Is Dirrell The Most 'Irritating' Fighter?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • The Gambler1981
    Undisputed Champion
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • May 2008
    • 25961
    • 521
    • 774
    • 49,039

    #11
    Originally posted by AKATheMack
    I applaud any fighter doing what is necessary to win, but when they do just enough to lose I wont call robbery either. Dirrell has more than enough skill to beat Froch convincingly, but he blew that fight by running too much.
    Dirrell still did much more than Froch when it came to actually landed clean effective blows even if the could have done more, and I didn't even mention that in my post.

    Winning is the most important thing in sport and sometimes it is not possible to win in style so it is best to just win and move on. In boxing winning on the card is subjective and all loses are not equal.

    The better fighter lost that night and he was the one that did more, if you want to sit there and justify that is on you~

    Comment

    • RoyJonesJrp4pno1
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • May 2005
      • 4617
      • 113
      • 4
      • 39,642

      #12
      Don't like watching this guy fight or talk outside of the ring. Boring and annoying.

      Comment

      • The Gambler1981
        Undisputed Champion
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • May 2008
        • 25961
        • 521
        • 774
        • 49,039

        #13
        Originally posted by SoldierWarrior
        The way he fought against Froch let the judges decide the outcome, the fight was fairly close because it was a messy fight and definitely a hard fight for the judges to score. Some of you can sit back on your couches and think wow he was robbed, but when you're at a live-event and watching that messy ass fight. Its hard to judge what lands and what doesn't.
        I disagree as I don't think it was that close, Dirrell could have done much more though and it is on him that he let that happean (doing enough to win rounds but not making it blindingly obvious).

        Dirrell landed all the impressive head snapping blows atleast a couple a round, Froch landed some stuff mostly ineffective but the crowd went wild. I understand the difference between scoring live and at the fight.

        If they can't determine a clean landed blow from a glancing blow that makes the crowd go wild then well they should not really be judges for fights, should they? Scoring fights is subjective aand I am generally open to how fights can be scored differently but in this fight I just don't see the arguement for Froch.

        Comment

        • ma51f
          Undisputed Champion
          Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
          • Nov 2008
          • 2474
          • 131
          • 154
          • 8,700

          #14
          no he's a brilliant boxer and will win the super 6

          Comment

          Working...
          TOP