froch won the fight, the guy who scored it 114-113 is clearly a moron
This isnt even being discussed in the media. Froch won the fight as clear as day!
Printable View
froch won the fight, the guy who scored it 114-113 is clearly a moron
This isnt even being discussed in the media. Froch won the fight as clear as day!
I had Dirrell winning just but I knew he wouldn't get the decision on that performance. You have to go and take a title away from a champion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
If Froch won the fight clear as day why was your scorecard so close and why do the votes in this poll clearly favor Dirrell. :rolleyes:
as i watched on a stream & didnt see the first round & listened to commentry on radio i dont think its fair for me to score the fight, i will watch it on itv tonight & score
Im not a fan of Froch, Ive been expecting to be able to post an 'I told you so' long before now.
I dont have any problem with him getting the nod. Or to be more accurate I dont have a problem with Dirrell NOT getting the nod.
Like it or not it is part of the game, any fighter going to anothers back yard to try and take a title knows they have to do more than nick it, they have to win it it win it well.
CFH the football analogy doesnt really work. 'Goals' in football are clearly defined, as long as they are within the rules of the game they stand, it doesnt matter how good they are or how much skill is involved, we know boxing isnt like that. We also know that IF a football match were tied and decided by a panel of judges the away side wouldnt get any breaks.
What he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Here are the arguments for Froch winning
1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough
Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?
just seen that both froch & abrahm fights gonna be on itv 4 at 9pm
I think the four point formula for winning rounds/fights is a naive way to look at it to be honest and it is certainly flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhat he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Here are the arguments for Froch winning
1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough
Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?
It doesnt matter where you are in the world judges score rounds based simply on who they thought won it, for some judges its too much to ask to watch a round let alone make a judgement on whether the aggression was affective or not.
The system uses 4 criteria to judge who wins a round and lets assume the judges do that, what happens if the judge scores it 2 apiece? He still has to award 10 points to one man and 9 to the other. In that situation he is still going to have to make a judgement call and is still most likely going to side with the champion.
yeah u can watch a whole fight & think one fighter won easily but when scoring each rd can find that its a draw or even worse that the guy who looked like he walked it actually lost.
if u know wot i mean:confused:
I think its a flawed system and judges dont use it. Clean punches and defence fair enough, pretty straight forward, but how do you judge someones effective aggression and ring generalship until a fight is over?
If one guy harrases the other all over the ring for a few early rounds but doesnt land anything, that is not seen as effective, but if he then knocks him out later in the fight due to the other guy being gassed because he's been run down does that earlier aggression become affective and was he displaying good ring generalship?
Naive you say? I say it's naive to NOT have any criteria other than "he won because I said so". Seriously other than those four elements, what would you judge a fighter on?Quote:
Originally Posted by MemphisI think the four point formula for winning rounds/fights is a naive way to look at it to be honest and it is certainly flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepWhat he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Here are the arguments for Froch winning
1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough
Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?
It doesnt matter where you are in the world judges score rounds based simply on who they thought won it, for some judges its too much to ask to watch a round let alone make a judgement on whether the aggression was affective or not.
The system uses 4 criteria to judge who wins a round and lets assume the judges do that, what happens if the judge scores it 2 apiece? He still has to award 10 points to one man and 9 to the other. In that situation he is still going to have to make a judgement call and is still most likely going to side with the champion.
1. Effective Agression
2. Clean Punching
3. Defense
4. Ring Generalship
What other element is a win defined by other than those things?
Certainly someone that cannot understand "Effective aggression is a fighter moving forward and landing punches" shouldn't be judging a title fight.
As for the scenario of what if they each take two categories well someone figured that out and that's why when they're announcing the criteria they will say "with emphasis on effective aggression" OR "with emphasis on clean punching" Those are the tie breaking criteria.
You have made a recommendation to go from the criteria set forth in boxing which makes sense in the scheme of things and changed it to "the guy that won" how is that determined exactly? What was Froch doing that won him that fight?
Ring Generalship is easier to judge than most anything else especially on a round by round basis. It is simply the guy fighting how he wants to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Froch chasing Dirrell around the ring makes it easy to determine they are fighting the way Dirrell wants to. If Froch would have cut off the ring and made Dirrell trade for more of the round then he would have won that category.
Effective aggression again is a fighter moving forward landing punches, it's not that hard.
Im sorry mate but I dont buy the Dirrel clearly won the ring generalship stakes because Froch was chasing him line. If Dirrell hadnt have spent so much of the fight clinging on for dear life or falling to the floor or complaining I might be more inclined to believe he was in control. He didnt do those things out of choice, he did them due to what Froch was doing.
See whats happening here? Even with this fool proof easy to follow criteria we still disagree, as do the judges.
Well let's use your criteria then............Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
What did Froch do to win?
And while I'm waiting for your response I think it's fair that I did not think it was a robbery I had it 114-113 Dirrell on my card (7 rounds to 5 minus the point deduction) too close for me to call robbery.
What was your card memphis?
And also while you are explaining why Froch won, I can get back to the ring generalship. If you say Dirrell was holding on for dear life that implies he was hurt. I didn't see him hurt at all in that fight, in fact I saw Froch only land one meaningful punch. It's interesting that you mention what Dirrell was doing, but completely ignore Froch's rabbit punches and wrestling tactics, which was in fact because of what Dirrell was doing. If I need further evidence to substantiate my claim that Dirrell won the Ring generalship category I can listen to Froch's post fight interview "he wouldn't stand and trade with me"
And you complain about Dirrell wasting his time clinching using his own style of dirty, but he still found the time to clearly outland Froch. Furthermore if you've seen Dirrell fight before you would know he chooses to do that (clinch a lot, fall to the floor), there is a precident here, that being his previous fights.
Where did memphis go?
I have seen that fight three times now and there aint no way in hell frocking froch won. that decision was froched up. it made me want to say froch it all.
froch boxing, froch saddo, froch well froch:p
but in all seriousness froch lost that fight.
OK here we go....
Killer I had Dirrell winning by one point. If I used the four point formula for scoring fights/rounds it was done subconciously. I watched a round, decided who won it, then repeated for 11 more rounds.
I've never claimed that Froch won, only that I understand why he did, or why Dirrell didnt. If it helps I'll tick the Dirrell option so you can feel better about all of this?
Again, I think its naive, and also giving judges way too much credit to assume that they use the four criteria you mentioned to score rounds. Effective aggression means coming forward landing punches. Well I think its fair to say that Froch covered the coming forward part. How many punches does he have to land? Is it one per round that he's coming forward, does he have to land one every time he comes forward to make it count? By the way I dont buy all this Froch only landed one punch crap, and no Im not going to sit through a slow motion replay to prove it.
Actually scratch that part about effective aggression, its getting boring now.
The facts are that despite protesting this so strongly and asking what Froch did to win repeatedly, you yourself gave him 5 rounds. The people That counted (or two of them) saw him winning a couple more :-\
Ok so using the four point system we came up with the same score as a matter of fact it was the same score that the judge from Mexico had. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Maybe it's not so ambiguous after all.
I believe you think the effective aggression part is "boring now" because
you understand it now and realize it's not what you thought it was earlier
which was something that couldn't be judged until later in the fight (I
assume you are referring to damage taken).
I never claimed it was a robbery, but the reasons people were giving
for Froch winning were what I was taking issue with. Yes I believe
Froch won 5 rounds, yes it was a close fight, yes it was a dirty fight.
I have been consistent throughout and your final judgement helped my
point. My point is trying to make it a fight is not a basis for winning a
fight, to make a more extreme example Mayweather was the challenger
against Baldomir. Baldomir was trying to make it a fight and walking
forward for 12 rounds did he deserve the nod?
Finally caught up on the boxing and watched this fight, i had Andre Dirrell winning. I thought Carl Froch couldn't land anything meaningful, and although he was the aggressor it wasn't effective aggression.
Andre Dirrell showed some nice reflexes and defensive work, and some nice hand speed. Although i thought he could of lifted the pace, especially when he hurt Carl Froch.
Overall he made it the kind of fight he wanted, a boring tactical messy fight. Where he was able to beat Carl Froch to the punch, while avoiding Carl Froch's wild haymakers.
I thought the point deduction was unfair, considering Carl Froch had his own dirty little gameplan going on with the rabbit shots.
I think Andre Dirrell was the better fighter, but it was very frustrating watching him. Because he should of done more and at times, he was running.
I think he should of planted his feet more, and let fly with some power shots. Because he could hurt Carl Froch, overall i think Andre Dirrell won by 2 points, and he could trouble mostly any fighter right now he has all the attributes.
But in future he will have to take more risks, i got no problem with defensive fighting. Some of my most favorite fighters are great defensive fighters.
But even those great defensive fighters know when they have to step it up, Andre Dirrell will have to in future aswell.
what was the scorecards?
judge: Alejandro Rochin Mapula 114-113 DirrellQuote:
Originally Posted by Drago
judge: Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112 Froch
judge: Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112 Froch
cheers killersheep, so really froch won by alot on 2 cards!Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepjudge: Alejandro Rochin Mapula 114-113 DirrellQuote:
Originally Posted by Drago
judge: Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112 Froch
judge: Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112 Froch
i still havnt watched again, i am not counting first time i watched as was on a stream i need to study the fight more & post my results
In reality those scores are really close, the point deduction makes it seem like a bigger margin. But round wise one judge had it 7-5 Dirrell and the other two had it 7-5 Froch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragocheers killersheep, so really froch won by alot on 2 cards!Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepjudge: Alejandro Rochin Mapula 114-113 DirrellQuote:
Originally Posted by Drago
judge: Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112 Froch
judge: Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112 Froch
i still havnt watched again, i am not counting first time i watched as was on a stream i need to study the fight more & post my results
The one score I really had a problem with was one judge giving the 11th to Froch. In the scheme of things the end result would have still been the same though because of the point deduction.
Mate Its got nothing to do with undertanding it. The criteria is easily understandable but as I said I believe it's flawed and its application concerns me.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepOk so using the four point system we came up with the same score as a matter of fact it was the same score that the judge from Mexico had. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Maybe it's not so ambiguous after all.
I believe you think the effective aggression part is "boring now" because
you understand it now and realize it's not what you thought it was earlier
which was something that couldn't be judged until later in the fight (I
assume you are referring to damage taken).
I never claimed it was a robbery, but the reasons people were giving
for Froch winning were what I was taking issue with. Yes I believe
Froch won 5 rounds, yes it was a close fight, yes it was a dirty fight.
I have been consistent throughout and your final judgement helped my
point. My point is trying to make it a fight is not a basis for winning a
fight, to make a more extreme example Mayweather was the challenger
against Baldomir. Baldomir was trying to make it a fight and walking
forward for 12 rounds did he deserve the nod?
No Baldomir didnt deserve the nod. But based on the 4 criteria did he deserve to win the 25% of the round that was based on effective aggression? If not, who was and why?
For some reasons, I haven't seen it and the more I read here, the more I want to see it as opinions (in general) seem to be quite polarized on both side, by now it must be on rapidshare somewhere, I find it and I try to add my 2 cents before the end of the week for sure.
Check your PMs ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Ive seen the fight now SIX times and ive tried....ive tried so hard to see the fight in the eyes of a andre dirrell fan.
I even resorted to giving him round 12 yet still scored the fight for froch (like i did on all previous 5 occasions)
I cant watch the fight anymore because the more i watch it the more apparently clear it becomes that carl won the fight by 2-3 rounds, maybe even more!!
GOt it, thanks Big H-boyQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG HCheck your PMs ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
You're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
25% is less than 75% so no he did not deserve the rounds even if he was considered to have effective aggression. And no in my eyes he did not deserve the effective aggression tick because even though Mayweather rarely moved forward he was ten fold more effective when he did which was also the case in the rounds that Dirrell won. Now, I do agree that Dirrell should not have clinched as much as he did and did himself a disservice in doing so but that is the job of the ref NOT the judges to take care of it and he did in fact have a point deducted for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MemphisMate Its got nothing to do with undertanding it. The criteria is easily understandable but as I said I believe it's flawed and its application concerns me.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepOk so using the four point system we came up with the same score as a matter of fact it was the same score that the judge from Mexico had. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Maybe it's not so ambiguous after all.
I believe you think the effective aggression part is "boring now" because
you understand it now and realize it's not what you thought it was earlier
which was something that couldn't be judged until later in the fight (I
assume you are referring to damage taken).
I never claimed it was a robbery, but the reasons people were giving
for Froch winning were what I was taking issue with. Yes I believe
Froch won 5 rounds, yes it was a close fight, yes it was a dirty fight.
I have been consistent throughout and your final judgement helped my
point. My point is trying to make it a fight is not a basis for winning a
fight, to make a more extreme example Mayweather was the challenger
against Baldomir. Baldomir was trying to make it a fight and walking
forward for 12 rounds did he deserve the nod?
No Baldomir didnt deserve the nod. But based on the 4 criteria did he deserve to win the 25% of the round that was based on effective aggression? If not, who was and why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinYou're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Let me guess....
Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch
:lol:
Hopkins did just edge Calzaghe imo, but it was a close fight that went the other way & I didn't care as I wanted Joe to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammerQuote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinYou're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Let me guess....
Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch
:lol:
Lewis easily beat Holyfield.
Taylor was ahead of Froch, but it's academic as Froch KO'd him.
Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.
How did you have Hatton-Collazo btw?
We all know that according to you, Hatton was in the fight with Mayweather up until Cortez robbed him of a glorious win :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinHopkins did just edge Calzaghe imo, but it was a close fight that went the other way & I didn't care as I wanted Joe to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammerQuote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Let me guess....
Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch
:lol:
Lewis easily beat Holyfield.
Taylor was ahead of Froch, but it's academic as Froch KO'd him.
Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.
How did you have Hatton-Collazo btw?
We all know that according to you, Hatton was in the fight with Mayweather up until Cortez robbed him of a glorious win :rolleyes:
Come on Jaz asking Hammer to judge a Hatton fight :p. My moneys on 120-108 to Hatton , i actully had Hatton winning that fight I cant remember my scorecard but I had him just edging it.
So did I, had it 114-113 because of the KD, which did seem a slip. But seeing as Froch won by '2 or 3 rounds, maybe more!!!', I thought I'd find out his typically neutral & fair judgement on another close fight. One which ironically I'm sure he had no problems the close rounds going to the challenger ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by skel1983Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinHopkins did just edge Calzaghe imo, but it was a close fight that went the other way & I didn't care as I wanted Joe to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Lewis easily beat Holyfield.
Taylor was ahead of Froch, but it's academic as Froch KO'd him.
Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.
How did you have Hatton-Collazo btw?
We all know that according to you, Hatton was in the fight with Mayweather up until Cortez robbed him of a glorious win :rolleyes:
Come on Jaz asking Hammer to judge a Hatton fight :p. My moneys on 120-108 to Hatton , i actully had Hatton winning that fight I cant remember my scorecard but I had him just edging it.
And that is the key point here. I think I've seen one Non-Brit here have Froch winning. That is it!Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinUnlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammerQuote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Let me guess....
Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch
:lol:
Just watched this and Direll won handily. The difference in quality was light years apart. Direll needs to be mentally tougher if he wants to be a world champ but really, he should be one as I type this.
Direll's punches were cleaner, defence was better, work rate was about even. Froch didn't win in one scoring department for me.
Horrible fight, made so because of Froch's lack of quality in stopping Direll doing what he wanted to do.
Froch is on borrowed time - Kessler will destroy him
Then you clearly havent looked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Althugz
At a glance of the people voting Froch the winner I'd say its probably 40% of them are non Brits, could be wrong, could be more like 30-35, either way you slice it its more than one.
Thats hardly the strongest of arguements is it. Anyone who thought Froch won could throw the same rant right back at you, all those that voted Dirrell the winner only did so becuase they are A) Non Brits, or B) just dont like froch.
I like to give my Saddoboxing brothers and sisters a bit more credit than that, although I do accept a very small minority are like that.
Dirrell won, just didn't get the decision:o big shocker there. When he stopped to fight & sat down on his punches he looked really good.
I thought he had Crotch hurt a couple a times & think he could of stopped him had he used that attitude from the beginning:-\
This thread shocks me
there must be some very biast americans out there
if the ref had any balls he would have thrown dirrel out after a couple of rounds, isnt boxing suppose to be a spectators sport?
Dirrell ruined the opening night of the super six and has since sent round 2 a joke
he lost because he did this just once in 12 roundsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleon
boxing is about fighting not running