Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[killersheep]

OK here we go....

Killer I had Dirrell winning by one point. If I used the four point formula for scoring fights/rounds it was done subconciously. I watched a round, decided who won it, then repeated for 11 more rounds.

I've never claimed that Froch won, only that I understand why he did, or why Dirrell didnt. If it helps I'll tick the Dirrell option so you can feel better about all of this?

Again, I think its naive, and also giving judges way too much credit to assume that they use the four criteria you mentioned to score rounds. Effective aggression means coming forward landing punches. Well I think its fair to say that Froch covered the coming forward part. How many punches does he have to land? Is it one per round that he's coming forward, does he have to land one every time he comes forward to make it count? By the way I dont buy all this Froch only landed one punch crap, and no Im not going to sit through a slow motion replay to prove it.

Actually scratch that part about effective aggression, its getting boring now.

The facts are that despite protesting this so strongly and asking what Froch did to win repeatedly, you yourself gave him 5 rounds. The people That counted (or two of them) saw him winning a couple more

Ok so using the four point system we came up with the same score as a matter of fact it was the same score that the judge from Mexico had.
Maybe it's not so ambiguous after all.

I believe you think the effective aggression part is "boring now" because
you understand it now and realize it's not what you thought it was earlier
which was something that couldn't be judged until later in the fight (I
assume you are referring to damage taken).

I never claimed it was a robbery, but the reasons people were giving
for Froch winning were what I was taking issue with. Yes I believe
Froch won 5 rounds, yes it was a close fight, yes it was a dirty fight.
I have been consistent throughout and your final judgement helped my
point. My point is trying to make it a fight is not a basis for winning a
fight, to make a more extreme example Mayweather was the challenger
against Baldomir. Baldomir was trying to make it a fight and walking
forward for 12 rounds did he deserve the nod?

Mate Its got nothing to do with undertanding it. The criteria is easily understandable but as I said I believe it's flawed and its application concerns me.

No Baldomir didnt deserve the nod. But based on the 4 criteria did he deserve to win the 25% of the round that was based on effective aggression? If not, who was and why?

25% is less than 75% so no he did not deserve the rounds even if he was considered to have effective aggression. And no in my eyes he did not deserve the effective aggression tick because even though Mayweather rarely moved forward he was ten fold more effective when he did which was also the case in the rounds that Dirrell won. Now, I do agree that Dirrell should not have clinched as much as he did and did himself a disservice in doing so but that is the job of the ref NOT the judges to take care of it and he did in fact have a point deducted for doing so.