did not help his cause, he should know that you have to take away the belt from the champ. He didn't convincingly beat Froch and all the holding didn't help either. Dirrell did it to himself

agree it was just too pathetic to win a belt, his performance v Abraham was worthy but he ruined that too

[S.G.]

You know why Dirrell did not win that fight, you seem like a smart person. When you got 15-20k people screaming for the guy who attacks. he is always going to get a nudge. The home fight ALWAYS get the benefit of doubt. go back to hollyfield vs lewis, both fights lewis won by a few rounds but judges drew the first 1 and had the 2nd one close. why because of the home fighter and the fans.

go back to ward vs kessler, on neutral territory warn would have lost by dq but didnt because of the home fighter and support.

Holyfield v Lewis I was as bad a robbery as I've ever seen.

Ward didn't deserve to be disqualified, and I strongly doubt that he would have been anywhere other than maybe Kessler's backyard. There were a couple headbutts in there, but, in the immortal words of Ricky Hatton, it was a boxing match, not a tickling match.

In scrappy fights, and any 50-50 moments will go to the home fighter, it happens in American, England and hell even France (watch that danny williams fight)

I know this, but that doesn't make it right and won't stop me from criticising horrible decisions.

If Dirrell entertained the fans, was aggressive and LOOKED to actually try to win instead of be ultra defensive, he may have gotten the 50-50 rounds.

That's the thing though, there weren't that many 50-50 rounds. How can a round be 50-50 when one fighter lands more punches in it than his opponent has in the whole fight? Yes, the fight was that one-sided. I could count the amount of significant punches Froch handed on one hand almost; Dirrell landed more in the 12th round alone - a round that Massimo Barrovecchio scored to Froch.

Without a shadow of doubt, biased aside, there were around 7-8 50-50 rounds that either guy could have won, froch prob got most of them doing trying to attack by throwing punches.

So you're basically saying Froch deserves points just for walking forward? I don't view what he did against Dirrell as effective aggression at all. He hit air all night long and got countered constantly.

You know I had dirrell up by a couple of points but I told my friends who were watching, Froch was going to get the decision because of the way Dirrell fought. You know why Dirrell lost, so does Dirrell. Look at the way he fought Abraham, he learnt his lesson and did not leave things to chance.

Okay, so you also thought Dirrell won, so why are you here defending a robbery?

And yes I do know why Dirrell lost - corrupt/incompetent judging and officiating.

I'm by no means arguing that Dirrell fought a great fight - he was clearly green and overly negative, but the fact is he won more rounds than Froch, landed many times more punches than Froch and was robbed of a clear victory.

[Rosseboi]

I don't subscribe to the notion of a robbery the only time Dirrell really 'outshone' Froch was rounds 11 + 12.

What people are neglecting is Dirrell also grabbed froch everytime he was in trouble. Or fell over. Take your pick. And this is coming from a Dirrell fan.

People also forget that Froch pressured all night, something Abraham could not do which is why Froch vs Dirrell was close and Dirrell vs Abraham was a demolition - see the difference?

Lastly, people also forget that Froch was the victim of clear 'home cooking' vs Taylor. Press row, the presenters had it no more than 1/2 points for Taylor by round 11 yet the scorecards had Taylor 4/5 points up - *what*the******. At least Dirrell vs Froch is a true 50/50 opinion fight.




Seriously, people need to stop being so national. Its beginning to sour my coming here, its all very childish.

Oh and for the record my S6 pick is either Froch or Dirrell - NOT Ward. They'll probably meet again people......

[lfc19titles]

Holyfield v Lewis I was as bad a robbery as I've ever seen.

Ward didn't deserve to be disqualified, and I strongly doubt that he would have been anywhere other than maybe Kessler's backyard. There were a couple headbutts in there, but, in the immortal words of Ricky Hatton, it was a boxing match, not a tickling match.


I know this, but that doesn't make it right and won't stop me from criticising horrible decisions.


That's the thing though, there weren't that many 50-50 rounds. How can a round be 50-50 when one fighter lands more punches in it than his opponent has in the whole fight? Yes, the fight was that one-sided. I could count the amount of significant punches Froch handed on one hand almost; Dirrell landed more in the 12th round alone - a round that Massimo Barrovecchio scored to Froch.


So you're basically saying Froch deserves points just for walking forward? I don't view what he did against Dirrell as effective aggression at all. He hit air all night long and got countered constantly.


Okay, so you also thought Dirrell won, so why are you here defending a robbery?

And yes I do know why Dirrell lost - corrupt/incompetent judging and officiating.

I'm by no means arguing that Dirrell fought a great fight - he was clearly green and overly negative, but the fact is he won more rounds than Froch, landed many times more punches than Froch and was robbed of a clear victory.

I would not call it a robbery, I can't remember much but only 2 rounds were won cleanly by dirrell. I gave you the reason to why it was not a robbery earlier mate. You need to understand the home town fighter will always get benefit of doubts. dirrell what landed 5-10 punches per round with froch landing slightly less? not an awful lot thrown by dirrell which went against him. I don't think it was a robbery at all, a fighter 1-2 points up and losing is just bad luck.

I expect when Froch fights in American, he will get 50-50 rounds given against him as well...wait he did against taylor. it is something that we all need to accept. If any fighter wants to win at someone elses backyard then they should do it convincingly or they are at risk.

It is one of the reasons I was shocked haye won against the russian. I gave the tight rounds to the Russia and had him winning by 2 points

[General Zod]

IMO Dirrell won the fight by a slight margin. But he did keep on falling or dropping to the canvass and complaining to the ref. That did not help his cause, he should know that you have to take away the belt from the champ. He didn't convincingly beat Froch and all the holding didn't help either. Dirrell did it to himself

Good post, completely agree

[Shattered Jaw]

A keened eyed observer notices that many of those punches by Dirrell in that video didn't actually even land. Froch does actually slip some punches and others are caught on the gloves.

[S.G.]

I would not call it a robbery, I can't remember much but only 2 rounds were won cleanly by dirrell. I gave you the reason to why it was not a robbery earlier mate. You need to understand the home town fighter will always get benefit of doubts. dirrell what landed 5-10 punches per round with froch landing slightly less? not an awful lot thrown by dirrell which went against him. I don't think it was a robbery at all, a fighter 1-2 points up and losing is just bad luck.

I expect when Froch fights in American, he will get 50-50 rounds given against him as well...wait he did against taylor. it is something that we all need to accept. If any fighter wants to win at someone elses backyard then they should do it convincingly or they are at risk.

See, to me hometown bias is just another term for corruption. It may be deeply impressioned into boxing but that doesn't mean we should just accept it.

After watching the fight 2 or 3 times my definitive scorecard was 117-110 to Dirrell, for the record.

It is one of the reasons I was shocked haye won against the russian. I gave the tight rounds to the Russia and had him winning by 2 points

Haye was the moneyman in that fight, that's why.

[Dirt McGirt]

Man, you can't judge a fight by stats and highlight videos, thats how the boxrec warriors do their thing, its blatant ignorance.

Too many people bring up this stats bull****, who landed more shots? who threw more punches? it mean f**k all. A fight is scored after each round based on a variety of factors.

Btw, I still agree that Dirrell won this fight, but even he admitted after the fight that he did too much holding and fought ugly, which didnt do him any favours. He changed that against Abraham so credit to him.

Judges are bull****, and the Super6 is really highlighting that fact. Instead of getting angry at Froch fans, why don't you get angry at the people responsible for all this bull**** scoring we've seen in the last year.

[Vanihm]

Easy. Froch did. Dirrell maybe landed more punches in total but they were all in the last 3 rounds. You have to start fighting in rd 1 not rd 9.