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.
