Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[Kel]

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.

I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.

One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?

"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"

"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"

[Pugilistic]

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.

I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.

One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?

"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"

"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"

What has Bernard got to do with this ? We are talking about Dirrell - Froch.

Dirrell wasn't faking anything, Froch fought a very dirty fight.

What Dirrell did like clinching etc shouldn't affect the scoring unless the ref takes action like deducting a point. Dirrell was still landing more and throwing more.

Based on the 4 scoring criterias in a fight:

Clean Effective Punching
Effective Aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense

Dirrell clearly won.

[Kel]

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.

I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.

One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?

"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"

"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"

What has Bernard got to do with this ? We are talking about Dirrell - Froch.

Dirrell wasn't faking anything, Froch fought a very dirty fight.

What Dirrell did like clinching etc shouldn't affect the scoring unless the ref takes action like deducting a point. Dirrell was still landing more and throwing more.

Based on the 4 scoring criterias in a fight:

Clean Effective Punching
Effective Aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense

Dirrell clearly won.

It's all in black and white (depending on your monitor settings) what I had to say, the Hopkins reference was an example, but you already knew that I hope.

[Pugilistic]

I know you can't but like the others you don't address the falling to the knees shit, same as the Hopkins fans don't seem to remember Bernard clutching his balls like a fucking loser trying to steal the fight againsed Joe.

One guy wants to fight, the other tries to steal it by doing stupid shit like faking fouls and going to his knees. As a judge what the fucking hell would you do seriously?

"He is trying to get a point taken off Joe to win the fight, what genius"

"I like the guy who keeps falling to his knees to avoid shots, smart stuff"

What has Bernard got to do with this ? We are talking about Dirrell - Froch.

Dirrell wasn't faking anything, Froch fought a very dirty fight.

What Dirrell did like clinching etc shouldn't affect the scoring unless the ref takes action like deducting a point. Dirrell was still landing more and throwing more.

Based on the 4 scoring criterias in a fight:

Clean Effective Punching
Effective Aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense

Dirrell clearly won.

It's all in black and white (depending on your monitor settings) what I had to say, the Hopkins reference was an example, but you already knew that I hope.

The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.

Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.

[JazMerkin]

The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.

Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.

Exactly, I thought Hopkins just edged Calzaghe, but supporting Joe, I had no real problem it going the other way. However, that was a fight with a lot of close rounds where it came down to activity or cleaner effective punching. The difference was both were landing.

I'm pretty sure Froch threw less & definitely landed less. This fight should be compared to fights like Berto-Urango & Khan-Kotelnik. It was in no way comparable to JMM-Pac II or B-Hop-Joe

[ryanman]

The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.

Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.

Exactly, I thought Hopkins just edged Calzaghe, but supporting Joe, I had no real problem it going the other way. However, that was a fight with a lot of close rounds where it came down to activity or cleaner effective punching. The difference was both were landing.

I'm pretty sure Froch threw less & definitely landed less. This fight should be compared to fights like Berto-Urango & Khan-Kotelnik. It was in no way comparable to JMM-Pac II or B-Hop-Joe

Kel was giving an example of another fight in which one fighter playacted in order to gain an advantage. Thats all. He wasn't comparing the validity of the scoring in any way.

[Kel]

What has Bernard got to do with this ? We are talking about Dirrell - Froch.

Dirrell wasn't faking anything, Froch fought a very dirty fight.

What Dirrell did like clinching etc shouldn't affect the scoring unless the ref takes action like deducting a point. Dirrell was still landing more and throwing more.

Based on the 4 scoring criterias in a fight:

Clean Effective Punching
Effective Aggression
Ring Generalship
Defense

Dirrell clearly won.

It's all in black and white (depending on your monitor settings) what I had to say, the Hopkins reference was an example, but you already knew that I hope.

The difference between the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight and the Froch - Dirrell fight is Calzaghe's aggression was actually effective as he threw more than Hopkins and was able to land some shots especially as the fight went on.

Froch on the other hand came forward but threw less than Dirrell the whole fight and landed literally nothing.

Ok I hear you, Froch came forward all night and Dirrell landed some shots, fell to his knees, ran a lot.......Floyd the 2nd right here lol

[Majesty]

The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.

But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.

And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.

It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.

You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?

Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.

[Kel]

The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.

But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.

And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.

It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.

You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?

Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.

Who is your fav white fighter?

[skel1983]

The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.

But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.

And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.

It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.

You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?

Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.

I stopped reading your post as soon as i read Dirrell was the one making the fight, Dirrell won but some of your posts as usual as quite annoying and Bizzare.

[Violent Demise]

The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.

But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.

And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.

It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.

You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?

Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.

I seen some of these posters previous posts before. There only picking Fraud cuz Dirrell is black. It's pretty obvious. I would hate to think there really that stupid that they can't score a fight that was pretty much easy to score

[ryanman]

The only people that are gonna pick Froch are only picking him because Dirrell doesn't have a style they like.

But whether you like Dirrells style or think it's boring or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't take away that he won the fight whether you like it or not.

And also after he got that point taken away HE was the one backing up Froch, he was the one making the fight, he was the one going all out while Froch looked confused especially after Dirrell hurt him, and continued to hurt him.

It's funny how no one mentions that. They mention Dirrells holding but don't mention Froch's holding, and rough housing and rabbit punches, and there were times it looked like he was winding up those rabbit punches and lets not forget the hitting on the break and the ref did nothing. He warned Froch a bunch of times but then took a point from Dirrell without any warning whatsoever.

You are only picking Froch because you don't like Dirrells style. But boxing ain't about what style you like when it comes to a decision. Dirrell won the fight and he won it pretty one sidedly. Whether you like the way he did it or not doesn't mean Froch won. Because if you are complaining on somethin Dirrell did then how can you give Froch credit for not being able to do shit about it?

Dirrell won. Simple as that. And I'll pick Dirrell in any of the other fights before I pick Froch.

1) I don't mean to be difficult but thought i should point out that Froch won.....whether you like it or not.

2) i think its well known that judges preferences are important in the scoring of a fight. Im sure Dirrell knew that too.

3) Did he?