Andre Ward would school Carl Froch..

**JazMerkin** · 10-18-2009 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer

Dirrel didn't want to fight he wanted to hold and run. He only fought for two rounds 11 and 12 and the only reason he did remotely good was becaues of the 2 to 1 speed difference. Take away the speed and dirrel would have been knocked out cold. Froch couldn't adapt to the speed and was swinging at air all night.

Yeah, the usual convention is that swinging at air is not what gets you rounds on the judges' cards. I know crazy notion. Unless you're of the opinion that Ricky Hatton was pitching a shutout against Manny Pacquiao

Originally Posted by Nameless

I saw the Abraham-Taylor match as we get German T.V over here but unfortunately, we have no english sport channels so I couldn't see Froch-Dirrell. I'Ve read the outcome but as some of you have seen the match, I would like to have your personal opinions about it, especially about the split decision.

I thought it was a shit fight, neither fighter did anything to really admire, but the fact is Froch at best won 4 rounds. That's giving him all the benefit I can. I think this was a hideous robbery. You know how I felt about the Bute-Andrade fight, even if we did have differing opinions, well this enraged me almost as much, with that at least I could admire Bute's heart if not Marlon B. Wrong's refereeing

(btw are we still on for a sig bet for the rematch?)

**Nameless** · 10-18-2009 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer

Dirrel didn't want to fight he wanted to hold and run. He only fought for two rounds 11 and 12 and the only reason he did remotely good was becaues of the 2 to 1 speed difference. Take away the speed and dirrel would have been knocked out cold. Froch couldn't adapt to the speed and was swinging at air all night.

Yeah, the usual convention is that swinging at air is not what gets you rounds on the judges' cards. I know crazy notion. Unless you're of the opinion that Ricky Hatton was pitching a shutout against Manny Pacquiao

Originally Posted by Nameless

I saw the Abraham-Taylor match as we get German T.V over here but unfortunately, we have no english sport channels so I couldn't see Froch-Dirrell. I'Ve read the outcome but as some of you have seen the match, I would like to have your personal opinions about it, especially about the split decision.

I thought it was a shit fight, neither fighter did anything to really admire, but the fact is Froch at best won 4 rounds. That's giving him all the benefit I can. I think this was a hideous robbery. You know how I felt about the Bute-Andrade fight, even if we did have differing opinions, well this enraged me almost as much, with that at least I could admire Bute's heart if not Marlon B. Wrong's refereeing

(btw are we still on for a sig bet for the rematch?)

I should be able to find the match on rapidshare somewhere this week, I will look at it and tell you how I personally see it. I am very busy this week though as I have to waste a full day to go to Freiburg to fix some paper things as I am supposed to move over here for the year. Sig bet for Bute-Andrade II? SURE!

Bute UD with a good margin

**OumaFan** · 10-18-2009 05:37 PM

Exactly Jaz, people I think have taken the attitude of not getting outraged about this cause Dirrell was so negative, fair enough, but its the worst decision in a while, far more controversial than Cotto-Clottey or Diaz-Malignaggi. There is no good argument for Froch winning rounds, all you hear from people is that they didn't like how Dirrell was winning rounds so lets give them to Froch.

Seriously has anybody made a case for Froch winning because of what he did? I haven't seen it. I'm bitter I admit it. I sound like Majesty.

But the whole thing was a joke.

**OumaFan** · 10-18-2009 05:39 PM

But Dirrell was kind of awful. He could have dominated that fight instead of just winning rounds. He's got a lot of ability but a shit head, he's too nervous.

**JazMerkin** · 10-18-2009 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by OumaFan

Exactly Jaz, people I think have taken the attitude of not getting outraged about this cause Dirrell was so negative, fair enough, but its the worst decision in a while, far more controversial than Cotto-Clottey or Diaz-Malignaggi. There is no good argument for Froch winning rounds, all you hear from people is that they didn't like how Dirrell was winning rounds so lets give them to Froch.

Seriously has anybody made a case for Froch winning because of what he did? I haven't seen it. I'm bitter I admit it. I sound like Majesty.

But the whole thing was a joke.

Agreed, I thought both Clottey & Malignaggi edged their fights, but I didn't feel they'd been robbed in the way I think Dirrell has been. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but he won the rounds. I didn't like how Malignaggi fought against Diaz, but it didn't stop me giving him rounds, but unlike Froch, at least Diaz showed some effective aggression to make it close. This was nowhere near that fight in being close & is the worst I can think of in quite some time, I'd argue even worse than Valuev-Holyfield. I do find it ironic that some people (lookin' at you Miles) who thought the Paulie-Diaz fight was a travesty seem to think this was fine because they didn't like how Dirrell fought. As for the post-fight interview, well why Froch gets no flack for this I don't know, if that was Floyd in there etc etc... oh shit now I DO sound like Majesty

**awdleyfuturehalloffamer** · 10-18-2009 08:49 PM

Froch was pressing the fight, that's probably why he got rounds. How do you score it for a guy who just doesn't want to fight. If Dirrell would have fought most of the fight like rounds 11 and 12 i would have had no problem of giving him the fight. But as we know he didn't. Froch did land punches when dirrell went into hug mode. Like i said neither guy deserves anything for this stinkfest. You couldn't pay me enough to watch another dirrell fight.