Originally posted by thuggery
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
VIDEO: Andre Direll vs. Carl Froch, THE ROBBERY.
Collapse
-
Originally posted by megadeth View PostKeep telling yourself that, you may learn to truly believe it. This was not a close fight. Anyone that couldn't see that Froch clearly lost that fight should give up watching boxing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by megadeth View PostKeep telling yourself that, you may learn to truly believe it. This was not a close fight. Anyone that couldn't see that Froch clearly lost that fight should give up watching boxing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by thuggery View PostYou're the type of person that believes Bradley beat Pac, you're useless.Last edited by S. Saddler 1310; 02-02-2013, 10:39 PM.
Comment
-
that ref sucks, he has always been shady. all the behind the head shots and no real warnings or point deductions.....shenanigans ..i had dirrell winning by 2 points even with the point deduction. oh well
Comment
-
IMO Dirrell should have won. CompuBox didn't track this fight so there are no punch totals available online, but it's pretty clear Dirrell probably landed more and landed at a way higher percentage. He even hurt Froch once in the 10th or 11th round, whereas Dirrell was never really caught with anything big. You can make an argument that Froch was trying to make the fight by coming forward and Dirrell was on his bicycle nearly the entire fight. But that's why they call it effective aggression—and it certainly wasn't very effective. I think this fight was somewhere in the vicinity of an 8 rounds to 4 victory for Dirrell, who in my eyes should be undefeated right now. I think if they fought again given Froch's technical improvements and Dirrell's rust and shell-shocked style post-Abraham, Froch would decision or even KO Dirrell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by teddycanyon View PostCompuBox didn't track this fight so there are no punch totals available online
Originally posted by teddycanyon View PostHe even hurt Froch once in the 10th or 11th round, whereas Dirrell was never really caught with anything big.
Originally posted by teddycanyon View PostBut that's why they call it effective aggression—and it certainly wasn't very effective.
if you missed Froch's work, granted it didn't look spectacular for the most part, blood and swelling on the face of Dirrell was evidence of it.
i agree that Froch could have an easier night with Dirrell at this point in time.Last edited by S. Saddler 1310; 02-02-2013, 11:41 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by S. Saddler 1310 View Postthe consensus is not always balanced or rightheaded, sadly. for me, the problem with his posts is not that he thinks Dirrell beat Froch (or that he may think Bradley beat Pacquiao), but more that he doesn't back up his conviction with a detailed argument. but that's true of many on both sides of any debate here, ofc.
I don't think there is much elaboration needed though, to tell you the truth. Just because you don't like how someone fought during the fight, or the fact the did more boxing and holding rather than "fight like a warrior" toe to toe slugging, doesn't mean that they should lose a fight. That has sadly has been the what most arguments against Dirrell getting the nod in this fight have been. It's not about whether he won more rounds or not, landed more, ring genernalship or anything like that. Most arguments have been "he ran and held, he didn't fight like he deserved to win", forgetting the fact that he made Froch look like a complete amatuer at times and that much of Froch's aggression was less than effective. It's been a long time since I watched this fight, so to give a detailed argument as to why would be less than accurate. I will watch it again tonight and comment again, but what I remember from watching the fight is that it was a robbery.
Comment
-
Originally posted by megadeth View PostSeeing that my comments were done from a phone, which is very tedious and a pain in the ass to post from, I didn't elaborate.
i'd hope you found more of merit in the argument i made than you did in others' arguments, even if you didn't ultimately agree.
Comment
-
I had Froch up a point at the end based on that terrible deduction in the 11th. otherwise a draw. The rounds Dirrell won, he looked really good which I think colors how BAD he looked in other rounds where he let Froch outhustle him. He didn't have a complete performance in him that night. Of the two, Froch has gone on to continue to improve. Dirrell just stalled out. We'll see if that changes in 2013.
Comment
Comment