Printable View
What he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Here are the arguments for Froch winning
1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough
Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?
just seen that both froch & abrahm fights gonna be on itv 4 at 9pm
I think the four point formula for winning rounds/fights is a naive way to look at it to be honest and it is certainly flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhat he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Here are the arguments for Froch winning
1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough
Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?
It doesnt matter where you are in the world judges score rounds based simply on who they thought won it, for some judges its too much to ask to watch a round let alone make a judgement on whether the aggression was affective or not.
The system uses 4 criteria to judge who wins a round and lets assume the judges do that, what happens if the judge scores it 2 apiece? He still has to award 10 points to one man and 9 to the other. In that situation he is still going to have to make a judgement call and is still most likely going to side with the champion.
yeah u can watch a whole fight & think one fighter won easily but when scoring each rd can find that its a draw or even worse that the guy who looked like he walked it actually lost.
if u know wot i mean:confused:
I think its a flawed system and judges dont use it. Clean punches and defence fair enough, pretty straight forward, but how do you judge someones effective aggression and ring generalship until a fight is over?
If one guy harrases the other all over the ring for a few early rounds but doesnt land anything, that is not seen as effective, but if he then knocks him out later in the fight due to the other guy being gassed because he's been run down does that earlier aggression become affective and was he displaying good ring generalship?
Naive you say? I say it's naive to NOT have any criteria other than "he won because I said so". Seriously other than those four elements, what would you judge a fighter on?Quote:
Originally Posted by MemphisI think the four point formula for winning rounds/fights is a naive way to look at it to be honest and it is certainly flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhat he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Here are the arguments for Froch winning
1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough
Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?
It doesnt matter where you are in the world judges score rounds based simply on who they thought won it, for some judges its too much to ask to watch a round let alone make a judgement on whether the aggression was affective or not.
The system uses 4 criteria to judge who wins a round and lets assume the judges do that, what happens if the judge scores it 2 apiece? He still has to award 10 points to one man and 9 to the other. In that situation he is still going to have to make a judgement call and is still most likely going to side with the champion.
1. Effective Agression
2. Clean Punching
3. Defense
4. Ring Generalship
What other element is a win defined by other than those things?
Certainly someone that cannot understand "Effective aggression is a fighter moving forward and landing punches" shouldn't be judging a title fight.
As for the scenario of what if they each take two categories well someone figured that out and that's why when they're announcing the criteria they will say "with emphasis on effective aggression" OR "with emphasis on clean punching" Those are the tie breaking criteria.
You have made a recommendation to go from the criteria set forth in boxing which makes sense in the scheme of things and changed it to "the guy that won" how is that determined exactly? What was Froch doing that won him that fight?
Ring Generalship is easier to judge than most anything else especially on a round by round basis. It is simply the guy fighting how he wants to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Froch chasing Dirrell around the ring makes it easy to determine they are fighting the way Dirrell wants to. If Froch would have cut off the ring and made Dirrell trade for more of the round then he would have won that category.
Effective aggression again is a fighter moving forward landing punches, it's not that hard.
Im sorry mate but I dont buy the Dirrel clearly won the ring generalship stakes because Froch was chasing him line. If Dirrell hadnt have spent so much of the fight clinging on for dear life or falling to the floor or complaining I might be more inclined to believe he was in control. He didnt do those things out of choice, he did them due to what Froch was doing.
See whats happening here? Even with this fool proof easy to follow criteria we still disagree, as do the judges.
Well let's use your criteria then............Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
What did Froch do to win?
And while I'm waiting for your response I think it's fair that I did not think it was a robbery I had it 114-113 Dirrell on my card (7 rounds to 5 minus the point deduction) too close for me to call robbery.
What was your card memphis?
And also while you are explaining why Froch won, I can get back to the ring generalship. If you say Dirrell was holding on for dear life that implies he was hurt. I didn't see him hurt at all in that fight, in fact I saw Froch only land one meaningful punch. It's interesting that you mention what Dirrell was doing, but completely ignore Froch's rabbit punches and wrestling tactics, which was in fact because of what Dirrell was doing. If I need further evidence to substantiate my claim that Dirrell won the Ring generalship category I can listen to Froch's post fight interview "he wouldn't stand and trade with me"
And you complain about Dirrell wasting his time clinching using his own style of dirty, but he still found the time to clearly outland Froch. Furthermore if you've seen Dirrell fight before you would know he chooses to do that (clinch a lot, fall to the floor), there is a precident here, that being his previous fights.
Where did memphis go?
I have seen that fight three times now and there aint no way in hell frocking froch won. that decision was froched up. it made me want to say froch it all.
froch boxing, froch saddo, froch well froch:p
but in all seriousness froch lost that fight.
OK here we go....
Killer I had Dirrell winning by one point. If I used the four point formula for scoring fights/rounds it was done subconciously. I watched a round, decided who won it, then repeated for 11 more rounds.
I've never claimed that Froch won, only that I understand why he did, or why Dirrell didnt. If it helps I'll tick the Dirrell option so you can feel better about all of this?
Again, I think its naive, and also giving judges way too much credit to assume that they use the four criteria you mentioned to score rounds. Effective aggression means coming forward landing punches. Well I think its fair to say that Froch covered the coming forward part. How many punches does he have to land? Is it one per round that he's coming forward, does he have to land one every time he comes forward to make it count? By the way I dont buy all this Froch only landed one punch crap, and no Im not going to sit through a slow motion replay to prove it.
Actually scratch that part about effective aggression, its getting boring now.
The facts are that despite protesting this so strongly and asking what Froch did to win repeatedly, you yourself gave him 5 rounds. The people That counted (or two of them) saw him winning a couple more :-\
Ok so using the four point system we came up with the same score as a matter of fact it was the same score that the judge from Mexico had. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Maybe it's not so ambiguous after all.
I believe you think the effective aggression part is "boring now" because
you understand it now and realize it's not what you thought it was earlier
which was something that couldn't be judged until later in the fight (I
assume you are referring to damage taken).
I never claimed it was a robbery, but the reasons people were giving
for Froch winning were what I was taking issue with. Yes I believe
Froch won 5 rounds, yes it was a close fight, yes it was a dirty fight.
I have been consistent throughout and your final judgement helped my
point. My point is trying to make it a fight is not a basis for winning a
fight, to make a more extreme example Mayweather was the challenger
against Baldomir. Baldomir was trying to make it a fight and walking
forward for 12 rounds did he deserve the nod?
Finally caught up on the boxing and watched this fight, i had Andre Dirrell winning. I thought Carl Froch couldn't land anything meaningful, and although he was the aggressor it wasn't effective aggression.
Andre Dirrell showed some nice reflexes and defensive work, and some nice hand speed. Although i thought he could of lifted the pace, especially when he hurt Carl Froch.
Overall he made it the kind of fight he wanted, a boring tactical messy fight. Where he was able to beat Carl Froch to the punch, while avoiding Carl Froch's wild haymakers.
I thought the point deduction was unfair, considering Carl Froch had his own dirty little gameplan going on with the rabbit shots.
I think Andre Dirrell was the better fighter, but it was very frustrating watching him. Because he should of done more and at times, he was running.
I think he should of planted his feet more, and let fly with some power shots. Because he could hurt Carl Froch, overall i think Andre Dirrell won by 2 points, and he could trouble mostly any fighter right now he has all the attributes.
But in future he will have to take more risks, i got no problem with defensive fighting. Some of my most favorite fighters are great defensive fighters.
But even those great defensive fighters know when they have to step it up, Andre Dirrell will have to in future aswell.