Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[Althugz]

You're right, it was a shutout. In fact, whilst we're at it, let's give Froch a TKO victory

Let me guess....

Hopkins beat Calzaghe
Holyfield-Lewis I was a draw
Taylor beat froch

Unlike you I watch fights without the Union Jack draped over me & to the tune of God Save the Queen.

And that is the key point here. I think I've seen one Non-Brit here have Froch winning. That is it!

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

[Memphis]

And that is the key point here. I think I've seen one Non-Brit here have Froch winning. That is it!

Then you clearly havent looked.

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.

[Cleon]

Dirrell won, just didn't get the decision 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

[erics44]

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

[erics44]

. 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

[BIG H]

. 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

[erics44]

. 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

[ElTerribleMorales]

. 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

[erics44]

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

[0james0]

Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.

[ninjaspy3]

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.

[Master]

Froch won, he was trying to force the fight, Dirrell was very negative.

[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?

[ElTerribleMorales]

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

[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!