-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Ok back to basics..............
How Professional Boxing is Scored
The Ten Point Must System
Each judge scores each round using the following criteria:- Clean Punching (25%)
- Effective Aggression (25%)
- Ring Generalship (25%)
- Defense (25%)
Clean punches are above the waist, on the front or sides of the body or head, and with the knuckle of the glove. The judge must determine if one boxer is landing more clean punches than the other.
Effective Aggression means landing punches while moving forward. If a fighter is aggressive but not landing punches, that does not count as effective aggression.
Ring Generalship means who is controlling the action in the ring, using strategy and skills beyond straight punching power. Is one fighter using agility and feinting to throw his opponent off guard? Or setting up his opponent for effective combinations? When one fighter moves the other around the ring at will, that fighter is displaying ring generalship.
Defense refers to a fighter's success at avoiding blows. This can be accomplished by blocking, bobbing, weaving, good footwork, and/or good movement.
Each of these criteria is supposed to be given equal weight (25%), although there's some dispute as to whether that actually happens.
So this nullifies the claim that Froch won the effective aggression category and by his own admission he was forced fight the way Dirrell wanted to, giving Dirrell the Ring Generalship category.
To help stay off topic Jaz has the best avatar on this thread.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
To help stay off topic Jaz has the best avatar on this thread.
Ya maybe, but that iza sweet stache you got going on.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
denilson200
I thought Dirrell won and what's interesting is that I listened to the fight on UK Radio and even they thought Dirrell won and they are generally very biased towards UK fighters. I mean, they had Hatton ahead against Mayweather at the time of stoppage (I ain't making this up lol) and another thing normally the crowd is a good guide to how the hometown fighter is doing and the crowds silence was DEAFENING. I think all Froch has going for him is a good chin and durability. He could EASILY have lost his last three fights (Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell) god knows how he is still unbeaten. I think Froch is an accident waiting to happen.
He tries to do that *Hands held low* thing, but he doesn't have quick enough reactions to evade punches nor he is quick enough with his own punches to be a counter puncher. He didn't know how to cut down a ring when faced with quick opponent because his foot work is to slow. He keeps on with that *One punch at a time* thing, but he doesn't hit hard enough nor is accurate enough to get away with it.
People will be fooled by the '0' he still has but to me. I think technically, he is the worst boxer in the tournament.
What an absolute load of bollocks, you listened to it on the radio and you were suprised they had Dirrell winning becuase they are biased towards UK fighters???
Well sorry to correct you there my friend but you are 110% incorrect about the Mayweather v Hatton fight, at the time of the fight i was in prison and listened to it on BBC Radio 5 live and they didnt have Hatton ahead not one of them, I was actully quite shocked as I watched it on the bbc the following saturday afternoon and like I say I was suprised that it was a little more competitive than the impression the radio was giving, when listening live I honestly got the impression Hatton was getting murdered and nearly every 30 seconds to a minute the pundits kept saying Hatton is getting totally out boxed here, so can I ask you where you got that shit info from????
Secondly I listened also to the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight again in jail and again they had Hopkins winning the fight handily and were very suprised that Calzaghe got the nod.
I think its a myth that UK pundits are overly bias both the Primetime commentry team had Dirrell winning.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
To help stay off topic Jaz has the best avatar on this thread.
Ya maybe, but that iza sweet stache you got going on.
I should hope so, being of hispanic descent, I have had it since I was 12.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by
denilson200
I thought Dirrell won and what's interesting is that I listened to the fight on UK Radio and even they thought Dirrell won and they are generally very biased towards UK fighters. I mean, they had Hatton ahead against Mayweather at the time of stoppage (I ain't making this up lol) and another thing normally the crowd is a good guide to how the hometown fighter is doing and the crowds silence was DEAFENING. I think all Froch has going for him is a good chin and durability. He could EASILY have lost his last three fights (Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell) god knows how he is still unbeaten. I think Froch is an accident waiting to happen.
He tries to do that *Hands held low* thing, but he doesn't have quick enough reactions to evade punches nor he is quick enough with his own punches to be a counter puncher. He didn't know how to cut down a ring when faced with quick opponent because his foot work is to slow. He keeps on with that *One punch at a time* thing, but he doesn't hit hard enough nor is accurate enough to get away with it.
People will be fooled by the '0' he still has but to me. I think technically, he is the worst boxer in the tournament.
What an absolute load of bollocks, you listened to it on the radio and you were suprised they had Dirrell winning becuase they are biased towards UK fighters???
Well sorry to correct you there my friend but you are 110% incorrect about the Mayweather v Hatton fight, at the time of the fight i was in prison and listened to it on BBC Radio 5 live and they didnt have Hatton ahead not one of them, I was actully quite shocked as I watched it on the bbc the following saturday afternoon and like I say I was suprised that it was a little more competitive than the impression the radio was giving, when listening live I honestly got the impression Hatton was getting murdered and nearly every 30 seconds to a minute the pundits kept saying Hatton is getting totally out boxed here, so can I ask you where you got that shit info from????
Secondly I listened also to the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight again in jail and again they had Hopkins winning the fight handily and were very suprised that Calzaghe got the nod.
I think its a myth that UK pundits are overly bias both the Primetime commentry team had Dirrell winning.
Our actual commentators aren't too bad, but I thought Rawling & Thaxton were still fairly biased. But, I agree radio commentators tend to be quite even-handed & I think Richie Woodhall is always fair in calling a fight.
As for our 'pundits' though :-\
The name Steve Bunce says it all ;D;D
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
To help stay off topic Jaz has the best avatar on this thread.
Ya maybe, but that iza sweet stache you got going on.
I should hope so, being of hispanic descent,
I have had it since I was 12.
:cool:
I want a mustache so bad. I keep shaving my bare upper lip and nothing grows. Thinking bout tattooing one there. Irish/French/Belgian/+mix of all sorts including native(my great greatgrandfemales were all colorblind apparantly). Oh, and yea...good case for the effective aggression.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Ya maybe, but that iza sweet stache you got going on.
I should hope so, being of hispanic descent,
I have had it since I was 12.
:cool:
I want a mustache so bad. I keep shaving my bare upper lip and nothing grows. Thinking bout tattooing one there. Irish/French/Belgian/+mix of all sorts including native(my great greatgrandfemales were all colorblind apparantly). Oh, and yea...good case for the effective aggression.
You can use eyeliner like the artist formerly known as prince.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by
denilson200
I thought Dirrell won and what's interesting is that I listened to the fight on UK Radio and even they thought Dirrell won and they are generally very biased towards UK fighters. I mean, they had Hatton ahead against Mayweather at the time of stoppage (I ain't making this up lol) and another thing normally the crowd is a good guide to how the hometown fighter is doing and the crowds silence was DEAFENING. I think all Froch has going for him is a good chin and durability. He could EASILY have lost his last three fights (Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell) god knows how he is still unbeaten. I think Froch is an accident waiting to happen.
He tries to do that *Hands held low* thing, but he doesn't have quick enough reactions to evade punches nor he is quick enough with his own punches to be a counter puncher. He didn't know how to cut down a ring when faced with quick opponent because his foot work is to slow. He keeps on with that *One punch at a time* thing, but he doesn't hit hard enough nor is accurate enough to get away with it.
People will be fooled by the '0' he still has but to me. I think technically, he is the worst boxer in the tournament.
What an absolute load of bollocks, you listened to it on the radio and you were suprised they had Dirrell winning becuase they are biased towards UK fighters???
Well sorry to correct you there my friend but you are 110% incorrect about the Mayweather v Hatton fight, at the time of the fight i was in prison and listened to it on BBC Radio 5 live and they didnt have Hatton ahead not one of them, I was actully quite shocked as I watched it on the bbc the following saturday afternoon and like I say I was suprised that it was a little more competitive than the impression the radio was giving, when listening live I honestly got the impression Hatton was getting murdered and nearly every 30 seconds to a minute the pundits kept saying Hatton is getting totally out boxed here, so can I ask you where you got that shit info from????
Secondly I listened also to the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight again in jail and again they had Hopkins winning the fight handily and were very suprised that Calzaghe got the nod.
I think its a myth that UK pundits are overly bias both the Primetime commentry team had Dirrell winning.
Our actual commentators aren't too bad, but I thought Rawling & Thaxton were still fairly biased. But, I agree radio commentators tend to be quite even-handed & I think Richie Woodhall is always fair in calling a fight.
As for our 'pundits' though :-\
The name Steve Bunce says it all ;D;D
You are correct about Bunce quite entertaining but one of the most bias brits out there, even used the Reid fight for Froch as being one of the reasons he would beat Dirrell. But overall I think they are quite fair.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
What an absolute load of bollocks, you listened to it on the radio and you were suprised they had Dirrell winning becuase they are biased towards UK fighters???
Well sorry to correct you there my friend but you are 110% incorrect about the Mayweather v Hatton fight, at the time of the fight i was in prison and listened to it on BBC Radio 5 live and they didnt have Hatton ahead not one of them, I was actully quite shocked as I watched it on the bbc the following saturday afternoon and like I say I was suprised that it was a little more competitive than the impression the radio was giving, when listening live I honestly got the impression Hatton was getting murdered and nearly every 30 seconds to a minute the pundits kept saying Hatton is getting totally out boxed here, so can I ask you where you got that shit info from????
Secondly I listened also to the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight again in jail and again they had Hopkins winning the fight handily and were very suprised that Calzaghe got the nod.
I think its a myth that UK pundits are overly bias both the Primetime commentry team had Dirrell winning.
Our actual commentators aren't too bad, but I thought Rawling & Thaxton were still fairly biased. But, I agree radio commentators tend to be quite even-handed & I think Richie Woodhall is always fair in calling a fight.
As for our 'pundits' though :-\
The name Steve Bunce says it all ;D;D
You are correct about Bunce quite entertaining but one of the most bias brits out there, even used the Reid fight for Froch as being one of the reasons he would beat Dirrell. But overall I think they are quite fair.
I find Bunce quite entertaining, but he will never score a fight against a Brit, he always has them just edging it. In fact the only UK fighter he hasn't given the 'benefit' to recently was Woods against Tarver, which considering it was a massive shutout is no surprise. His bias pisses me off.
I think Johnny Nelson, Woodhall & even Rawling in scoring are quite fair. Jim Watt is as long there isn't a Brit fighter in the ring. But, I agree with you, I've always found radio-commentary teams to be much fairer. Maybe because they know none of the Brit boxers are going to see them on youtube afterwards. Oh & Colin Hart, I know everyone hates him, but he calls it as he sees it & you have to respect that.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I like Jim Watt. He tows the company line when he commentates but he's an insightful guy.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
I like Jim Watt. He tows the company line when he commentates but he's an insightful guy.
I'd rather have it on Mute than listen to Jim Watt ;D
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I don't remember Froch landing one single decent shot. In fact I don't remember him landing any shot.
I had it 120-107 for Froch.
So... how do you have Froch winning without a SINGLE decent shot. Cuz Dirrell could have finished him off in the 11th had he some more experience.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonnyFolds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I don't remember Froch landing one single decent shot. In fact I don't remember him landing any shot.
I had it 120-107 for Froch.
So... how do you have Froch winning without a SINGLE decent shot. Cuz Dirrell could have finished him off in the 11th had he some more experience.
Because Froch's punches had the potential to score IF they landed. Simple as.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Dirrell won the race, Froch won the fight. I'm a fan of niether and voted for draw. Dirrell is the better boxer, but at least Froch showed up with an expectation of giving a few and taking a few.
If this happened in an alley with no ref, Froch would have probably killed Dirrell. If this happened in an empty football stadium with 100 refs, Froch would have never gotten within 50 feet of Dirrell.
With the inclusion of boxing rules and a ref, its hard to give the fight to Froch. With the basic assumption that a boxing match is a fight, You can't give it to Dirrell. With boxing closer to a fight than a footrace, I have to say Froch showed up to fight and Dirrell showed up looking for protection for the ref in order to preserve his style.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Direll won that fight at least 7-5. At the worst u could have gave it a draw but boxing does not allow draws(it seems). Calzaghe would kill this field for those who want to know. Hopkins at his old age now would beat Froch and Abraham. Taylor and Direll lose to Bernard also. Kessler and Ward get schooled too. Calzaghe and Hopkins are the 2 best super middle in the world NOW. Taylor needs to drop out and retire before someone kills his ass. I sure hope he never fights Kessler because he is a Monster.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J_Undisputed
Dirrell won the race, Froch won the fight. I'm a fan of niether and voted for draw. Dirrell is the better boxer, but at least Froch showed up with an expectation of giving a few and taking a few.
If this happened in an alley with no ref, Froch would have probably killed Dirrell. If this happened in an empty football stadium with 100 refs, Froch would have never gotten within 50 feet of Dirrell.
With the inclusion of boxing rules and a ref, its hard to give the fight to Froch. With the basic assumption that a boxing match is a fight, You can't give it to Dirrell. With boxing closer to a fight than a footrace, I have to say Froch showed up to fight and Dirrell showed up looking for protection for the ref in order to preserve his style.
Ok so Froch wins if we don't have rules? But since there are rules, Dirrell wins and since you don't like them it's a draw? Did I understand you correctly, I'm a little confused by what you are saying to be honest.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J_Undisputed
Dirrell won the race, Froch won the fight. I'm a fan of niether and voted for draw. Dirrell is the better boxer, but at least Froch showed up with an expectation of giving a few and taking a few.
If this happened in an alley with no ref, Froch would have probably killed Dirrell. If this happened in an empty football stadium with 100 refs, Froch would have never gotten within 50 feet of Dirrell.
With the inclusion of boxing rules and a ref, its hard to give the fight to Froch. With the basic assumption that a boxing match is a fight, You can't give it to Dirrell. With boxing closer to a fight than a footrace, I have to say Froch showed up to fight and Dirrell showed up looking for protection for the ref in order to preserve his style.
Ok so Froch wins if we don't have rules? But since there are rules, Dirrell wins and since you don't like them it's a draw? Did I understand you correctly, I'm a little confused by what you are saying to be honest.
I'm saying, I called it a draw because niether really did enough to win this contest in my opinion. Rules or no rules.. you have to actually engage someone to call it a fight. While Froch came closest to trying do that in my eyes and while I didn't frown on the rabbit punches because of clinging of Dirrell... from the aspect of a boxing match, you cant really score/include those as landed punches. Dirrells David Reid running imitation and then Ruiz's hugging imitation doesn't really kills any points i was willing to give him. Had I been the ref, I'd have deducted so many points, it probably would have been a race to see who would get DQ'd first. So I call it a draw (the non combatitive tendcies of Dirrell canceling out the ineptitude of Froch. Not sure which is the bigger crime, having skills and choosing to run instead or not having the skills to complete and losing the inspiration to try because you cant run that fast).
Pretty sure that did nothing to clarify it ..lol .. but I just as soon wish this fight never happened as I can't give it to either in good consicence.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I think after aching the fight for a second time it was even more convincing that Dirrell got majorly screwed
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I am not a Froch fan by any stretch but what he said at the end of the fight to me rung true. I seen Dirrell running and complaining when he was the one holding on for dear life on the inside.Or if Dirrell even got wind Froch was getting close he ran,held,and even fell at one point. I could have had it either way but at the end of the fight I gave it to Froch by 1 point.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Bunch of great points in this thread...but all we have to do is look it up on boxrec, that will tell you who won for all that really matters. For those thinking it was a rip, not to worry he got two points for the win and it's not like he'll be getting any if very many more. Remember froch did win but look at who it was againt, a fighter with a handfull of fights, and almost all of them against guys no one knows. Good to get a victory but i think it will be short lived. I doubt direll since the olympics has even been out of the country to visit somewhere else let alone fight there. He handled the pressure and fighting past i think like the 10th against a champ for the first time.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Ya maybe, but that iza sweet stache you got going on.
I should hope so, being of hispanic descent,
I have had it since I was 12.
:cool:
I want a mustache so bad. I keep shaving my bare upper lip and nothing grows. Thinking bout tattooing one there. Irish/French/Belgian/+mix of all sorts including native(my great greatgrandfemales were all colorblind apparantly). Oh, and yea...good case for the effective aggression.
Carefull not to grow one until you can do it properly. Nothing worse than cultivating a few wispy hairs. Generally speaking, the day you think you can grow decent facial hair is about two years before you can actually do it. I see a lot of bad teenage moustaches. By the time you realise thats what you have its too late. The memories might fade but the photos will live forever. be warned.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
I should hope so, being of hispanic descent, I have had it since I was 12.
:cool:
I want a mustache so bad. I keep shaving my bare upper lip and nothing grows. Thinking bout tattooing one there. Irish/French/Belgian/+mix of all sorts including native(my great greatgrandfemales were all colorblind apparantly). Oh, and yea...good case for the effective aggression.
Carefull not to grow one until you can do it properly. Nothing worse than cultivating a few wispy hairs. Generally speaking, the day you think you can grow decent facial hair is about two years before you can
actually do it. I see a lot of bad teenage moustaches. By the time you realise thats what you have its too late. The memories might fade but the photos will live forever. be warned.
That's one idea, also keep in mind if you grow out a rat tail it will make the moustache look fuller and less wispy. If you combine that with some daisy dukes and an jean vest you'll be beating the girlies off with a stick.
Apparently that statement is open to interpretation.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
:cool:
I want a mustache so bad. I keep shaving my bare upper lip and nothing grows. Thinking bout tattooing one there. Irish/French/Belgian/+mix of all sorts including native(my great greatgrandfemales were all colorblind apparantly). Oh, and yea...good case for the effective aggression.
Carefull not to grow one until you can do it properly. Nothing worse than cultivating a few wispy hairs. Generally speaking, the day you think you can grow decent facial hair is about two years before you can
actually do it. I see a lot of bad teenage moustaches. By the time you realise thats what you have its too late. The memories might fade but the photos will live forever. be warned.
That's one idea, also keep in mind if you grow out a rat tail it will make the moustache look fuller and less wispy. If you combine that with some daisy dukes and an jean vest you'll be beating the girlies off with a stick.
Apparently that statement is open to interpretation.
Kudos to both you & Ryanman... I'm seeing people turn up & this thread & thinks its the place to talk about boxing, the cheek of it!
I'm glad we still have some members devoted to what this thread is really about
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Carefull not to grow one until you can do it properly. Nothing worse than cultivating a few wispy hairs. Generally speaking, the day you think you can grow decent facial hair is about two years before you can actually do it. I see a lot of bad teenage moustaches. By the time you realise thats what you have its too late. The memories might fade but the photos will live forever. be warned.
That's one idea, also keep in mind if you grow out a rat tail it will make the moustache look fuller and less wispy. If you combine that with some daisy dukes and an jean vest you'll be beating the girlies off with a stick.
Apparently that statement is open to interpretation.
Kudos to both you & Ryanman... I'm seeing people turn up & this thread & thinks its the place to talk about boxing, the cheek of it!
I'm glad we still have some members devoted to what this thread is really about
Thank you, i appreciate your kind words. I was somewhat dismayed this morning to see the insane actions of some members that simply talked about the fight result. Rest assured i shall be staying up all night tonight to ensure the same doesn't happen again.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Carefull not to grow one until you can do it properly. Nothing worse than cultivating a few wispy hairs. Generally speaking, the day you think you can grow decent facial hair is about two years before you can actually do it. I see a lot of bad teenage moustaches. By the time you realise thats what you have its too late. The memories might fade but the photos will live forever. be warned.
That's one idea, also keep in mind if you grow out a rat tail it will make the moustache look fuller and less wispy. If you combine that with some daisy dukes and an jean vest you'll be beating the girlies off with a stick.
Apparently that statement is open to interpretation.
Kudos to both you & Ryanman... I'm seeing people turn up & this thread & thinks its the place to talk about boxing, the cheek of it!
I'm glad we still have some members devoted to what this thread is really about
Nothing but the facts Jaz, nothing but the facts.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
The fight was garbage with a bad decision. Froch sucks, and Dirrel was scared to fight, but easily won almost every round. Froch has no chance of winning this thing without more payoffs for the judges. He really disappointed me. As tough as Froch may be (chin and power), Dirrel made him look like an amateur. Hopefully Dirrel will stand and deliver a little more next fight. And to be honest, if Dirrel stood his ground a little more, it would have been more lopsided win for Dirrel. Froch sucks. I cant see him beating Abraham or Kessler, but I didn't see him winning this fight either.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
No matter if you want to give it to Froch or not. It can not be denied that Froch knows nothing about how to cut off a ring. Froch has to learn how to impose his style on a guy who uses footwork. Any fighter should know how to stop a guy from using every inch of that ring. Every fighter should have learned how to at least cut the ring down. Froch was clueless.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Although Dirrell clearly won that fight he does need to take more chances especially if you are going into someone's backyard. He's probably beating himself up now.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Froch's speed was terrible, all else would have been ok if he could have come close to dirrell's speed. Speed kills.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
awdleyfuturehalloffamer
Froch's speed was terrible, all else would have been ok if he could have come close to dirrell's speed. Speed kills.
the reason froch is so slow is because he doesnt know how to throw a punch
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Froch won the fight Dirrell was a bit of a joke he ran he paniced he moaned constantly to the ref had Carl not been going forward their wouldn't have been a fight it was close but no way did Dirrell do enough to take the belt off the champ in his backyard.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tysonbruno
Froch won the fight Dirrell was a bit of a joke he ran he paniced he moaned constantly to the ref had Carl not been going forward their wouldn't have been a fight it was close but no way did Dirrell do enough to take the belt off the champ in his backyard.
People may disagree, but I don't think the fact that Froch was champion or fighting in his home town should have any bearing on the result. Agreed Dirrell ran and was frustrating, but if he won more rounds he should get the decision and all other factors don't count (imo)
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.
I nearly pressed the ban button.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
After watching it again I have decided to call it a NC. That's all I have to say on the issue. There were more fouls than landed punches and in a fight such as that there can be no winner. Dirrell was a bit more flashy, but Froch was digging it out. Both were awful and so cancelled out each other and the entire fight completely.
I hope to never see it again nor hear anymore about it. What a total waste of time.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tysonbruno
Froch won the fight Dirrell was a bit of a joke he ran he paniced he moaned constantly to the ref had Carl not been going forward their wouldn't have been a fight it was close but no way did Dirrell do enough to take the belt off the champ in his backyard.
People may disagree, but I don't think the fact that Froch was champion or fighting in his home town should have any bearing on the result. Agreed Dirrell ran and was frustrating, but if he won more rounds he should get the decision and all other factors don't count (imo)
I agree. It's one of the most ridiculous things in all of sports and it makes boxing look like a farce. Imagine if in football (American) the visiting team has to win by more than a field goal to get the victory, the sport would instantly lose its credibility.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Ok, I've rewatched the fight (better late than never) and here's my scorecard and some notes I made during the fight. I've tried to give my reasons as to why I scored the rounds the way I did. I saw the fight somewhat differently the 2nd time around, though I still feel that Dirrell won. I actually feel like I should watch it a third time because I got a much different impression of the fight the 2nd time around, but I just can't make myself sit through that garbage again. One thing that should be noted is that I feel that I scored the fight with a slight bias towards Froch.
Froch/Dirrell
1. 10/9: Neither fighter did much, Froch wins the round based on his straight rights to the body of Dirrell.
2. 9/10: Dirrell landed the only meaningful punches
3. 9/10: Dirrell landed little, but Froch landed almost nothing.
4. 9/10: Froch controlled the ring, but Dirrell landed the better punches; "emphasis on clean punching...", the round goes to Dirrell
5. 9/10: A close round, but Dirrell scores well with straights to the body. Dirrell's are the only effective punches.
6. 9/10: Again, Dirrell lands the only clean, effective punches. A lot of these rounds are closer than I remember.
7. 10/9: Froch out-punched and out-landed Dirrell in addition to forcing the action.
8. 10/9: Close round yet again, Froch lands the harder shots though both fighters land relatively few punches.
9. 10/9: I felt Froch landed a comparable number of blows and forced the action, the round goes to him.
10. 9/9: Bullshit deduction in that Dirrell was the only one penalized, both should have lost points or neither should have. Dirrell lands better punches and hurts Froch.
11. 9/10: Dirrell's best round IMO, he hurts Froch again and lands the cleaner punches.
12. 9/10: Dirrell wins the first half of the round more convincingly than Froch wins the latter half. I watched it twice to be sure of my score.
I had Dirrell winning 115- 112.
Froch was more effective than I remembered from the first viewing and Dirrell was less effective. It was close-ish, but Dirrell should have won. However, all he had to do to guarantee the victory was let his hands go and actually stand and fight. In some ways he has only himself to blame for the loss. That said, I still feel it was a relatively clear Dirrell victory. The Italian judge should be a laughing stock for the way he scored the last two rounds, particularly round 11.
Finally, I can't believe I spent my Friday night drinking beer and rewatching this fight. I need to seriously reevaluate things... :p
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.
I nearly pressed the ban button.
Please press the ban button so I dont have to read all these U.K. wankers rambling on about Froch. I would take a pacquiao fanatic anyday over hattongothammered.
-
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.
I nearly pressed the ban button.
Please press the ban button so I dont have to read all these U.K. wankers rambling on about Froch. I would take a pacquiao fanatic anyday over hattongothammered.
Look at the poll. Look at the comments. Most UK 'wankers' have said that Dirrell deserved to win.
