Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[CFH]

Froch won the fight Dirrell was a bit of a joke he ran he paniced he moaned constantly to the ref had Carl not been going forward their wouldn't have been a fight it was close but no way did Dirrell do enough to take the belt off the champ in his backyard.

People may disagree, but I don't think the fact that Froch was champion or fighting in his home town should have any bearing on the result. Agreed Dirrell ran and was frustrating, but if he won more rounds he should get the decision and all other factors don't count (imo)

I agree. It's one of the most ridiculous things in all of sports and it makes boxing look like a farce. Imagine if in football (American) the visiting team has to win by more than a field goal to get the victory, the sport would instantly lose its credibility.

[CFH]

Ok, I've rewatched the fight (better late than never) and here's my scorecard and some notes I made during the fight. I've tried to give my reasons as to why I scored the rounds the way I did. I saw the fight somewhat differently the 2nd time around, though I still feel that Dirrell won. I actually feel like I should watch it a third time because I got a much different impression of the fight the 2nd time around, but I just can't make myself sit through that garbage again. One thing that should be noted is that I feel that I scored the fight with a slight bias towards Froch.

Froch/Dirrell
1. 10/9: Neither fighter did much, Froch wins the round based on his straight rights to the body of Dirrell.
2. 9/10: Dirrell landed the only meaningful punches
3. 9/10: Dirrell landed little, but Froch landed almost nothing.
4. 9/10: Froch controlled the ring, but Dirrell landed the better punches; "emphasis on clean punching...", the round goes to Dirrell
5. 9/10: A close round, but Dirrell scores well with straights to the body. Dirrell's are the only effective punches.
6. 9/10: Again, Dirrell lands the only clean, effective punches. A lot of these rounds are closer than I remember.
7. 10/9: Froch out-punched and out-landed Dirrell in addition to forcing the action.
8. 10/9: Close round yet again, Froch lands the harder shots though both fighters land relatively few punches.
9. 10/9: I felt Froch landed a comparable number of blows and forced the action, the round goes to him.
10. 9/9: Bullshit deduction in that Dirrell was the only one penalized, both should have lost points or neither should have. Dirrell lands better punches and hurts Froch.
11. 9/10: Dirrell's best round IMO, he hurts Froch again and lands the cleaner punches.
12. 9/10: Dirrell wins the first half of the round more convincingly than Froch wins the latter half. I watched it twice to be sure of my score.

I had Dirrell winning 115- 112.

Froch was more effective than I remembered from the first viewing and Dirrell was less effective. It was close-ish, but Dirrell should have won. However, all he had to do to guarantee the victory was let his hands go and actually stand and fight. In some ways he has only himself to blame for the loss. That said, I still feel it was a relatively clear Dirrell victory. The Italian judge should be a laughing stock for the way he scored the last two rounds, particularly round 11.

Finally, I can't believe I spent my Friday night drinking beer and rewatching this fight. I need to seriously reevaluate things...