Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

what was the scorecards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drago

what was the scorecards?

---

judge: Alejandro Rochin Mapula 114-113 Dirrell
judge: Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112 Froch
judge: Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112 Froch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drago

what was the scorecards?

---

judge: Alejandro Rochin Mapula 114-113 Dirrell
judge: Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112 Froch
judge: Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112 Froch

---

cheers killersheep, so really froch won by alot on 2 cards!

i still havnt watched again, i am not counting first time i watched as was on a stream i need to study the fight more & post my results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drago

what was the scorecards?

---

judge: Alejandro Rochin Mapula 114-113 Dirrell
judge: Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112 Froch
judge: Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112 Froch

---

cheers killersheep, so really froch won by alot on 2 cards!

i still havnt watched again, i am not counting first time i watched as was on a stream i need to study the fight more & post my results

---

In reality those scores are really close, the point deduction makes it seem like a bigger margin. But round wise one judge had it 7-5 Dirrell and the other two had it 7-5 Froch.

The one score I really had a problem with was one judge giving the 11th to Froch. In the scheme of things the end result would have still been the same though because of the point deduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

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. ;D
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?

---

Mate Its got nothing to do with undertanding it. The criteria is easily understandable but as I said I believe it's flawed and its application concerns me.

No Baldomir didnt deserve the nod. But based on the 4 criteria did he deserve to win the 25% of the round that was based on effective aggression? If not, who was and why?

For some reasons, I haven't seen it and the more I read here, the more I want to see it as opinions (in general) seem to be quite polarized on both side, by now it must be on rapidshare somewhere, I find it and I try to add my 2 cents before the end of the week for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

For some reasons, I haven't seen it and the more I read here, the more I want to see it as opinions (in general) seem to be quite polarized on both side, by now it must be on rapidshare somewhere, I find it and I try to add my 2 cents before the end of the week for sure.

---

Check your PMs ;)

Ive seen the fight now SIX times and ive tried....ive tried so hard to see the fight in the eyes of a andre dirrell fan.

I even resorted to giving him round 12 yet still scored the fight for froch (like i did on all previous 5 occasions)

I cant watch the fight anymore because the more i watch it the more apparently clear it becomes that carl won the fight by 2-3 rounds, maybe even more!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

For some reasons, I haven't seen it and the more I read here, the more I want to see it as opinions (in general) seem to be quite polarized on both side, by now it must be on rapidshare somewhere, I find it and I try to add my 2 cents before the end of the week for sure.

---

Check your PMs ;)

---

GOt it, thanks Big H-boy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Ive seen the fight now SIX times and ive tried....ive tried so hard to see the fight in the eyes of a andre dirrell fan.

I even resorted to giving him round 12 yet still scored the fight for froch (like i did on all previous 5 occasions)

I cant watch the fight anymore because the more i watch it the more apparently clear it becomes that carl won the fight by 2-3 rounds, maybe even more!!

---

You're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

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. ;D
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?

---

Mate Its got nothing to do with undertanding it. The criteria is easily understandable but as I said I believe it's flawed and its application concerns me.

No Baldomir didnt deserve the nod. But based on the 4 criteria did he deserve to win the 25% of the round that was based on effective aggression? If not, who was and why?

---

25% is less than 75% so no he did not deserve the rounds even if he was considered to have effective aggression. And no in my eyes he did not deserve the effective aggression tick because even though Mayweather rarely moved forward he was ten fold more effective when he did which was also the case in the rounds that Dirrell won. Now, I do agree that Dirrell should not have clinched as much as he did and did himself a disservice in doing so but that is the job of the ref NOT the judges to take care of it and he did in fact have a point deducted for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Ive seen the fight now SIX times and ive tried....ive tried so hard to see the fight in the eyes of a andre dirrell fan.

I even resorted to giving him round 12 yet still scored the fight for froch (like i did on all previous 5 occasions)

I cant watch the fight anymore because the more i watch it the more apparently clear it becomes that carl won the fight by 2-3 rounds, maybe even more!!

---

You're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:

---

Let me guess....

Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch


:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Ive seen the fight now SIX times and ive tried....ive tried so hard to see the fight in the eyes of a andre dirrell fan.

I even resorted to giving him round 12 yet still scored the fight for froch (like i did on all previous 5 occasions)

I cant watch the fight anymore because the more i watch it the more apparently clear it becomes that carl won the fight by 2-3 rounds, maybe even more!!

---

You're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:

---

Let me guess....

Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch


:lol:

---

Hopkins did just edge Calzaghe imo, but it was a close fight that went the other way & I didn't care as I wanted Joe to win.

Lewis easily beat Holyfield.

Taylor was ahead of Froch, but it's academic as Froch KO'd him.

Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.

How did you have Hatton-Collazo btw?

We all know that according to you, Hatton was in the fight with Mayweather up until Cortez robbed him of a glorious win :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

You're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:

---

Let me guess....

Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch


:lol:

---

Hopkins did just edge Calzaghe imo, but it was a close fight that went the other way & I didn't care as I wanted Joe to win.

Lewis easily beat Holyfield.

Taylor was ahead of Froch, but it's academic as Froch KO'd him.

Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.

How did you have Hatton-Collazo btw?

We all know that according to you, Hatton was in the fight with Mayweather up until Cortez robbed him of a glorious win :rolleyes:

---

Come on Jaz asking Hammer to judge a Hatton fight :p. My moneys on 120-108 to Hatton , i actully had Hatton winning that fight I cant remember my scorecard but I had him just edging it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skel1983

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Let me guess....

Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch


:lol:

---

Hopkins did just edge Calzaghe imo, but it was a close fight that went the other way & I didn't care as I wanted Joe to win.

Lewis easily beat Holyfield.

Taylor was ahead of Froch, but it's academic as Froch KO'd him.

Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.

How did you have Hatton-Collazo btw?

We all know that according to you, Hatton was in the fight with Mayweather up until Cortez robbed him of a glorious win :rolleyes:

---

Come on Jaz asking Hammer to judge a Hatton fight :p. My moneys on 120-108 to Hatton , i actully had Hatton winning that fight I cant remember my scorecard but I had him just edging it.

---

So did I, had it 114-113 because of the KD, which did seem a slip. But seeing as Froch won by '2 or 3 rounds, maybe more!!!', I thought I'd find out his typically neutral & fair judgement on another close fight. One which ironically I'm sure he had no problems the close rounds going to the challenger ;)