Dirrell deserved to lose. Fact.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

Ring generalship i would give to froch for the first 10 rounds and to dirrell for the last 2 rounds.

Exposing back of your head: Dirrell
Holding ------------------->: Dirrell
Exposing your back--------> Dirrell
Running mostly every round : Dirrell
Refusing to fight mostly every round: Dirrell
Going to one knee to coax a foul: Dirrell


Dirrell is the clear winner alright.

[OumaFan]

.[/quote]

This isn't directed at you specifically Niles, but none of those things should have any real bearing on the scoring of a fight, especially in this instance. It is the referees job to worry about that stuff, he can penalize or disqualify a fighter if he feels it is warranted.

Judging is based on 4 criteria:

Clean punching
Effective Aggression
Defense
Ring Generalship

In those areas Dirrell clearly won the fight IMO.[/quote]

FYI CFH, while you were on that four day vacation they added "meh, I don't like that guy" as the fifth criteria.

[JazMerkin]

Ring generalship i would give to froch for the first 10 rounds and to dirrell for the last 2 rounds.

Exposing back of your head: Dirrell
Holding ------------------->: Dirrell
Exposing your back--------> Dirrell
Running mostly every round : Dirrell
Refusing to fight mostly every round: Dirrell
Going to one knee to coax a foul: Dirrell


Dirrell is the clear winner alright.

Froch had great ring generalship if it was the WWE

[Gandalf]

It's miles, not Niles...

I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.

Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.

Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.

Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.

Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.

It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.

He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.

[JazMerkin]

It's miles, not Niles...

I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.

Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.

Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.

Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.

Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.

It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.

He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.

Miles, explain what Froch did that was effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?

You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.

Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.

[Violent Demise]

You have to be pretty naive if you think Dirrell was going to get the decision, fighting in the other guys backyard.

Come on now.

The fight was a boring, ugly, messy letdown.

Hold, foul, hold, duck/spin round, hold, pose, hold, run, hold.. boring, boring, boring.

Dirrell won the fight but it would have been a travesty had Froch lost.

100% agree. There was no way Fraud was going to be allowed to lose no matter what. Fraud could of been shut out and still would of got the win. If he would of been dropped they would of been ruled slips. The fix was in from the beginning.

[Violent Demise]

It's miles, not Niles...

I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.

Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.

Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.

Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.

Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.

It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.

He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.

Miles, explain what Froch did that was effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?

You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.

Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.

I'm sure Niles was watching from some crappy stream. So I would pretty much disregard his views.

[SalTheButcher]

You have to be pretty naive if you think Dirrell was going to get the decision, fighting like that, in the other guys backyard.

Come on now.

The fight was a boring, ugly, messy letdown.

Hold, foul, hold, duck/spin round, hold, pose, hold, run, hold.. boring, boring, boring.

Dirrell won the fight but it would have been a travesty had Froch lost.

didnt dirrell actually THROW more punches then frotch?

[Gandalf]

It's miles, not Niles...

I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.

Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.

Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.

Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.

Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.

It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.

He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.

Miles, explain what Froch did that was effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?

You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.

Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.

I'm sure Niles was watching from some crappy stream. So I would pretty much disregard his views.

To be fair, the violent one does have a point here. I have only seen the fight the one time and on a stream. All that I have said is based on initial perceptions of that viewing. I will download a proper copy over the next day or two and see if I feel the same way. That is only fair.

[Majesty]

I guess if you are looking for something to give Froch credit for I guess you could look only as far as Antonio Tarver who gave credit to Froch because his "crotch kept coming"

You can't make it up...

YouTube - TARVER REFERS TO CARL FROCH AS "CROTCH"...

I wonder how Tarver knew.. those big ears must really come in handy

[Kev]

It's miles, not Niles...

I know how fights are scored and each of those criteria comes with what the judge prefers.

Clean Punching- The rounds Dirrell won were ones where his accurate punching was apparent, but for many of those rounds he simply wasn't throwing anything whereas Froch was throwing more and though not scoring high percentage shots was landing in spurts. Taken on a round by round basis I didn't see much to choose between them, they were both inneffective, though I liked Dirrells work in the 11th.

Effective aggression- Dirrell was effective in this area in the 11th and half of the 12th. The rest of the time was clinching, cycling and jumping in a heap onto the canvas. Froch did a poor job of cutting the ring off, but was at least making an effort. I give this to Froch overall.

Defence- Of course Dirrell had the better defence. However, having said that a lot of it was simply about hugging and diving head first at Froch's feet. There were times when he was able to duck and dive away from punches but glancing blows were still getting through. Frochs lack of defence was made up by his greater aggression. Dirrell's defence, though unique was counted out by his inability to throw punches.

Ring generalship- Again, for me this is a case of two fighters doing very little that was particularly effective. Dirrell was dancing around like a clown and Froch was blindly stalking. Neither fighter was doing enough to say "I am directing the fight". Dirrell was out of his comfort zone in many rounds, getting caught on the ropes and resorting to fouling (ie forcing the clinch and of course diving at Froch's feet). Likewise Froch did the same himself. Only in the 11th would I say, Dirrell finally asserted himself. But that was fleeting.

It was a shitty fight, and both fighters stunk out the joint. If both could have been DQ'ed I would be quite content. Malignaggi threw nearly a thousand punches against Diaz and made an effort to make a fight, that is what I like to see in a fighter with handspeed. Also one of the reasons I loved Calzaghe so much was his output, effort and dedication. I just cannot give fighters who pose, run, hug and don't actually throw ANY punches much credit. Dirrell was a bitch before the fight and then went ahead and fought like one. Pathetic. He didn't do enough to take Froch's title.

He probably could have had he applied himself, but he didn't and so he lost. I have no qualms with that. If he had fought more like he did in the 11th there wouldn't even be any need for any debate.

Miles, explain what Froch did that was effective aggression. Who threw the more effective punches?

You seem to be basing much of this on a personal distaste for Dirrell rather than what actually happened. I didn't like how Dirrell fought, but the simple fact is he did more & was robbed.

Malignaggi threw loads of ineffective punches, not actually landing that much, with Diaz 'coming forward' to make a fight of it, in fact he at least connected at a higher percentage. It seems like you've got a major double standard here.

Ok Jaz this is where I disagree with you and to me you have an inconsistency in your logic.

You don't give any points for coming forward, pressing the action and throwing punches if the punches are mostly blocked, missed or not clean and accurate, yet you do give points for a guy's defence when it consists mostly of running, turning his back, holding and falling down?

If Froch gets no points for effective aggression then what about Dirrell for effective defence?

You will argue no doubt that Dirrell's defence was effective because he was avoiding most of the punches, well on that logic Froch's aggression was effective because he virtually completely nullified Dirrell's offensive outpoint and reduced him to running and holding for much of the fight. How is that not effective?


It's a stylistic thing imo and most fans have a bias towards slick fighters with flashy punches because their style of fighting is maybe more eye catching.

But Froch's pressure effectively reduced Dirrell to a hit and run strategy where he tried to steal the result, which rarely happens when you are fighting a world champion in their own country.

Dirrell is flashier than Froch no doubt, but he wasn't any more effective at winning the fight.

For the record I don't think Froch beat Dirrell either, I think it was the perfect candidate fight for a draw.

[amat]

WTF do you guys just say, fuck it I'm not scoring fights round by round anymore he was boring. Where the hell where you guys when Zahir Raheem was beating jobbers on FNF. Seriously, get a grip you guys no way that fight was any closer then 8-4. Anyone put up a scorecard closer then that and it WILL get picked apart. So go ahead. Yeah it was an unsatisfying fight, no Froch did not even come close to winning. Yeah if you want to be sentimental about it, that's not the way you want to see a winner win. But did he win? Yes. Did he lose....no way.

Froch deserved to lose for being the most overrated fighter in the tournament already. Fenster you say Froch is the favorite in a rematch in America. I know you are being coy but that actually gets under my skin that anyone could possibly think that way.

[Bomp]

Thr running in the 4th round was just daft when he'd circle away from the ropes, it was ironically when he was most hittable. most of what I've been able trudge through actually saw Dirrell standing marginally out of range with BOTH guys being unwilling to close the distance.

Based on clean effective punching first round I gave to Froch was the 6th, not watched 7 through 10 (perhaps he ralllied?) and lost 11/12. Kessler will have WAY more problems with Ward.

[Kev]

WTF do you guys just say, fuck it I'm not scoring fights round by round anymore he was boring. Where the hell where you guys when Zahir Raheem was beating jobbers on FNF. Seriously, get a grip you guys no way that fight was any closer then 8-4. Anyone put up a scorecard closer then that and it WILL get picked apart. So go ahead. Yeah it was an unsatisfying fight, no Froch did not even come close to winning. Yeah if you want to be sentimental about it, that's not the way you want to see a winner win. But did he win? Yes. Did he lose....no way.

Froch deserved to lose for being the most overrated fighter in the tournament already. Fenster you say Froch is the favorite in a rematch in America. I know you are being coy but that actually gets under my skin that anyone could possibly think that way.

I don't actually know what would happen in a rematch, its kind of similar to the Hopkins Taylor situation.

Many people felt Hopkins won the first fight, and Hopkins himself was so convinced he basically fought the same fight in the rematch, with the same decision.

I have no doubt Dirrell could repeat that performance, he made Froch look crude but if he fought the same way again he would be risking the same result from the judges.

If he fights more aggressively however he could well get a decisive victory but then he will expose himself to more risk of getting outboxed or even knocked out.

Froch has fought three fights in a row against three top American, slick, fast boxers. Pascal fought Froch's fight and Froch outboxed and outfought him, Taylor fought a great fight but Froch's pressure ultimately was too much and Dirrell fought too cautious a fight and paid the price.

Dirrell in a rematch, to be sure of victory would have to engage more and the unknown factor there is will this mean he wins or will this favour Froch who can now start landing?

I really don't know.

James Toney fought great against Sam Peter the first fight but was dominated in the rematch, although Toney is far older than Dirrell, and Dirrell is likely to improve.

I like Dirrell though, his post fight speech was pure class from a man who knew he fought he a great fight but didn't get the decision, whilst Froch's post fight was clearly the speech of a man on the defensive who was obviously not sure he had done enough.

[Fenster]

WTF do you guys just say, fuck it I'm not scoring fights round by round anymore he was boring. Where the hell where you guys when Zahir Raheem was beating jobbers on FNF. Seriously, get a grip you guys no way that fight was any closer then 8-4. Anyone put up a scorecard closer then that and it WILL get picked apart. So go ahead. Yeah it was an unsatisfying fight, no Froch did not even come close to winning. Yeah if you want to be sentimental about it, that's not the way you want to see a winner win. But did he win? Yes. Did he lose....no way.

Froch deserved to lose for being the most overrated fighter in the tournament already. Fenster you say Froch is the favorite in a rematch in America. I know you are being coy but that actually gets under my skin that anyone could possibly think that way.

Yep. Froch has the ability to adjust now he knows Dirrells game. Then factor in the fact that FRoch knows he will for certain get robbed in America so he'll go for the KO from the off. Dirrell looked shaky from the shots Froch nearly landed on him, therefore it all points to a FRoch KO.

I'm not always right but i'm never wrong. Trust me.