Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[Kel]

Explain what Froch was doing to win rounds because all I've seen from people saying Froch should have won is 'Dirrell didn't do enough to win'. Well if he didn't, then Froch DEFINITELY didn't. The whole point of the Super-Six is trying something to save boxing. You can't do that with bullshit hometown decisions & someone having to KO the champ to have any hope of getting his title. If this had happened to a British fighter going to the US, you would be calling it what it is - a robbery.

Froch was trying to fight, as he always does, not falling to his knees to avoid getting hit and running about the place. It all goes on how you judge a fight too and for me.........Dirrell was avoiding a fight and trying to steal rounds. That's not pleasing to fans nor judges and certainly not the way to take a belt from a champion.

Again, what did Froch do to win the rounds? Who was getting in the more effective punches & by what quantity?

Tell me what punches Froch was throwing & landing to justify him winning the fight. In fact, point out to me an example of effective aggression (walking forward doesn't count) where Froch was able to hurt Dirrell. Oh & nice work avoiding JT's points

Like I said, Froch was going forward to fight and Dirrell did not want to fight back at times, I already said he was going to his knees to avoid fighting and running a lot. I have no doubt Dirrell landed more shots but when a fighter goes out of his way to NOT get involved by doing so the judges can't possibly favour him.

I respect your opinion mate as always but I stand by what I say.