Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
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.
It's all in black and white (depending on your monitor settings) what I had to say, the Hopkins reference was an example, but you already knew that I hope.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
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"
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.
It's all in black and white (depending on your monitor settings) what I had to say, the Hopkins reference was an example, but you already knew that I hope.
The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.
Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.
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
Look at the bold bit, just for a second. It's pathetic, it's a boxing match. You are there to fight, not do everything you said that I put in bold.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.
Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.
Exactly, I thought Hopkins just edged Calzaghe, but supporting Joe, I had no real problem it going the other way. However, that was a fight with a lot of close rounds where it came down to activity or cleaner effective punching. The difference was both were landing.
I'm pretty sure Froch threw less & definitely landed less. This fight should be compared to fights like Berto-Urango & Khan-Kotelnik. It was in no way comparable to JMM-Pac II or B-Hop-Joe
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JT Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
I ain't a Froch fan but of course I root for him, I thought he deserved the win because Dirrell just ran from the fight and tried to STEAL rounds. Four or five decent trades in some rounds and he had it in the bag because he looked good when he did stand and fight.
If anyone truly thinks he did enough to take the title they may need a new pair of eyes.
Well direct me to the eye store
Dirrell landed more punches
Dirrell's punches were cleaner, sharper, crisp and accurate
Dirrell was the better defender
Dirrell had froch on rubber legs 2x compared 0 times
Dirrell held and leaned a bit excessive.. Froch showed what a low class bush league cock he is with his fouling.. Desperate move by an absolute scrub of a fighter
Froch did fuck all but plod around as usual, swing for the fences fanning off the front row cause he couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat..
Dirrell got fucked sideways and the idiots it the crowd were cheering when froch was swinging at the invisible man in the ring, cause Andre was nowere near when Carl the snail Froch loaded up.. He looked like an absolute bewildered clown, Mr confidence didnt look to sure of himself as he kneeled down with Dirrell in prayer, reminded me of how suprised Pac's face looked when the judges screwed JMM in their 2nd fight
Your right in everything you say. But Dirrell is not from the UK. So therefor he can not win. The fix was in from the beginning. It's how they roll in the UK and Europe. The home fighter wins no matter what.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
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.
It's all in black and white (depending on your monitor settings) what I had to say, the Hopkins reference was an example, but you already knew that I hope.
The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.
Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.
Ok I hear you, Froch came forward all night and Dirrell landed some shots, fell to his knees, ran a lot.......Floyd the 2nd right here lol
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JT Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
I ain't a Froch fan but of course I root for him, I thought he deserved the win because Dirrell just ran from the fight and tried to STEAL rounds. Four or five decent trades in some rounds and he had it in the bag because he looked good when he did stand and fight.
If anyone truly thinks he did enough to take the title they may need a new pair of eyes.
Well direct me to the eye store
Dirrell landed more punches
Dirrell's punches were cleaner, sharper, crisp and accurate
Dirrell was the better defender
Dirrell had froch on rubber legs 2x compared 0 times
Dirrell held and leaned a bit excessive.. Froch showed what a low class bush league cock he is with his fouling.. Desperate move by an absolute scrub of a fighter
Froch did fuck all but plod around as usual, swing for the fences fanning off the front row cause he couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat..
Dirrell got fucked sideways and the idiots it the crowd were cheering when froch was swinging at the invisible man in the ring, cause Andre was nowere near when Carl the snail Froch loaded up.. He looked like an absolute bewildered clown, Mr confidence didnt look to sure of himself as he kneeled down with Dirrell in prayer, reminded me of how suprised Pac's face looked when the judges screwed JMM in their 2nd fight
Your right in everything you say. But Dirrell is not from the UK. So therefor he can not win. The fix was in from the beginning. It's how they roll in the UK and Europe. The home fighter wins no matter what.
Maybe Dirrell should have knocked out Froch as he was so much better:rolleyes:.
Funny thread that's for sure.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JT Rock
Well direct me to the eye store
Dirrell landed more punches
Dirrell's punches were cleaner, sharper, crisp and accurate
Dirrell was the better defender
Dirrell had froch on rubber legs 2x compared 0 times
Dirrell held and leaned a bit excessive.. Froch showed what a low class bush league cock he is with his fouling.. Desperate move by an absolute scrub of a fighter
Froch did fuck all but plod around as usual, swing for the fences fanning off the front row cause he couldnt hit water if he fell out of a boat..
Dirrell got fucked sideways and the idiots it the crowd were cheering when froch was swinging at the invisible man in the ring, cause Andre was nowere near when Carl the snail Froch loaded up.. He looked like an absolute bewildered clown, Mr confidence didnt look to sure of himself as he kneeled down with Dirrell in prayer, reminded me of how suprised Pac's face looked when the judges screwed JMM in their 2nd fight
Your right in everything you say. But Dirrell is not from the UK. So therefor he can not win. The fix was in from the beginning. It's how they roll in the UK and Europe. The home fighter wins no matter what.
Maybe Dirrell should have knocked out Froch as he was so much better:rolleyes:.
Funny thread that's for sure.
Like that would of mattered. Soon as Fraud would of hit the canvas the bell would of rang early and Fraud's corner would of rushed in to help him. Some how it would of been ruled a slip. I seen this shiit happen in Europe before. Don't make a fool of yourself by denying it hasn't. It's the most corrupt continent in the whole fukkin world.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
Who is your fav white fighter?
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
Who is your fav white fighter?
WTF has that got to do with anything??
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
Who is your fav white fighter?
:p
Do you really want to go down that road?
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
Who is your fav white fighter?
Lennox Lewis
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
I stopped reading your post as soon as i read Dirrell was the one making the fight, Dirrell won but some of your posts as usual as quite annoying and Bizzare.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.
But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.
And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.
It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.
You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?
Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.
I stopped reading your post as soon as i read Dirrell was the one making the fight, Dirrell won but some of your posts as usual as quite annoying and Bizzare.
To be fair Skel, he did say that it was after the point got taken away that Dirrell was the one making the fight which is a fair assessment of 10-12.
