Quote Originally Posted by Taeth View Post
That's not fair after seeing the fight a few times, Dirrell wanted to fight, he just didn't want to fight like somebody would fight Ricky Hatton. When they were actually boxing Dirrell had no problem with what Froch was doing, but then Froch started hitting him on the break and using Hopkins' tactics to hit and hold. The only option was for Dirrell to hold the cheap ass Froch. I thought Dirrel won by a few rounds, but it wasn't an impressive performance. The times Dirrell went down in the 7th I believe I think he should have, he would slip punches and Froch was putting his body weight on Dirrell, those are some of the most tiring moments in the ring is when you are bending over and somebody is putting their body weight on you. Also for somebody who dodges punches a lot of the times Froch would keep his left hand out and have it follow Dirrell's head around like a target finder, and that is illegal and in trying to avoid Dirrell would go down and Froch put his forearm on Andre's back and pushed him down.

It honeslty looked like Saddler-Pep without Dirrell going down to Froch's level with the cheap shit. If you put any american ref in there, Froch would have had points deducted for punches to the back of the head, and without those he had no argument winning the fight.

I have to give Froch credit though because he was so effective on the inside for such a tall guy, I think he possed a lot of the same problems that Castillo gave Mayweather in their fights. It was really hard for Floyd to get off because Castillo was so dangerous on the inside and he wasn't making it easy for Floyd to counter, Froch made it a lot more difficult than people are giving him credit for, and I am very interested to see how he does against the likes of Kessler and Ward because he is so strong as super middleweight, and he is super awkward to fight. But I argue that Froch was making the fight, it was his cheap tactics and bullshit that made Dirrell fight the way he was, IN the first six rounds Dirrell was easily beating Froch (4-2 or 5-1) and there was nothing Carl could do, but to become cheap.

I don't see the athletic ability in Froch that I saw in Calzaghe, but I see the same awkwardness, far more punching power, and that ability to win fights and be rough.

All in all I can see where the writers are saying that Dirrell could have done so much more to win this fight, especially this being his up and coming moment, but in the end its who landed the best punches and who did the best boxing, and because Dirrell won everytime they were boxing, and Froch barely landed anything that was considered boxing I can't give the fight to Froch.
I agree with a lot of this post. Froch's style was part of the reason Dirrell was holding and running. He is awkward and he punches hard. It was Dirrell's fight to lose and he lost it. He should be kicking himself for it. And really as people have mentioned, he needs a new professional trainer. He has had the same trainer since his amateur days and it shows.

Froch doesn't have anything on Calzaghe. Calzaghe would tear him up. I don't see why the comparison is relevant other than that they are British and hate eachother. I geuss I see your competitiveness point - that they are both super competitive and come to win every night. But, other than that I don't think Froch is worthy of a comparison in terms of talen to Calzaghe. I don't think it would be close. Not even close. And Kessler will destroy Froch. Abraham will destroy Froch. Ward will too. Dirrell should have.