Who won? Froch? Or Dirrell?

[0james0]

Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.

[ninjaspy3]

Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.

Bad example. Clottey didnt throw enough punches while Pac threw (and landed) a high number.
That doesnt apply to this case at all.

[0james0]

Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.

Bad example. Clottey didnt throw enough punches while Pac threw (and landed) a high number.
That doesnt apply to this case at all.

The example was that neither came to fight.

Dirrell ran too much, I'm happy with a fighter being elusive, but this was too much.

Plus I always thought judges scored more towards the aggresor as part of their scoring rules. Isn't that just how it works?

[ElTerribleMorales]

Froch without a shadow of a doubt. Dirrell was worse than Clottley.

Bad example. Clottey didnt throw enough punches while Pac threw (and landed) a high number.
That doesnt apply to this case at all.

The example was that neither came to fight.

Dirrell ran too much, I'm happy with a fighter being elusive, but this was too much.

Plus I always thought judges scored more towards the aggresor as part of their scoring rules. Isn't that just how it works?

ummm no, that just varies on a specific judges taste, the only things you basically score the round on is effective clean punches and ring generalship, Dirrell showed more of both than Froch