VIDEO: Andre Direll vs. Carl Froch, THE ROBBERY.

[The Hammer]

Rawlings was rooting for Dirrell.

[Mayweather41-0]

the only thing i took away from this thread was Katy Perry jumping up and down

[thuggery]

Nope, no robbery here. Diving around the ring doesn't win you fights.

[$tate of Mind]

It was a close fight that could've gone either way. It was hardly a crowd pleasing bout though.

[S. Saddler 1310]

Dirrell wouldn't have beaten Ward back then and certainly won't now. Ward was and is just too much for him, possesses too deep a utility-belt and too great an advantage in the intangible areas.


btw, this was by no means a robbery.

here's my card. bear with me. for the sake of fairness, in addition to stating my score, i've tried to show the points where the fight was most open to interpretation.

minus the point deduction against Dirrell, i could be swayed to give either man the 10th, as each made a case for himself.
* denotes four other rounds that i felt were open to interpretation, but that i personally would not be inclined to score differently (an even split, at two a piece).

Round 1: 10-9 Froch
Round 2: 10-9 Dirrell
Round 3: 10-9 Dirrell *
Round 4: 10-9 Dirrell
Round 5: 10-9 Dirrell
Round 6: 10-9 Froch
Round 7: 10-9 Froch
Round 8: 10-9 Froch
Round 9: 10-9 Froch *
Round 10: 10-8 Froch or 9-9 even (point deducted from Dirrell)
Round 11: 10-9 Dirrell *
Round 12: 10-9 Froch *


if i give Froch the 10th: 115-112 Froch (115-113 Froch without the PD)

if i give Dirrell the 10th: 114-113 Froch (114-114 draw without the PD)

it's conceivable that someone could give Dirrell the 10th and score three out of those four marked rounds (3, 9, 11, 12) in his favour, awarding him a 114-113 win after the PD. but that would be generous to Dirrell.

upshot is, it was a close fight and not a robbery or even a gift.


points to note:

-Froch's jab. consistent and overlooked by those who cry 'robbery' over this fight.

-Froch's left hook counters. he touched Dirrell with these and scored more often than is given credit for by those who cry 'robbery' over this fight.

-Froch's professional work up close when in clinches.

-Dirrell's punching is praised for its supposedly consistent effectiveness by those who cry 'robbery' over this fight, but the number of wide and slappy shots thrown by Andre, that either cuffed or else ended up with his arm d****d around Carl's neck, far exceeded the number of eye-catching, sharp, straight ones (of which there were some, of course, which i'll address next).

-Dirrell would too often land an eye-catching shot or two and then give away the rest of a round by just retreating and not fighting while Froch worked. Froch's work may have been scrappier and less easy on the eye than the best of Dirrell's stuff, but he would control the bulk of a round in which Dirrell might land a pretty punch or two. for too much of this fight, Dirrell refused to even try to establish himself as the ring-general, gave the ring-generalship battle away - his movement frequently had a panicked, desperate appearance and was often employed primarily for extended evasive action rather than for setting things up. Froch's defence is also overlooked in the fight. he was not being tagged at will the whole fight, as some like to pretend.

-round 10 is the only round i personally would be inclined to deliberate over in my scorecard above. i felt Froch controlled the most of the round, but you can make a case for Dirrell stealing it away on the back of the big left he landed near the end of it and the subsequent flurry. it's hard to say Froch was too badly shook, he was knocked off balance and backed up to the ropes as a result, but Dirrell's follow-up effort didn't produce any cleanly landed blows and Froch was composed the whole time. it was hardly a DLH-Quartey type of onslaught from Dirrell, but i can understand anyone giving him that round.

-i may not have deducted a point from Dirrell in the referee's position, but i can see why he did.

[S. Saddler 1310]

Terrible "fight"

it's not a crowd-pleaser in the rock 'em sock 'em sense, but i do find it quite compelling and intriguing viewing.

[S. Saddler 1310]

i recall the weigh-in for this fight was very amusing, too. drunken Nottingham natives loudly berating Dirrell with colourful taunts like 'oy, knob-rot!' and 'you're getting knocked out, you little tosspot!'

[megadeth]

Nope, no robbery here. Diving around the ring doesn't win you fights.

No, winning individual rounds does and Direll certainly did a lot more of this than Froch did. This was most certainly was a robbery.

[thuggery]

No, winning individual rounds does and Direll certainly did a lot more of this than Froch did. This was most certainly was a robbery.

To you maybe, to most boxing fans it was not. You're just gonna have to deal with it mate.

[nachorjj]

Dirrell can't beat Ward because Ward have one thing that Dirrell dosn't have. Ward is smart.
And Dirrell lose against Froch because he isn't smart and run and hold when it was not necessary