Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanChilds
Had the first round a draw and then gave Dirrel 6 rounds to Froch's 5. Honestly I didn't take the point deduction into my card so maybe it would have been a draw. I thought the deduction was wrong though. Dirrell was holding a lot but Froch was hitting on the break and on the back of the head consistently. Pretty ugly fight anyway you cut it though. I'd be interested if either could make some adjustments in a rematch.
oh no! a post thats related to the thread! :o
Don't worry, I'll ban him immediately.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Ok I voted for a draw being the fairest result, I don't think either fighter beat the other.
I will comment on a couple of points made by Jazmerkin and Majesty in defence of Froch though.
Firstly Jaz says it's not the judges role to score the running, the falling over and the holding. I disagree, to me they both count in the ring generalship and aggression categories and many times in the fight Dirrell was negative, backpeddling and looked scared in there. I have no problem for Froch getting points for aggression and ring generalship.
Secondly Majesty claimed that those who believe Dirrell lost do so becuase they dislike Dirrell's style.
Well I have to say this works both ways. Froch has a very awkward style, he sometimes misses wildly and he can get hit. I think a lot of people don't like that style and so when they see him come forward and miss they go on about how crap as he is and start giving points to the other guy.
But the fact is that you can be ugly and still win fights. Froch may have missed a lot of the punches he threw but for most of the fight he was the only fighter coming forward and trying to fight.
If you want to say his aggression was innefective again I disagree. His aggression reduced Dirrell to backpeddling around the ring, sometimes leaping out of the way, or throwing himself to the ground or grabbing hold of Froch to make sure he doesn't get hit. To me that IS Froch being effective.
There is no doubt Dirrell was the faster, slicker, and better technical fighter and his punches when thrown were crisper, and more accurate.
But that alone doesn't win the fight, as I understand it the criteria are clean, effective punching, defence, ring generalship and effective aggresssion.
It wasn't the same for every round, both fighters had their moments landing punches, or bossing the ring but generally I had Froch for ring generalship and aggression. Dirrell for clean, effective punching.
I don't think Dirrell's defence was as great as people seem to think. To me defence is using your boxing skills to slip punches and to block them effectively. Dirrell often used his athletic skills and track shoes to keep away and run around the ring and then resorted to holding and falling over when Froch did get him in the corner.
Froch himself was dirty in the fight, I didn't see it as that bad, he was just trying to physically get to the guy, make him uncomfortable in there and pressure him. He was also getting clearly frustrated at times as well.
Dirrell's point deduction I have no clue what it was for, Dirrell was never dirty in the fight, he held a lot but Froch did rugby tackle him to the ground.
I thought the fight was close, both fighters had some success in some areas, but let themselves down in other areas.
Froch was fighting at home, and is the reigning world champion, Dirrell probably needed to show a little more to take the belt.
Dirrell himself to my mind was rarely troubled by Froch and by the end of the fight I felt Dirrell was getting more and more comfortable in there. In a 15 round fight I'd probably favour Dirrell to get the last rounds which says a lot about his potential seeing as he had never gone beyond 10 rounds before.
So overal I don't really mind the scoring. It was a close, ugly, unspectacular fight and the reigning champ and hometown fighter got the decision, as normally happens.
I do agree with most though that Dirrell is probably the moral winner if there is such a thing. He came to Froch's backyward and gave Froch's hometown fans very little to cheer about during the fight.
I feel bad that he lost, I don't think you can really say Froch beat him, he hardly looked like a beaten man by the end and its a shame his unbeaten record has been taken away from him.
He'll also really stuggle to qualify in this tournament now with Artur Abraham next which is a shame.
Froch was one of the big names, the betting favourite and the main British interest point so I'm not really suprised he got the decision.
It reminded me a lot of the first James Toney Sam Peter fight. Toney made Peter look fat, slow and confused at times in that fight when he landed his sharp combinations, but the majority of the fight was Peter lumbering forward and throwing lots more shots. He won on workrate and aggression, and dominated Toney in the rematch.
I wouldn't pick Froch to dominate Dirrell in a rematch however.......
That post is way too fucking long for me to read so I'm just going to say that I agree with some of what you wrote, and disagree with some of it.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
seriously, I think he does that on purpose, I would disagree with that post if I could find the motivation to read it.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VanChilds
Had the first round a draw and then gave Dirrel 6 rounds to Froch's 5. Honestly I didn't take the point deduction into my card so maybe it would have been a draw. I thought the deduction was wrong though. Dirrell was holding a lot but Froch was hitting on the break and on the back of the head consistently. Pretty ugly fight anyway you cut it though. I'd be interested if either could make some adjustments in a rematch.
oh no! a post thats related to the thread! :o
I know, who the fuck does he think he is?? :mad::p
I sincerely apologize and will slink back to the boring MMA bored where I belong. ;D
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
seriously, I think he does that on purpose, I would disagree with that post if I could find the motivation to read it.
Sorry guys, I can type about 200 words per minute so I tend to get carried away a bit when I've warmed up.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
seriously, I think he does that on purpose, I would disagree with that post if I could find the motivation to read it.
Sorry guys, I can type about 200 words per minute so I tend to get carried away a bit when I've warmed up.
I'll happily argue with you if you can condense that post.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
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.
1) I don't mean to be difficult but thought i should point out that Froch won.....whether
you like it or not.
2) i think its well known that judges preferences are important in the scoring of a fight. Im sure Dirrell knew that too.
3) Did he?
Alright Judges preferences are
Clean Punching
Effective Aggressiveness
Ring Generalship
Defense
Are you gonna tell me Froch outdid Dirrell in any of those?
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
seriously, I think he does that on purpose, I would disagree with that post if I could find the motivation to read it.
Sorry guys, I can type about 200 words per minute so I tend to get carried away a bit when I've warmed up.
The most impressive part of this, is he does it all with mainly one hand. Don't even ask how that became possible.
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7...rfreddyrod.jpg
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I've only just watched it and I had Dirrell winning 115-113. A very frustrating fight
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
I went to bed at 3.45am last night, leaving this thread in good health.
I am very diaspointed to see that 10 hours later there have been attempts to drag the thread back to the original topic. This really will not do. But Kudos to CFH for manfully sticking to the task. :cool:
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
40-11 so far pretty much says it all.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Motherfucking Aliasker Bashirov of course.
The man, the legend :cool:
Yet, I sensed in your strongly worded response that you were accusing me of accusing you of racism to which I release this response
You're all meanies & I don't like you!! How dare you!!! I was just concerned that CFH didn't know nuffink about fighting in Turkmenistan!!! (although I've heard he always supports against em if you know what I'm saying). Anyway this board is shit!! You all smell & we're no longer friends!!!!
http://seo2.0.onreact.com/wp-content...out-tongue.jpg
What's the picture of the white kid supposed to mean, you calling me a cracker?
They don't call me JazFarrukhan for nothing ;D
Wait... hold up are you once again insinuating that I'm racist?? YOU BASTARD!!
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
So, do we think Kel is gone for good?
He seems like a man of his word to me! I think thats him done.
Its all your fault!
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman89
So, do we think Kel is gone for good?
He seems like a man of his word to me! I think thats him done.
Its all your fault!
He's been here a while, I'd be surprised if he left over this. I find it quite ironic that he complained about Dirrell not getting involved & looking for ways out, when that's basically what he did the entire thread ;D
If he comes back, I think he's in need of some serious piss-taking for that exit.
Re: Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?
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.
