Since I made my own case clear and there was plenty of debate, let's put it to a poll: Who did you see winning last night's fight between Carl Froch and Andre Dirrell?

I'm not trying to generalize, but it really seems like basically every UK fan had Froch winning due to aggression, and most other folks saw Dirrell winning by landing more and making Froch look slow. There are complaints about tactics on both sides. Froch was dirty, and if you argue that, you're bonkers. It was also brought on first by Dirrell simply frustrating Froch, and let's not pretend that wasn't the case. But there is also no arguing that Dirrell's incessant clinching was just the same story with different words. Both had guilt in making it a chippy fight, and both also had their reasons. Froch did it to try to get into Dirrell's head and force him into a firefight. Dirrell did it to avoid the firefight, which he was never going to get into.

Dirrell (18-1, 13 KO) and Froch (26-0, 20 KO) are going to have their biased supporters here, and honestly this is likely to go one way because Froch's fanbase is juuuuust a little bit more vocal, interested, and supportive than Dirrell's, I think, and that's a credit to those fans, not a shot at them.

So let's just have it out: Who did you have winning?