Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[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.

[killersheep]

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.

What he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.

Here are the arguments for Froch winning

1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough

Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?

[Drago]

just seen that both froch & abrahm fights gonna be on itv 4 at 9pm

[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.

What he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.

Here are the arguments for Froch winning

1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough



Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?

I think the four point formula for winning rounds/fights is a naive way to look at it to be honest and it is certainly flawed.

It doesnt matter where you are in the world judges score rounds based simply on who they thought won it, for some judges its too much to ask to watch a round let alone make a judgement on whether the aggression was affective or not.

The system uses 4 criteria to judge who wins a round and lets assume the judges do that, what happens if the judge scores it 2 apiece? He still has to award 10 points to one man and 9 to the other. In that situation he is still going to have to make a judgement call and is still most likely going to side with the champion.

[Drago]

yeah u can watch a whole fight & think one fighter won easily but when scoring each rd can find that its a draw or even worse that the guy who looked like he walked it actually lost.

if u know wot i mean

[killersheep]

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.

What he says is legit though in the context that the justification for Froch winning is that, Dirrell didn't do enough to win and has nothing to do with what Froch did.

Here are the arguments for Froch winning

1. He was walking forward
2. Dirrell didn't do enough



Unfortunately the sport of boxing has a set of criteria to WIN rounds.
When you look at actual judging criteria as opposed to what Dirrell
didn't do can you still justify Froch winning?

I think the four point formula for winning rounds/fights is a naive way to look at it to be honest and it is certainly flawed.

It doesnt matter where you are in the world judges score rounds based simply on who they thought won it, for some judges its too much to ask to watch a round let alone make a judgement on whether the aggression was affective or not.

The system uses 4 criteria to judge who wins a round and lets assume the judges do that, what happens if the judge scores it 2 apiece? He still has to award 10 points to one man and 9 to the other. In that situation he is still going to have to make a judgement call and is still most likely going to side with the champion.

Naive you say? I say it's naive to NOT have any criteria other than "he won because I said so". Seriously other than those four elements, what would you judge a fighter on?

1. Effective Agression
2. Clean Punching
3. Defense
4. Ring Generalship

What other element is a win defined by other than those things?

Certainly someone that cannot understand "Effective aggression is a fighter moving forward and landing punches" shouldn't be judging a title fight.

As for the scenario of what if they each take two categories well someone figured that out and that's why when they're announcing the criteria they will say "with emphasis on effective aggression" OR "with emphasis on clean punching" Those are the tie breaking criteria.

You have made a recommendation to go from the criteria set forth in boxing which makes sense in the scheme of things and changed it to "the guy that won" how is that determined exactly? What was Froch doing that won him that fight?