Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Explain what Froch was doing to win rounds because all I've seen from people saying Froch should have won is 'Dirrell didn't do enough to win'. Well if he didn't, then Froch DEFINITELY didn't. The whole point of the Super-Six is trying something to save boxing. You can't do that with bullshit hometown decisions & someone having to KO the champ to have any hope of getting his title. If this had happened to a British fighter going to the US, you would be calling it what it is - a robbery.
Froch was trying to fight, as he always does, not falling to his knees to avoid getting hit and running about the place. It all goes on how you judge a fight too and for me.........Dirrell was avoiding a fight and trying to steal rounds. That's not pleasing to fans nor judges and certainly not the way to take a belt from a champion.
Again, what did Froch do to win the rounds? Who was getting in the more effective punches & by what quantity?
Tell me what punches Froch was throwing & landing to justify him winning the fight. In fact, point out to me an example of effective aggression (walking forward doesn't count) where Froch was able to hurt Dirrell. Oh & nice work avoiding JT's points :rolleyes:
Like I said, Froch was going forward to fight and Dirrell did not want to fight back at times, I already said he was going to his knees to avoid fighting and running a lot. I have no doubt Dirrell landed more shots but when a fighter goes out of his way to NOT get involved by doing so the judges can't possibly favour him.
I respect your opinion mate as always but I stand by what I say.;)
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I would like to know how anyone can say Froch won easily? Well, not even the bias judging had him win easily. With the one point deduction the two judges who "gave" it to Froch 115-112 had Froch winning by ONE swing round. That is as close as you can score a victory. Froch landed nothing. People who say Dirrell ran while Froch tried to stand in there and fight are just stating what any common boxing fan saw coming. Froch is a slugger and Dirrell is a pure boxer. Dirrell was not going to mix it up with Froch and Froch was not going to outbox Dirrell. Froch got outclassed made to look very slow and average. If Dirrell is "running" but landing when he throws even if its sparingly and Froch is just chasing, with no knowledge of how to cut the ring off, and landing absolutely no punches how does he win? Lets be realistic. How many punches did Froch land? If you still use your fingers then put your other hand down, its not needed. Heck, Dirrell even had Froch hurt and backed up at the end of 11th. I think its very fishy that there are no reported punchstats for this fight. I know people who wanted Froch to win will argue that you shouldn't be allowed to win if you're "running" then you definitely shouldn't be allowed to win if you're shadowboxing. This fight showed me things I already suspected. Dirrell was overwhelmed by the environment though he can win easily off atleticism which he did and Froch is really just an above average slow fighter with a lot of heart and conditioning who would've had no business being in the same ring with Calzaghe.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Its always hard to watch one boxer using the bicycle and the other maybe more willing to make it a fight,but being to incompetent cut the ring off...IMO Dirrell should have won,but it sure wasn't pretty...
And on a side note I want to say that I always hear alot of crap how bad scoring is in Germany and I always respond to it that its no worse than anywhere else...Froch vs Dirrell is a really good example for that ;)...
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Like I said, Froch was going forward to fight and Dirrell did not want to fight back at times, I already said he was going to his knees to avoid fighting and running a lot. I have no doubt Dirrell landed more shots but when a fighter goes out of his way to NOT get involved by doing so the judges can't possibly favour him.
I respect your opinion mate as always but I stand by what I say.;)
Going to his knees if the ref's job to avoid, not the judges perogative to base their decisions on. They are supposed to base it solely on the punching & aggression. I didn't like Dirrell doing that, but if the judges are watching that, they should also be watching for bodyslams & pushing an opponents neck onto the ropes.
Froch was moving forward as if to fight, but he never actually went ahead to do it. He spent as much of the first few rounds jabbing from a distance then darting away as Dirrell. When Froch got Dirrell in a corner, it was Dirrell who would force his way back out. If Froch had even been pressuring him into corners forcing him to cover up I could understand, but the simple fact is when that did happen, Froch opened himself up to a clinch or got out-punched back by Dirrell.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Dirrell clearly won the fight.
He may of clinched and ran but he did land the cleaner shots throughout the fight and in most of the rounds he was busier too.
Froch came forward but his aggression was not effective, he landed about two clean shots the whole night, coming forward isn't in the scoring criteria, you need to be landing your shots coming foward to be awarded points.
Froch can't be awarded the fight because he clinched less, simple as.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I didn't score it when it watched it and there's no way on earth I'm going to watch it again just to score it, but I had Dirrell winning. You couldn't objectively watch that fight and give it to Froch.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Froch was trying to fight, as he always does, not falling to his knees to avoid getting hit and running about the place. It all goes on how you judge a fight too and for me.........Dirrell was avoiding a fight and trying to steal rounds. That's not pleasing to fans nor judges and certainly not the way to take a belt from a champion.
Again, what did Froch do to win the rounds? Who was getting in the more effective punches & by what quantity?
Tell me what punches Froch was throwing & landing to justify him winning the fight. In fact, point out to me an example of effective aggression (walking forward doesn't count) where Froch was able to hurt Dirrell. Oh & nice work avoiding JT's points :rolleyes:
Like I said, Froch was going forward to fight and Dirrell did not want to fight back at times, I already said he was going to his knees to avoid fighting and running a lot. I have no doubt Dirrell landed more shots but when a fighter goes out of his way to NOT get involved by doing so the judges can't possibly favour him.
I respect your opinion mate as always but I stand by what I say.;)
I'm sorry mate but you cannot award a fighter credit because he was coming forward and landing nothing where the other guy was moving back but landing shots.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
You have to get kind of creative to score it for Froch don't you? I mean cause the old standby, landing punches, is a big NO.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Again, what did Froch do to win the rounds? Who was getting in the more effective punches & by what quantity?
Tell me what punches Froch was throwing & landing to justify him winning the fight. In fact, point out to me an example of effective aggression (walking forward doesn't count) where Froch was able to hurt Dirrell. Oh & nice work avoiding JT's points :rolleyes:
Like I said, Froch was going forward to fight and Dirrell did not want to fight back at times, I already said he was going to his knees to avoid fighting and running a lot. I have no doubt Dirrell landed more shots but when a fighter goes out of his way to NOT get involved by doing so the judges can't possibly favour him.
I respect your opinion mate as always but I stand by what I say.;)
I'm sorry mate but you cannot award a fighter credit because he was coming forward and landing nothing where the other guy was moving back but landing shots.
I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.
One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?
"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"
"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
You have to get kind of creative to score it for Froch don't you? I mean cause the old standby, landing punches, is a big NO.
The perfect way to put it.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JohnnyKickAss
Its always hard to watch one boxer using the bicycle and the other maybe more willing to make it a fight,but being to incompetent cut the ring off...IMO Dirrell should have won,but it sure wasn't pretty...
And on a side note I want to say that I always hear alot of crap how bad scoring is in Germany and I always respond to it that its no worse than anywhere else...Froch vs Dirrell is a really good example for that ;)...
I think that is why Froch fans are not so willing to see the Dirrell win. Dirrell was content with landing sparingly and having Froch shadowbox.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Like I said, Froch was going forward to fight and Dirrell did not want to fight back at times, I already said he was going to his knees to avoid fighting and running a lot. I have no doubt Dirrell landed more shots but when a fighter goes out of his way to NOT get involved by doing so the judges can't possibly favour him.
I respect your opinion mate as always but I stand by what I say.;)
I'm sorry mate but you cannot award a fighter credit because he was coming forward and landing nothing where the other guy was moving back but landing shots.
I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.
One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?
"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"
"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"
What has Bernard got to do with this ? We are talking about Dirrell - Froch.
Dirrell wasn't faking anything, Froch fought a very dirty fight.
What Dirrell did like clinching etc shouldn't affect the scoring unless the ref takes action like deducting a point. Dirrell was still landing more and throwing more.
Based on the 4 scoring criterias in a fight:
Clean Effective Punching
Effective Aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense
Dirrell clearly won.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Kel,
You cant ignore the fact that Dirrell despite, running,clinching and falling to his knees managed to outclass Carl by a long shot in every category.
Accuracey
Volume
Crispness
Power Punches
Should I continue?
Froch looked like a drunken idiot, Carl couldnt cut off a piece of steak let alone a boxing ring... He is a disgrace of a champion and his brashness is so dickheaded he makes Pretty Boy Floyd seem like a road scholar
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JT Rock
Kel,
You cant ignore the fact that Dirrell despite, running,clinching and falling to his knees managed to outclass Carl by a long shot in every category.
Accuracey
Volume
Crispness
Power Punches
Should I continue?
Froch looked like a drunken idiot, Carl couldnt cut off a piece of steak let alone a boxing ring... He is a disgrace of a champion and his brashness is so dickheaded he makes Pretty Boy Floyd seem like a road scholar
At least Mayweather has skill to back up his trash talking. :)
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
At least Mayweather has skill to back up his trash talking. :)
You also don't hear Mayweather talking shit about an opponent he's just beat like Froch. I find it hard to believe that I was the only one put off by all that stuff about Dirrell being a coward right after he got a gift against him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel
I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.
One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?
"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"
"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"
None of that has anything to do with any of the scoring criteria. That is the referee's job to deal with. A judge is there to address (again, even though others have posted it)
Who was landing the cleaner & more effective punches - Froch wasn't landing so this could only be Dirrell. In fact, Dirrell was never staggered, it was Froch who was hurt, particularly towards the end of 10th & 11th rounds.
Defensive skills - This was clearly Dirrell, who was barely hit as Froch 'came forward', in fact on the rare occasions Froch did connect with a shot, Dirrell would be right back at him with more. It's not hard to see who did better.
Effective aggression - Froch came forward, but he did nothing when coming forward. When Dirrell came forward he was landing punches, particularly working well to the body.
Ring generalship - I think the fact it didn't turn into a war & swingfest shows this was Dirrell again. He made Froch fight his fight & beat him handily at it. In fact the occasions when he did get involved in Froch's fight, he appeared to be besting him there as well.
