Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cleon
. When he stopped to fight & sat down on his punches he looked really good.
he lost because he did this just once in 12 rounds
boxing is about fighting not running
I don't disagree with what you say (and I am about as patriotic Brit as you will find BTW) but if you look at it objectively and score it as the rules dictate then it is very hard to see anything other than A dirrell victory imo. Looking at it subjetively and from a point of view of who was coming forward etc then yes, you would look towards Froch
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cleon
. When he stopped to fight & sat down on his punches he looked really good.
he lost because he did this just once in 12 rounds
boxing is about fighting not running
I don't disagree with what you say (and I am about as patriotic Brit as you will find BTW) but if you look at it objectively and score it as the rules dictate then it is very hard to see anything other than A dirrell victory imo. Looking at it subjetively and from a point of view of who was coming forward etc then yes, you would look towards Froch
no i think you have got it wrong, boxing is about fighting and entertaining
dirrell ran and threw a few punches along the way, it was a pretty aweful performance and he didnt deserve a round imo
remember when lennox lewis faught akimwanda (spelling!), i think only that was a worse performance of anti-boxing that I have seen
i agree, dirrell probably landed as many punches as froch, but when froch was pushing the fight so much dirrell had a lot more opportunity
when i say "froch pushing the fight so much" that is a massive understatement, ive never seen a fight so one sided in that way
Dirrell didnt deserve to win, and it would have been bad for boxing as a whole if a fighter can use those tactics and win a world title fight
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cleon
. When he stopped to fight & sat down on his punches he looked really good.
he lost because he did this just once in 12 rounds
boxing is about fighting not running
I don't disagree with what you say (and I am about as patriotic Brit as you will find BTW) but if you look at it objectively and score it as the rules dictate then it is very hard to see anything other than A dirrell victory imo. Looking at it subjetively and from a point of view of who was coming forward etc then yes, you would look towards Froch
no i think you have got it wrong, boxing is about fighting and entertaining
dirrell ran and threw a few punches along the way, it was a pretty aweful performance and he didnt deserve a round imo
remember when lennox lewis faught akimwanda (spelling!), i think only that was a worse performance of anti-boxing that I have seen
i agree, dirrell probably landed as many punches as froch, but when froch was pushing the fight so much dirrell had a lot more opportunity
when i say "froch pushing the fight so much" that is a massive understatement, ive never seen a fight so one sided in that way
Dirrell didnt deserve to win, and it would have been bad for boxing as a whole if a fighter can use those tactics and win a world title fight
no boxing isn't just about fighting and entertaining, it's about strategy and using your best attributes to be able to pull off the win, and are you seriously saying Dirrell didn't deserve to win cause he was strategic and clinched? but that Froch who constantly fouled throughout the fight rightfully won despite ONLY using dirty tactics, ummmm interesting
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Dirrell didnt deserve to win, and it would have been bad for boxing as a whole if a fighter can use those tactics and win a world title fight
no boxing isn't just about fighting and entertaining, it's about strategy and using your best attributes to be able to pull off the win, and are you seriously saying Dirrell didn't deserve to win cause he was strategic and clinched? but that Froch who constantly fouled throughout the fight rightfully won despite ONLY using dirty tactics, ummmm interesting[/QUOTE]
to be honest dude i didnt see the fouls like you did, but if you are talking about trying to get out of the clinches being fouling then yes, that deserves the win more than the clinching
and boxing is about entertainment, it would be a bad day for boxing if fighters start using the dirrell tactics and winning fights
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.
Bad example. Clottey didnt throw enough punches while Pac threw (and landed) a high number.
That doesnt apply to this case at all.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Froch won, he was trying to force the fight, Dirrell was very negative.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ninjaspy3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.
Bad example. Clottey didnt throw enough punches while Pac threw (and landed) a high number.
That doesnt apply to this case at all.
The example was that neither came to fight.
Dirrell ran too much, I'm happy with a fighter being elusive, but this was too much.
Plus I always thought judges scored more towards the aggresor as part of their scoring rules. Isn't that just how it works?
ummm no, that just varies on a specific judges taste, the only things you basically score the round on is effective clean punches and ring generalship, Dirrell showed more of both than Froch
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Anyone got the punch stats for the fight? All I remeber from both times of watching was Dirrell running and only landing a few times.
I don't particularly like Froch either, but I had him infront by a long way, simply because he was the only one fighting.
The forum seems split 50/50, interestingly though there aren't many people on the fence like you'd expect for a decision that divided opinions like this one. It's either full one way or the other clearly down to opinions on what scores points and wins rounds.
Luckily the judges scored it correctly! ;)
the only guy who was staggered (and various times at that) was Froch, and how the hell is it 50/50, over 60 people have voted that Dirrell won compared to a handful saying Crotch won
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
i have only watched the fight the once and it was tough going
i dont remember froch staggered tho, and i dont remember the fouls you keep going on about
i could have it wrong
james said in his last post that the only man fighting was froch which is bang on and which is why he won
i bet i could last a few rounds in my advanced years with no boxing training with an average boxer running like dirrell, it isnt boxing, its more like tig
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
This is a dead horse topic if there ever was one. I think if people actually score round by round though, there is no way to give the fight to Froch. That doesn't mean Dirrell didn't fight an ugly fight, I think it's a reaction that they say just give it to Froch because Dirrell was more responsible for it being a bad fight. But if you score round by round, it's like impossible to give it to Froch imo. I had it 9-3 Dirrell, and I can retrieve my scorecard but I believe it was rounds 6,7 and 8 that I gave to Froch. Just no way he won that fight under the rules by which we could score boxing. No American or anti-Froch bias, Froch could have been my brother and I would have gave that fight to Dirrell.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
i dont agree
i was scoring it round by round and froch won
you have to fight to win a fight
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
It's not really worth debating this with you as you're views are pretty ludicrous (as if Dirrell is the first guy to run in afight), but you score a fight by clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defense. Dirrell was the only guy landing any clean punches, he controlled the distance the entire fight and oh yeah he barely ever got hit by anything. Even if Froch was somehow 'effectively aggressive' for 7 of the 12 rounds, no way that overcomes everything else. I don't know, I'm over it but to me it was a robbery.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Anyone got the punch stats for the fight? All I remeber from both times of watching was Dirrell running and only landing a few times.
I don't particularly like Froch either, but I had him infront by a long way, simply because he was the only one fighting.
The forum seems split 50/50, interestingly though there aren't many people on the fence like you'd expect for a decision that divided opinions like this one. It's either full one way or the other clearly down to opinions on what scores points and wins rounds.
Luckily the judges scored it correctly! ;)
the only guy who was staggered (and various times at that) was Froch, and how the hell is it 50/50, over 60 people have voted that Dirrell won compared to a handful saying Crotch won
All that means is that there are more Dirrell fans that Froch fans on here. Froch is hated in this country so it explains alot.
I think its a fight that could have gone either way. Wasnt impressed with Froch but you cant win a title the way Dirrel tried to. Could have been a draw.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
It's not really worth debating this with you as you're views are pretty ludicrous (as if Dirrell is the first guy to run in afight), but you score a fight by clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defense. Dirrell was the only guy landing any clean punches, he controlled the distance the entire fight and oh yeah he barely ever got hit by anything. Even if Froch was somehow 'effectively aggressive' for 7 of the 12 rounds, no way that overcomes everything else. I don't know, I'm over it but to me it was a robbery.
i think what you are saying is ludicrous, in fact i am amazed you can have the view that someone doing so much running and clinching can win a fight
and yeah people win fights by running, but not to that extent
perhaps its you who it is not worth having the debate with
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
as i have not seen the fight i am gonna say froch;D
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Anyone got the punch stats for the fight? All I remeber from both times of watching was Dirrell running and only landing a few times.
I don't particularly like Froch either, but I had him infront by a long way, simply because he was the only one fighting.
The forum seems split 50/50, interestingly though there aren't many people on the fence like you'd expect for a decision that divided opinions like this one. It's either full one way or the other clearly down to opinions on what scores points and wins rounds.
Luckily the judges scored it correctly! ;)
the only guy who was staggered (and various times at that) was Froch, and how the hell is it 50/50, over 60 people have voted that Dirrell won compared to a handful saying Crotch won
OK I'll give you that one, the poll vote. But in actual thread comments it seems pretty even.
Still either one sided or the other, no middle, which makes me thinking everyone (including myself) is wearing some colour of tinted glasses.
