Froch vs Dirrell: Did Froch get a hometown decision????

[New England]

You're stereotyping. Some Brits are biased, as are some Americans, some Mexicans etc.

some brits are biased. some americans are biased. some mexicans are biased.

that doesn't mean that the bias is in proportion.

[New England]

They are perfectly legit examples, you're just being petty now because I listed off so many examples of American bias, so quickly. There are many, many more, and in fact you just showed some yourself.

If you'd seen my first post on this thread you would have seen that I thought Dirrell won the fight so you can keep that scarlett B on your own chest. You just demonstrated that you have a "bias" or a prejudice against non-Americans by assuming that I thought Froch won. Thanks for proving my point.

Americans have just as much bias and nationalist investment in their fighters - when they are fighting non-American fighters. How many times have you heard the crowd chanting "USA" when it's an American vs a non-American, fighting in America. I've heard it in Hopkins, Ward, Bradley, Mayweather fights, to name a few. It happens a lot.

You're just guilty of looking at the issue entirely subjectively and applying no objectivity at all.

bradley had some supporters because they hated manny pacquiao, but almost everybody said manny won. bradley being american had nothing to do with it. pacquiao was one of the more popular athletes in america at the time how the f#ck is that possible if we're biased?

the rest of those fights were blatant robberies, and recognized as such. they were horrible, horrible examples.

[F!x]

bradley had some supporters because they hated manny pacquiao, but almost everybody said manny won. bradley being american had nothing to do with it. pacquiao was one of the more popular athletes in america at the time how the f#ck is that possible if we're biased?

the rest of those fights were blatant robberies, and recognized as such. they were horrible, horrible examples.

Look at the thread title. It's about home decisions - most of those fights I listed fit into that category.

Saying they were "recognized as such" is a little paradoxical. It doesn't change the fact that the robberies occurred in reality, and doesn't mean that everyone recognized them as a robbery. There were plenty of bias fans who argued that those decisions were legit. Even some of the fight night commentators.

If you personally thought they were robberies then you weren't one of the biased fans who thought they were legit. It doesn't mean those biased fans don't exist, just because you personally thought that the fights were robberies. Trawl through the threads on Boxingscene and you'll find people claiming that those boxers won those fights.

[Rome-By-Ko]

Froch did not lose this fight,because Dirrell did not win it..It was Dirrell's fault..

[M Bison]

9-3 Dirrel put a wooping on dat ass

[M Bison]

I always assumed you had to 'take' the belt off the champion? Dirrell was a highly skilled boxer. If he wasn't such a ***** he could've gone far in the sport.

Dirrel was decent even after the blatant robbery...

It wasn't Dirrel taking cheap shots after the referee called break
It wasn't Dirrel holding the back of Froch's head and punching him
It wasn't Dirrel who wrestled Froch down onto the ground because he was angry that his game plan wasn't working and it certainly wasn't Dirrel who was constantly hitting shots at the back of Frochs head...

Fights should be won clean and fairly, Froch cheated his way to that 'victory' he got schooled in reality but obviously hometown decision is a hometown decision...

The fact Carl never got a points deduction clarifies who the referee and judges were in favour of.

[Rome-By-Ko]

9-3 Dirrel put a wooping on dat ass

Me and you have a very different definition of what a wooping is..

[Rome-By-Ko]

Dirrel was decent even after the blatant robbery...

It wasn't Dirrel taking cheap shots after the referee called break
It wasn't Dirrel holding the back of Froch's head and punching him
It wasn't Dirrel who wrestled Froch down onto the ground because he was angry that his game plan wasn't working and it certainly wasn't Dirrel who was constantly hitting shots at the back of Frochs head...

Fights should be won clean and fairly, Froch cheated his way to that 'victory' he got schooled in reality but obviously hometown decision is a hometown decision...

The fact Carl never got a points deduction clarifies who the referee and judges were in favour of.

It also was not Froch who was holding on for dear life..Trying his hardest not to engage..Listen I don't know if ya ever seen a fight live,that fight on TV was hard to score cause Froch was bringing the fight and landing good punches..Then you have Dirrell who was landing some shots,yet he was being negative in the ring..Holding and running(the literally meaning)was not a good look on TV..Imagine watching live in the building..Dirrell loss that fight,now I don't hold anything against anyone who scored it for Dirrell..Yet to act as if this fight was a blowout,is a bit foolish bro..

[M Bison]

It also was not Froch who was holding on for dear life..Trying his hardest not to engage..Listen I don't know if ya ever seen a fight live,that fight on TV was hard to score cause Froch was bringing the fight and landing good punches..Then you have Dirrell who was landing some shots,yet he was being negative in the ring..Holding and running(the literally meaning)was not a good look on TV..Imagine watching live in the building..Dirrell loss that fight,now I don't hold anything against anyone who scored it for Dirrell..Yet to act as if this fight was a blowout,is a bit foolish bro..

I prefer cleaner punches over punches being blocked.

Froch was made to look very amateurish by Dirrel from rounds 1-6 it was just blatant who was doing the better work and landing the cleaner shots, perhaps Froch was throwing more but he certainly wasn't landing more.

My point isn't Dirrel shouldn't of been deducted a point my point is Carl should of clearly been deducted a point or two at the minimum he was doing far worse than the holding of Dirrel plus I don't score punches that hit the back of the head I don't think we're meant to do that.

Mayweather vs Maidana was a close fight because Mayweather was landing effectively and Maidana was pushing Floyd up against the ropes and landing so you can definitely argue that fight going either way (although I thought Maidana nicked it) that fight was obviously close but when you're Carl Froch who could barely get close to land anything clean how can those 'close' rounds go in favour of him without taking into consideration of the BS hometown judging?

Meh definitely think it was a robbery you've got your opinion n that's fair enough I respect that but I just find a hard time watching that fight and trying to fathom how Froch got the nod.

[Rome-By-Ko]

I prefer cleaner punches over punches being blocked.

Froch was made to look very amateurish by Dirrel from rounds 1-6 it was just blatant who was doing the better work and landing the cleaner shots, perhaps Froch was throwing more but he certainly wasn't landing more.

My point isn't Dirrel shouldn't of been deducted a point my point is Carl should of clearly been deducted a point or two at the minimum he was doing far worse than the holding of Dirrel plus I don't score punches that hit the back of the head I don't think we're meant to do that.

Mayweather vs Maidana was a close fight because Mayweather was landing effectively and Maidana was pushing Floyd up against the ropes and landing so you can definitely argue that fight going either way (although I thought Maidana nicked it) that fight was obviously close but when you're Carl Froch who could barely get close to land anything clean how can those 'close' rounds go in favour of him without taking into consideration of the BS hometown judging?

Meh definitely think it was a robbery you've got your opinion n that's fair enough I respect that but I just find a hard time watching that fight and trying to fathom how Froch got the nod.

Come on bro,Maidana was fighting just as dirty as Froch was..Mayweather was not being negative like Dirrell was tho bro..Dirrell was throwing himself on the floor to avoid punches and waste time..Not to mention it was blatant and continues..I don't agree with 1-6 sorry bro,Dirrell had a bust nose and all that within those rds..

Again,everyone see's the fight they see,but this fight was no robbery..Or bad decision..This was the case of a fighter being able to win the fight,and just didn't..Dirrell was so negative within that fight he took rds from himself with his actions..Floyd did not do this,Floyd landed far cleaner punches and controlled Maidana esp the 2end half of the fight..Dirrell never controlled Froch,he just tried his hardest to be negative and slow Froch's attack down by holding obsessively and throwing himself on the floor..How do you score something like that bro..I know Froch did some nasty dirty things as well,yet it was in response to Dirrell mucking up the fight..I for one was happy as hell that the ref deducted that point..It made Dirrell fight like a man,which is saying a lot about a boxer..

Let's be honest as well..He fought great against AA until he tired in the late stages of that fight..Then he started doing these same ****** antics again,and look what that got him..Froch is not dirty cause he could have done the same thing to Dirrell that AA did a number of times..That hoping on the floor was a part of Dirrell's game plan bro..That let's you know where the guy's head was at..