Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[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

[Memphis]

I think its a flawed system and judges dont use it. Clean punches and defence fair enough, pretty straight forward, but how do you judge someones effective aggression and ring generalship until a fight is over?

If one guy harrases the other all over the ring for a few early rounds but doesnt land anything, that is not seen as effective, but if he then knocks him out later in the fight due to the other guy being gassed because he's been run down does that earlier aggression become affective and was he displaying good ring generalship?

[killersheep]

I think its a flawed system and judges dont use it. Clean punches and defence fair enough, pretty straight forward, but how do you judge someones effective aggression and ring generalship until a fight is over?

If one guy harrases the other all over the ring for a few early rounds but doesnt land anything, that is not seen as effective, but if he then knocks him out later in the fight due to the other guy being gassed because he's been run down does that earlier aggression become affective and was he displaying good ring generalship?

Ring Generalship is easier to judge than most anything else especially on a round by round basis. It is simply the guy fighting how he wants to fight.
Froch chasing Dirrell around the ring makes it easy to determine they are fighting the way Dirrell wants to. If Froch would have cut off the ring and made Dirrell trade for more of the round then he would have won that category.

Effective aggression again is a fighter moving forward landing punches, it's not that hard.

[Memphis]

Im sorry mate but I dont buy the Dirrel clearly won the ring generalship stakes because Froch was chasing him line. If Dirrell hadnt have spent so much of the fight clinging on for dear life or falling to the floor or complaining I might be more inclined to believe he was in control. He didnt do those things out of choice, he did them due to what Froch was doing.

See whats happening here? Even with this fool proof easy to follow criteria we still disagree, as do the judges.

[killersheep]

Im sorry mate but I dont buy the Dirrel clearly won the ring generalship stakes because Froch was chasing him line. If Dirrell hadnt have spent so much of the fight clinging on for dear life or falling to the floor or complaining I might be more inclined to believe he was in control. He didnt do those things out of choice, he did them due to what Froch was doing.

See whats happening here? Even with this fool proof easy to follow criteria we still disagree, as do the judges.

Well let's use your criteria then............
What did Froch do to win?

[killersheep]

And while I'm waiting for your response I think it's fair that I did not think it was a robbery I had it 114-113 Dirrell on my card (7 rounds to 5 minus the point deduction) too close for me to call robbery.

What was your card memphis?

And also while you are explaining why Froch won, I can get back to the ring generalship. If you say Dirrell was holding on for dear life that implies he was hurt. I didn't see him hurt at all in that fight, in fact I saw Froch only land one meaningful punch. It's interesting that you mention what Dirrell was doing, but completely ignore Froch's rabbit punches and wrestling tactics, which was in fact because of what Dirrell was doing. If I need further evidence to substantiate my claim that Dirrell won the Ring generalship category I can listen to Froch's post fight interview "he wouldn't stand and trade with me"

And you complain about Dirrell wasting his time clinching using his own style of dirty, but he still found the time to clearly outland Froch. Furthermore if you've seen Dirrell fight before you would know he chooses to do that (clinch a lot, fall to the floor), there is a precident here, that being his previous fights.

[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?