Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

Froch's speed was terrible, all else would have been ok if he could have come close to dirrell's speed. Speed kills.

[SalTheButcher]

Froch's speed was terrible, all else would have been ok if he could have come close to dirrell's speed. Speed kills.

the reason froch is so slow is because he doesnt know how to throw a punch

[Tysonbruno]

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.

[BIG H]

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)

[Fenster]

How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.

I nearly pressed the ban button.

[Gandalf]

After watching it again I have decided to call it a NC. That's all I have to say on the issue. There were more fouls than landed punches and in a fight such as that there can be no winner. Dirrell was a bit more flashy, but Froch was digging it out. Both were awful and so cancelled out each other and the entire fight completely.

I hope to never see it again nor hear anymore about it. What a total waste of time.

[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...

[No Contest]

How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.

I nearly pressed the ban button.

Please press the ban button so I dont have to read all these U.K. wankers rambling on about Froch. I would take a pacquiao fanatic anyday over hattongothammered.

[ryanman]

How come whenever they make a mention that the judges are multi-national, there usually seems to be a scoring controversy. Of course the german judge scored it for the white guy. Now you know why guys like RJJ and BHop dont go to Europe unless theres crazy money to be had.

I nearly pressed the ban button.

Please press the ban button so I dont have to read all these U.K. wankers rambling on about Froch. I would take a pacquiao fanatic anyday over hattongothammered.

Look at the poll. Look at the comments. Most UK 'wankers' have said that Dirrell deserved to win.

[HattonTheHammer]

froch won the fight, the guy who scored it 114-113 is clearly a moron

This isnt even being discussed in the media. Froch won the fight as clear as day!

[rjj tszyu]

I had Dirrell winning just but I knew he wouldn't get the decision on that performance. You have to go and take a title away from a champion!

[Pugilistic]

froch won the fight, the guy who scored it 114-113 is clearly a moron

This isnt even being discussed in the media. Froch won the fight as clear as day!

114-113 froch

If Froch won the fight clear as day why was your scorecard so close and why do the votes in this poll clearly favor Dirrell.

[Drago]

as i watched on a stream & didnt see the first round & listened to commentry on radio i dont think its fair for me to score the fight, i will watch it on itv tonight & score

[Memphis]

Im not a fan of Froch, Ive been expecting to be able to post an 'I told you so' long before now.

I dont have any problem with him getting the nod. Or to be more accurate I dont have a problem with Dirrell NOT getting the nod.

Like it or not it is part of the game, any fighter going to anothers back yard to try and take a title knows they have to do more than nick it, they have to win it it win it well.

CFH the football analogy doesnt really work. 'Goals' in football are clearly defined, as long as they are within the rules of the game they stand, it doesnt matter how good they are or how much skill is involved, we know boxing isnt like that. We also know that IF a football match were tied and decided by a panel of judges the away side wouldnt get any breaks.