Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[Pugilistic]

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.

I'm sorry mate but you cannot award a fighter credit because he was coming forward and landing nothing where the other guy was moving back but landing shots.