Quote Originally Posted by Memphis View Post
Im not a fan of Froch, Ive been expecting to be able to post an 'I told you so' long before now.

I dont have any problem with him getting the nod. Or to be more accurate I dont have a problem with Dirrell NOT getting the nod.

Like it or not it is part of the game, any fighter going to anothers back yard to try and take a title knows they have to do more than nick it, they have to win it it win it well.

CFH the football analogy doesnt really work. 'Goals' in football are clearly defined, as long as they are within the rules of the game they stand, it doesnt matter how good they are or how much skill is involved, we know boxing isnt like that. We also know that IF a football match were tied and decided by a panel of judges the away side wouldnt get any breaks.
What he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.

Here are the arguments for Froch winning

1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough

Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?