The 'Dirrell got robbed against Froch' myth

[Shattered Jaw]

Damn now Froch hurt Dirrell too?

Big swinging hook in the 8th that had Dirrell's legs do a very small dance and had him CLINGING ON FOR DEAR LIFE.

[MacMarauder]

I thought Dirrell won but I wouldn't go as far to call it a "robbery". It was a close fight that was tough to judge.

[-Antonio-]

Dirrell was robbed. All these people score for negativity, and that's not how you score a fight.

In fact it proves that you are judging the fight with bias because "fighting negative" is not a basis for scoring a round.

[The Gambler1981]

Either you win or you do not there is not any rule that states the champion gets extra rounds if the other guy does not do something extra. Rounds are judged round by round judging based on who is more effective that round. If you do not like a style and you to score a fight against someone based on that your scoring should not be considered.

Wether or not you like how a guy is fighting really has no basis on who the more effective fighter is, and out of all the decision that got ripped on as bad last year this was the worst (it was a bad decision for sure but depending on how you judge a fight to be a robbery it may or may not be depending on how low you set the bar)..

Ain't no myth about it Dirrell is the superior fighter and if they fought again Dirrell would be heavily favored and would most likely eviscerate Froch.

[-Antonio-]

Im sorry guys but the way Dirrell fought is not the way you win a world title, it was a pathetic and whimpy performance and no one deserves to be a world champion that way.

That's not how you score a fight.

Again this is the problem. Every excuse is Dirrell fought negative, not Froch deserved to win. Froch was horrible that night. Dirrell's style can sometimes be a joke (Stevens fight) but if you can't touch the guy then how is it his problem? In terms of scoring I mean.

[Weebler I]

I'm British and a fan of Froch and but I scored it clearly to Dirrell purely on the basis that he landed more and took less punches in return.I'm glad they gave it to Froch however, what we saw from Dirrell isn't what boxing is about nor should it be encouraged. The running was one thing but what bothered me more was when Froch did catch him Dirrell that night would go to ground or hang on to him so he could run away again thus avoiding having to actually fight at all, farcical and not at all like his performance v AA.

It may not have been a victory for Dirrell but an objective fight fan recognises it's a victory for the sport.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

A robbery is when one guy dominates.....dominates a fight and doesnt get the decision.

Sorry but neither man dominated that fight.

[Snopkins]

Does this really need to be discussed anymore? The only one's who continue to drag this up are the insecure Carl froch fanboys who know that their hero lost decisively but refuse to accept it.



british boxing is a complete and utter joke and you can bet every single person who supports Carl froch is unemployed and living on a council estate.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Dirrell won 9-3.

[Lead Cenobite]

bro give up, americans will always make excuses because they cant admit their man was beaten. dirrell deserved to be Knocked out for his coward of a performance. he 100 percent did not deserve to win. thank god justice was done

the fker now faked to get out of being knocked out by abraham. cant wait till he fights someone like abraham again, the ***** will get destroyed

lmao@making it a country thing again. Insecure *****.

Do you even know the scoring rules in professional boxing?