-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
And why was froch fouling, because dirrell refused to fight and kept exposing the back of his head, which is assume is illegal. He kept turning his body and the back of his head leaving only the back of his head to punch. As far as i know that's not allowed. So if the back and back of his head is the only thing that froch had to punch, why not punch it as hard as you can, so that dirrell will stop his illegal tactics. Dirrell is shit. All he had was speed and if he didn't have his speed he would have been ko'd like taylor was.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Fenster: your love of inflammatory statements never ceases to amuse and entertain me :)
Amuse and entertain? Great stuff ;)
Don't know where you got me being a Froch fan from? :-\
Killersheep, exactly! :cool:
I never said you were a Froch fan, if that was directed at me, I was replying to the person who seemed to be implying that the fact that you did not seen to be a Froch fan somehow clouded your judgement, which I feel is incorrect.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Fenster: your love of inflammatory statements never ceases to amuse and entertain me :)
Amuse and entertain? Great stuff ;)
Don't know where you got me being a Froch fan from? :-\
Killersheep, exactly! :cool:
I never said you were a Froch fan, if that was directed at me, I was replying to the person who seemed to be implying that the fact that you did not seen to be a Froch fan somehow clouded your judgement, which I feel is incorrect.
Ah right
I didn't really get what he was waffling about to be honest.
Just happy he enjoyed himself.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
It was a boring, crappy close fight with many of the rounds having no action whatsoever. Froch was at least making the fight. I said yesterday I thought Froch getting the nod was fair enough and I stand by that. A draw would be fine too. I'm less inclined to award theatrics of the kind Dirrell was exhibiting.
The guy should be a ballerina, not a boxer. I hope he gets duffed up over the course of the tournament and decides track and field is more his thing.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
It was a boring, crappy close fight with many of the rounds having no action whatsoever. Froch was at least making the fight. I said yesterday I thought Froch getting the nod was fair enough and I stand by that. A draw would be fine too. I'm less inclined to award theatrics of the kind Dirrell was exhibiting.
The guy should be a ballerina, not a boxer. I hope he gets duffed up over the course of the tournament and decides track and field is more his thing.
This isn't directed at you specifically Niles, but none of those things should have any real bearing on the scoring of a fight beyond where they fit into the four criteria, especially in this instance where Froch did nothing that was effective. It is the referees job to worry about that stuff, he can penalize or disqualify a fighter if he feels it is warranted.
Judging is based on 4 criteria:
Clean punching
Effective Aggression
Defense
Ring Generalship
In those areas Dirrell clearly won the fight IMO.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Ring generalship i would give to froch for the first 10 rounds and to dirrell for the last 2 rounds.
Exposing back of your head: Dirrell
Holding ------------------->: Dirrell
Exposing your back--------> Dirrell
Running mostly every round : Dirrell
Refusing to fight mostly every round: Dirrell
Going to one knee to coax a foul: Dirrell
Dirrell is the clear winner alright.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
.[/quote]
This isn't directed at you specifically Niles, but none of those things should have any real bearing on the scoring of a fight, especially in this instance. It is the referees job to worry about that stuff, he can penalize or disqualify a fighter if he feels it is warranted.
Judging is based on 4 criteria:
Clean punching
Effective Aggression
Defense
Ring Generalship
In those areas Dirrell clearly won the fight IMO.[/quote]
FYI CFH, while you were on that four day vacation they added "meh, I don't like that guy" as the fifth criteria.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
awdleyfuturehalloffamer
Ring generalship i would give to froch for the first 10 rounds and to dirrell for the last 2 rounds.
Exposing back of your head: Dirrell
Holding ------------------->: Dirrell
Exposing your back--------> Dirrell
Running mostly every round : Dirrell
Refusing to fight mostly every round: Dirrell
Going to one knee to coax a foul: Dirrell
Dirrell is the clear winner alright.
Froch had great ring generalship if it was the WWE
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
It's miles, not Niles...:p;D
I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.
Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.
Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.
Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.
Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.
It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.
He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
It's miles, not Niles...:p;D
I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.
Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.
Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.
Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.
Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.
It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.
He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.
Miles, explain what Froch did that was effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?
You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.
Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
You have to be pretty naive if you think Dirrell was going to get the decision, fighting in the other guys backyard.
Come on now.
The fight was a boring, ugly, messy letdown.
Hold, foul, hold, duck/spin round, hold, pose, hold, run, hold.. boring, boring, boring.
Dirrell won the fight but it would have been a travesty had Froch lost. ;)
100% agree. There was no way Fraud was going to be allowed to lose no matter what. Fraud could of been shut out and still would of got the win. If he would of been dropped they would of been ruled slips. The fix was in from the beginning.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
It's miles, not Niles...:p;D
I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.
Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.
Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.
Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.
Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.
It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.
He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.
Miles, explain what Froch did that was
effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?
You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.
Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.
I'm sure Niles was watching from some crappy stream. So I would pretty much disregard his views.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
You have to be pretty naive if you think Dirrell was going to get the decision, fighting like that, in the other guys backyard.
Come on now.
The fight was a boring, ugly, messy letdown.
Hold, foul, hold, duck/spin round, hold, pose, hold, run, hold.. boring, boring, boring.
Dirrell won the fight but it would have been a travesty had Froch lost. ;)
didnt dirrell actually THROW more punches then frotch?
:D:D:D
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
It's miles, not Niles...:p;D
I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.
Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.
Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.
Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.
Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.
It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.
He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.
Miles, explain what Froch did that was
effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?
You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.
Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.
I'm sure Niles was watching from some crappy stream. So I would pretty much disregard his views.
To be fair, the violent one does have a point here. I have only seen the fight the one time and on a stream. All that I have said is based on initial perceptions of that viewing. I will download a proper copy over the next day or two and see if I feel the same way. That is only fair.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
I guess if you are looking for something to give Froch credit for I guess you could look only as far as Antonio Tarver who gave credit to Froch because his "crotch kept coming"
You can't make it up...
YouTube - TARVER REFERS TO CARL FROCH AS "CROTCH"...
I wonder how Tarver knew.. those big ears must really come in handy ;D
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
It's miles, not Niles...:p;D
I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.
Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.
Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.
Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.
Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.
It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.
He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.
Miles, explain what Froch did that was effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?
You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.
Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.
Ok Jaz this is where I disagree with you and to me you have an inconsistency in your logic.
You don't give any points for coming forward, pressing the action and throwing punches if the punches are mostly blocked, missed or not clean and accurate, yet you do give points for a guy's defence when it consists mostly of running, turning his back, holding and falling down?
If Froch gets no points for effective aggression then what about Dirrell for effective defence?
You will argue no doubt that Dirrell's defence was effective because he was avoiding most of the punches, well on that logic Froch's aggression was effective because he virtually completely nullified Dirrell's offensive outpoint and reduced him to running and holding for much of the fight. How is that not effective?
It's a stylistic thing imo and most fans have a bias towards slick fighters with flashy punches because their style of fighting is maybe more eye catching.
But Froch's pressure effectively reduced Dirrell to a hit and run strategy where he tried to steal the result, which rarely happens when you are fighting a world champion in their own country.
Dirrell is flashier than Froch no doubt, but he wasn't any more effective at winning the fight.
For the record I don't think Froch beat Dirrell either, I think it was the perfect candidate fight for a draw.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
WTF do you guys just say, fuck it I'm not scoring fights round by round anymore he was boring. Where the hell where you guys when Zahir Raheem was beating jobbers on FNF. Seriously, get a grip you guys no way that fight was any closer then 8-4. Anyone put up a scorecard closer then that and it WILL get picked apart. So go ahead. Yeah it was an unsatisfying fight, no Froch did not even come close to winning. Yeah if you want to be sentimental about it, that's not the way you want to see a winner win. But did he win? Yes. Did he lose....no way.
Froch deserved to lose for being the most overrated fighter in the tournament already. Fenster you say Froch is the favorite in a rematch in America. I know you are being coy but that actually gets under my skin that anyone could possibly think that way.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Thr running in the 4th round was just daft when he'd circle away from the ropes, it was ironically when he was most hittable. most of what I've been able trudge through actually saw Dirrell standing marginally out of range with BOTH guys being unwilling to close the distance.
Based on clean effective punching first round I gave to Froch was the 6th, not watched 7 through 10 (perhaps he ralllied?) and lost 11/12. Kessler will have WAY more problems with Ward.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
WTF do you guys just say, fuck it I'm not scoring fights round by round anymore he was boring. Where the hell where you guys when Zahir Raheem was beating jobbers on FNF. Seriously, get a grip you guys no way that fight was any closer then 8-4. Anyone put up a scorecard closer then that and it WILL get picked apart. So go ahead. Yeah it was an unsatisfying fight, no Froch did not even come close to winning. Yeah if you want to be sentimental about it, that's not the way you want to see a winner win. But did he win? Yes. Did he lose....no way.
Froch deserved to lose for being the most overrated fighter in the tournament already. Fenster you say Froch is the favorite in a rematch in America. I know you are being coy but that actually gets under my skin that anyone could possibly think that way.
I don't actually know what would happen in a rematch, its kind of similar to the Hopkins Taylor situation.
Many people felt Hopkins won the first fight, and Hopkins himself was so convinced he basically fought the same fight in the rematch, with the same decision.
I have no doubt Dirrell could repeat that performance, he made Froch look crude but if he fought the same way again he would be risking the same result from the judges.
If he fights more aggressively however he could well get a decisive victory but then he will expose himself to more risk of getting outboxed or even knocked out.
Froch has fought three fights in a row against three top American, slick, fast boxers. Pascal fought Froch's fight and Froch outboxed and outfought him, Taylor fought a great fight but Froch's pressure ultimately was too much and Dirrell fought too cautious a fight and paid the price.
Dirrell in a rematch, to be sure of victory would have to engage more and the unknown factor there is will this mean he wins or will this favour Froch who can now start landing?
I really don't know.
James Toney fought great against Sam Peter the first fight but was dominated in the rematch, although Toney is far older than Dirrell, and Dirrell is likely to improve.
I like Dirrell though, his post fight speech was pure class from a man who knew he fought he a great fight but didn't get the decision, whilst Froch's post fight was clearly the speech of a man on the defensive who was obviously not sure he had done enough.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
WTF do you guys just say, fuck it I'm not scoring fights round by round anymore he was boring. Where the hell where you guys when Zahir Raheem was beating jobbers on FNF. Seriously, get a grip you guys no way that fight was any closer then 8-4. Anyone put up a scorecard closer then that and it WILL get picked apart. So go ahead. Yeah it was an unsatisfying fight, no Froch did not even come close to winning. Yeah if you want to be sentimental about it, that's not the way you want to see a winner win. But did he win? Yes. Did he lose....no way.
Froch deserved to lose for being the most overrated fighter in the tournament already. Fenster you say Froch is the favorite in a rematch in America. I know you are being coy but that actually gets under my skin that anyone could possibly think that way.
Yep. Froch has the ability to adjust now he knows Dirrells game. Then factor in the fact that FRoch knows he will for certain get robbed in America so he'll go for the KO from the off. Dirrell looked shaky from the shots Froch nearly landed on him, therefore it all points to a FRoch KO.
I'm not always right but i'm never wrong. Trust me.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
LOL, ALL FROCH DOES IS GO FOR THE KO. And he does it with 1 shot. oh yeah, he has that "jab." They could fight 100 times and Froch would win maybe 2 times last fight included as a win. Dirrell is CLEARLY a better fighter, whenever you have rematches you have to go with the better fighter. Froch didn't even buzz him, he didn't come close. What a joke Fenster, at least I hope that's what it is. Even the most ardent Froch supporter knows that it's Dirrell, not Froch, who is likely to fight a better fight next time. He has more adjustments to make to work in his favor, no way.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
I actually think Froch's post-fight speech is just a reflection of who he is. I've got no doubt he thought he won that fight, in every single interview he proves himself to be a delusional knob. He's the Hattonhammer of boxers right now.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
LOL, ALL FROCH DOES IS GO FOR THE KO. And he does it with 1 shot. oh yeah, he has that "jab." They could fight 100 times and Froch would win maybe 2 times last fight included as a win. Dirrell is CLEARLY a better fighter, whenever you have rematches you have to go with the better fighter. Froch didn't even buzz him, he didn't come close. What a joke Fenster, at least I hope that's what it is. Even the most ardent Froch supporter knows that it's Dirrell, not Froch, who is likely to fight a better fight next time. He has more adjustments to make to work in his favor, no way.
You're not grasping the importance of the mindset in these matters.
Yes Froch never hit Dirrell. But the ones that got close clearly bothered him.
Froch knew after the 2nd round Dirrell wasn't going to win with his ultra negative style. So he never got into panic mode where he NEEDED a KO.
Fighting in the States he KNOWS he will get robbed even if he outboxes Dirrell. So the mindest from the off will be KO.
It's very clear amat. You have to think outside the box.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
LOL, ALL FROCH DOES IS GO FOR THE KO. And he does it with 1 shot. oh yeah, he has that "jab." They could fight 100 times and Froch would win maybe 2 times last fight included as a win. Dirrell is CLEARLY a better fighter, whenever you have rematches you have to go with the better fighter. Froch didn't even buzz him, he didn't come close. What a joke Fenster, at least I hope that's what it is. Even the most ardent Froch supporter knows that it's Dirrell, not Froch, who is likely to fight a better fight next time. He has more adjustments to make to work in his favor, no way.
haha that made me laugh. What has been missing from Froch's last three fights though has been the uppercut. Prior to the Pascal fight his trademark was to hang his hands low, invite his opponent to come in and then sucker them with a devastating uppercut, it was beautiful to see.
His last few fights he's not had the opportunity, partly I think because his opponents don't ever want to come to him, and partly because against fighters better than our domestic plodders he looks he's punching in water.
The on factor in Froch's favour is that the old sayings are speed kills and the better, faster boxer will beat the brawler type etc. Well Froch in last two fights has fought the two fastest, slickest fighters he may ever face and he's still unbeaten which means something.
Its a bit like Chavez really, he was completely outboxed by Meldrick Taylor in the first fight but caught up with him late, and battered him in the rematch.
Froch may be that kind of fighter (not saying he is as good, just the type of fighter he is).
I look forward immensely to his fight with Kessler. On paper Kessler does everything right whereas Froch does everything wrong so Kessler should win it easily.
But he won't be running like the others so maybe Froch can get into more....
I wouldn't write him off yet, although I have little doubt that Andre Ward will win the tournament.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
I just found this clip advert for Froch Taylor on youtube, never saw it when the fight was on, great advert by Showtime, that's one of the best prefight teasers I've ever seen, I'm buzzing for the fight all over again even though its happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e-YzTCduy8
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
You have to be pretty naive if you think Dirrell was going to get the decision, fighting like that, in the other guys backyard.
Come on now.
The fight was a boring, ugly, messy letdown.
Hold, foul, hold, duck/spin round, hold, pose, hold, run, hold.. boring, boring, boring.
Dirrell won the fight but it would have been a travesty had Froch lost. ;)
Didn't get chance to get on here yesterday, got in at 6.30 am after the fight and slept all day.
Haven't managed to watch this on tv yet, but up to round 6 this fight was horrible to watch, I felt that Dirrell was a super middleweight version of Junior Witter and terribly negative, with Froch so wide open and flailing shots and bulling around. It was actually painful to watch for a while. I like Froch as he won't back down to anyone, but when Dirrell actually decided to fight rather than run, hold or fall over he looked fantastic, but he only did that for three rounds maybe four IMO so i'm glad he didn't win. He looked to land on Froch with ease. He was like a switch hitting Mayweather with his running and rope sliding.
Two things after witnessing this live.
1. Froch is going to get knocked out by Mikkel Kessler, and possibly even Arthur Abraham.
2. Dirrell, if he clicks the switch on in his brain much earlier than round 9, atleast 4, from here on in could really pose a threat to absolutely anyone at SMW. His timing, accuracy and speed were fantastic, just no where near enough of it.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
I've just watched the fight. I didn't see a blatant robbery, but I thought Dirrell definitely won the fight. I scored it 115-113 (including the bullshit point decuction) Dirrell was very frustrating because I feel he could've won every round if he had've stopped the leaning and holding and just relied on his skill and ability. He'll be back!
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
I've just watched the fight. I didn't see a blatant robbery, but I thought Dirrell definitely won the fight. I scored it 115-113 (including the bullshit point decuction) Dirrell was very frustrating because I feel he could've won every round if he had've stopped the leaning and holding and just relied on his skill and ability. He'll be back!
This is a fair assessment, and about what I have after rewatching it in good quality. Again, factoring in the rediculous pt deduction. And I emphasize that because it really was. You don't ref a fight like that then all of a sudden knock off a pt. when there were so many blatant potential pt deductions coming from Froch also. If you're going to let it be rough and a bit dirty and play out that way, fair enough. Let them go.
And even then, scoring it as such, I was really looking to give Froch a round or 2 that were close.
Final assessment of both fighters:
Dirrell can improve a lot, and use this as a learning tool. he could easily have boxed the ears off of Froch, but did fight too safe. If he can find a good balance of defence and ultilizing that speed for offence, he will be much more dangerous.
Froch. Meh. I dunno. I really didn't have any thoughts on him going in. But there isn't a lot there to improve on. His whole thing is, lets get close and bang and see what happens. Well, boxing is more then that. And he is going to get exposed for it. In that kind of battle, and with slick fighters. This may not have been his best performance, and Dirells game likely did make him look worse then he is, but overall, he is a very limited fighter.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Froch doesnt use the upper cut anymore because if you throw an upper cut the way Froch does against a top 5 SMW Froch will be the one staring up at the lights.....
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
LOL at "Dirrell looked shaky from the shots Froch nearly landed", actually very true, he is a bit of a head case.
I have to say I've found Bilbo's general epiphany about Froch kind of humorous. He looks the same as he's always looked.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
this actually might have been a robbery. Its about time.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
[quote=Fenster;799587][
You're not grasping the importance of the mindset in these matters.
Yes Froch never hit Dirrell. But the ones that got close clearly bothered him.
So froch hits so hard, even when he doesnt hit his opponent the wind from his fist going by creates a percussion that shocks his opponents??...Is that what you are saying?
:rolleyes:
Frosh landed cleanly on Dirrell and Dirrell walked through the shots, when Dirrell landed cleanly Froch started to do the chicken dance.......
I think that points to a Dirrell KO in the rematch.....
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
LOL at "Dirrell looked shaky from the shots Froch nearly landed", actually very true, he is a bit of a head case.
I have to say I've found Bilbo's general epiphany about Froch kind of humorous. He looks the same as he's always looked.
;D
I thought that was funny too. I'm disappointed with amat.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
[QUOTE=Hunter;799665]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
[
You're not grasping the importance of the mindset in these matters.
Yes Froch never hit Dirrell. But the ones that got close clearly bothered him.
So froch hits so hard, even when he doesnt hit his opponent the wind from his fist going by creates a percussion that shocks his opponents??...Is that what you are saying?
:rolleyes:
Frosh landed cleanly on Dirrell and Dirrell walked through the shots, when Dirrell landed cleanly Froch started to do the chicken dance.......
I think that points to a Dirrell KO in the rematch.....
I'm saying if Froch had hit him he may have hurt him. Trust me.
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hunter
Dirrell didnt start holding and grabbing until Froch started all of his dirty tactics and Dirrell saw that the ref was just letting Froch do whatever he wanted.
I think Dirrell even in loss proved three things:
- Froch has a suspect chin
- Froch's power is overrated
- Froch doesnt have good fundementals and is slow as molasis
I wish Dirrell would have just standed and traded with Froch, he would have gotten froch out of there.
Agreed.
but the other two i don't think can be questioned with the same authority; is it Froch's lack of power or Dirrell's good chin?... Froch didn't touch the canvas, and was stunned once, maybe twice in the fight and recovered well...and AGAIN, didn't go down.
Getting wobbled by a good punch means you have a suspect chin?
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Like I have said I scored the fight big for Dirrell, but what makes me laugh is some of are American friends, im not tarnishing you all with the same brush but lets be honest here Dirrell made Hatton look like a novice when it came to the hugging stakes!!
Now lets imagine it was a Brit who stunk the joint out like that last night we wouldnt have heard the fucking end of it!!
Pisses me off sumtimes it's one rule for fighter in from a part of the world and then it's a different one for another fighter from another part of the world.
On another note if Taylor sits out the rest of the tourny apparently Alan Green will be his replacement which I am not happy with hes fucking shit for starters, and he has done absolutly nothing in his career apart from get stopped by the limited Miranda.
I'm an American, and I thought Dirrell fought like a girl until the 11th round... had he fought like that the whole time, it would have been a one sided mollywopping...but he didn't. He looked like fucking John Ruiz.
Allan Greene sucks too, but he's good for the Andre's (someone they can beat, or a good gatekeeper). Where's Lucian Bute?
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
[quote=Fenster;799670]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
[
You're not grasping the importance of the mindset in these matters.
Yes Froch never hit Dirrell. But the ones that got close clearly bothered him.
So froch hits so hard, even when he doesnt hit his opponent the wind from his fist going by creates a percussion that shocks his opponents??...Is that what you are saying?
:rolleyes:
Frosh landed cleanly on Dirrell and Dirrell walked through the shots, when Dirrell landed cleanly Froch started to do the chicken dance.......
I think that points to a Dirrell KO in the rematch.....
I'm saying if Froch had hit him he may have hurt him. Trust me.
Sorry - I cant trust you on this one even if you are the former Saddo Prediction Comp Champion-FACT.......Froch did land cleanly on Dirrell and Froch's punches didnt hurt dirrell. I saw it with my own two eyes.....When Dirrell landed to Froch's noggin, he started to stagger around like a high schooler after doing his first beer bong...
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
[quote=Fenster;799670]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
[
You're not grasping the importance of the mindset in these matters.
Yes Froch never hit Dirrell. But the ones that got close clearly bothered him.
So froch hits so hard, even when he doesnt hit his opponent the wind from his fist going by creates a percussion that shocks his opponents??...Is that what you are saying?
:rolleyes:
Frosh landed cleanly on Dirrell and Dirrell walked through the shots, when Dirrell landed cleanly Froch started to do the chicken dance.......
I think that points to a Dirrell KO in the rematch.....
I'm saying if Froch had hit him he may have hurt him. Trust me.
;D
-
Re: Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
LOL, ALL FROCH DOES IS GO FOR THE KO. And he does it with 1 shot. oh yeah, he has that "jab." They could fight 100 times and Froch would win maybe 2 times last fight included as a win. Dirrell is CLEARLY a better fighter, whenever you have rematches you have to go with the better fighter. Froch didn't even buzz him, he didn't come close. What a joke Fenster, at least I hope that's what it is. Even the most ardent Froch supporter knows that it's Dirrell, not Froch, who is likely to fight a better fight next time. He has more adjustments to make to work in his favor, no way.
haha that made me laugh. What has been missing from Froch's last three fights though has been the uppercut. Prior to the Pascal fight his trademark was to hang his hands low, invite his opponent to come in and then sucker them with a devastating uppercut, it was beautiful to see.
His last few fights he's not had the opportunity, partly I think because his opponents don't ever want to come to him, and partly because against fighters better than our domestic plodders he looks he's punching in water.
The on factor in Froch's favour is that the old sayings are speed kills and the better, faster boxer will beat the brawler type etc. Well Froch in last two fights has fought the two fastest, slickest fighters he may ever face and he's still unbeaten which means something.
Its a bit like Chavez really, he was completely outboxed by Meldrick Taylor in the first fight but caught up with him late, and battered him in the rematch.
Froch may be that kind of fighter (not saying he is as good, just the type of fighter he is).
I look forward immensely to his fight with Kessler. On paper Kessler does everything right whereas Froch does everything wrong so Kessler should win it easily.
But he won't be running like the others so maybe Froch can get into more....
I wouldn't write him off yet, although I have little doubt that Andre Ward will win the tournament.
i think Kessler v Froch will be one of the best of the tourney, because of the points you bring up...
although, at this point I don't think Abraham would take any every rounds off and would go right after Froch and would beat him inside of 5 or 6 rounds...
that also would be another very interesting fight.
