Poll: How did you see Froch-Dirrell?
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
in Post-Fight Analysis
108 comments
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?
0 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Although the third card was BS.......
I think Froch did enough to pull it out. Dirrell kept on clinching and didn’t look to be the more aggressive fighter in there. Froch pushed the action and seemed to land the more effective shots. Emphasis on seemed. While I think Dirrell’s speed and technique were great, Froch looked to be more deserving of the points.
But I agree, Direll should be walking out of there with the big W. It just may not have looked that way to those at ringside.
by cyke on Oct 18, 2009 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Froch pushed the action and seemed to land the more effective shots. Emphasis on seemed.
Not disagreeing, just want to be clear. What do you mean? Crowd reaction swaying things? Something else?
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dirrell seemed content to jab and clinch, while not exactly controlling Froch. It felt like he was not able to do more because of Froch.
His performance did not seem to have the aesthetic quality of Froch who was constantly working and throwing shots that gave the impression of him being the busier, more aggressive fighter. Seeing that from ringside is what could have given the judges the scorecards they had. Of course, the crowd could have played a role in influencing the result, but that’s not to take away from Froch.
Its a different world watching on TV and I could see why the result came out the way it did.
by cyke on Oct 18, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His performance did not seem to have the aesthetic quality of Froch who was constantly working and throwing shots that gave the impression of him being the busier, more aggressive fighter.
’
See, this is something I just don’t get. Again, not disagreeing with you, you may be 100% right, but I did not see Froch as busier or even particularly more aggressive. He walked forward a lot and Dirrell did do a lot of moving and even some flat-out running to keep Froch from doing much of anything, but Andre did a lot more than jab and clinch and run. He made Froch miss some god awful slow hooks and right hands and frankly just made him look terrible for much of the fight. I mean I know two people can see totally different fights, but nothing about Froch last night was particularly pleasing to watch, either. Apples and oranges, I reckon.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I’ve said, I have no problem with Dirrell getting the W, but to a lot of people, Froch just looked better and more efficient in the ring. I guess apples and oranges is the best way to put this.
by cyke on Oct 18, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Froch did enough to pull it out. .
Are you out of your fucking mind
by Haans Bishop on Oct 18, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you’re allowed to see different things, dude. You sound like its one of the great robberies of all time, but lets put it in perspective. Its really not. Even Brickhaus below can see 114-113 Froch.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
by BrianBrock on Oct 18, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a whole
It was. The judges scored it wrong. And the referee was one of the poorest in memory. The ref alone shifted the score card at least 1 point in the wrong direction and possibly as much as 3 or a DQ had he called it properly.
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Oct 19, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cuts both ways
I’ve seen guys disqualified for excessive holding who did less holding than Dirrell did. Then again, I’ve seen Ricky Hatton grapple more than that in the UK and not so much as even get warned.
Frankly, if the ref calls the fight properly, probably both guys get docked a couple of points.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 19, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see Dirrell losing 1 for holding
And I see Froch losing 2 or possibly being DQ’d for holding behind the head and hitting and rabbit punching. Both repeatedly. He landed probably close to 10 or 15 rabbit punches and often held Dirrell’s head down with 1 hand and pot shotted the side of his head while holding it down. Both are worthy of a disqualification after 2 or 3 times.
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Oct 19, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The ref did a horrible job generally though. He just completely lost control of the fight.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 19, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I rarely vote for a DQ. I thought Froch should have been DQ’d when he really started consciously aiming for the back of the head while he was clinching.
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Oct 19, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop. If you want to make points, then do that, but if you just want to say shit and insult people, go elsewhere.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw differently… It was Dirrell landing the more effective and legal shots with more regularity…
"Boxing is dirty," said Casamayor. " The day I’m not ready to be a dirty fighter is the day I don’t fight anymore because it will mean that I have no heart for it anymore."
by Zocalo on Oct 18, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had it clearly for Dirrell
But after going back through my scorecard, I can see a legitimate 114-113 Froch score. 115-112 is ridiculous, but whatever. Rounds 1, 2 and 12 were all close, all of which I gave to Dirrell; on the other hand, round 8 was also close which I gave to Froch. The other rounds weren’t close though. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 were all clear Dirrell rounds, and 6 and 7 were the only clear Froch rounds.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 18, 2009 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I had it 8-4 Dirrell, but could see it as 7-5 Dirrell. A draw would have been a real stretch but not totally irrational. I thought it was a bad decision, but not so extreme a robbery as to cause outrage.
by taco pal on Oct 18, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
when you include the officiating it was.
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Oct 19, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I don’t think so. The officiating wasn’t good, but at most, it changed the scorecards by 1 point (i.e. half a round).
by taco pal on Oct 19, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing wrong with some Crotch grabbing
by Polish Rifle on Oct 18, 2009 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
At least there wasn't crotch grabbing going on in the Abraham fight
That could have gotten ugly, with the ripped shorts and all
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 18, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s decisions like that why that MMA barbaric style fighting is gain popularity. And I hate too say this giving credit to that shit.
by Haans Bishop on Oct 18, 2009 2:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There are just as many bad decisions in MMA
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 18, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t rate Dirrell, and I wanted Froch to win badly, but I think he was lucky to the get the decision. It was ugly and definitely close. I hope that some fans here would be big enough to say that he was at least lucky/he clearly didn’t win.
I don’t know why there’s such a stink though. Before the Abraham fight, it was generally accepted that JT wasn’t going to get any decision there, and there are bad decisions all over. Its kind of just part of boxing now.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
by BrianBrock on Oct 18, 2009 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Decision
I thought Dirrell won the fight, but I will also say I wasn’t exactly watching the highest quality footage so it was not as easy to see what may or may not have been hits and misses.
While I think Froch was lucky to get the decision, I also think Dirrell’s style might have caused the judges to give the closer rounds to Froch. Although I find the fight highly entertaining (even if ugly), Dirrell’s style (I hesitate to call it “running”) might not have played well in England. It just gave the judges an excuse to give Froch rounds.
by Fooch on Oct 18, 2009 2:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i was watchin off shit stream as well and had Dirrel ahead…. but can also see why Froch got descision, just coming foward all the time and bein the hometown fighter, not that i like it but, shit happens
by Sweet science on Oct 18, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
115-112 Dirrell but
I knew he was going to lose and not because it was a hometown decision. Judges do not reward clinching and what they perceive as failure to engage. If he fought the way he did post deduction it wouldn’t have been close. I was furious with him during this fight, and rounds where he was landing cleaner and with combos, he ruined with his clinching and complaining. All his momentum gone for something not even needed.
by gunranger on Oct 18, 2009 3:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Really?
The UKs two great boxing heros, Calzaghe and Hatton, clinched constantly and effectively, just as Dirrell did last night. The difference is that Dirrell is not from the UK, and a lot of UK fans seem to like their fighters more than objectivity. That’s fine, but it’s no way to judge a fight professionally.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Two of the judges weren’t from the UK, and I think he was pointing to “what may be perceived as Dirrell’s failure to engage”. Hatton and Calzaghe (really? okay, at least not as much as Hatton) may have clinched a lot, but they were still known to engage, which is something that judges favor.
by Fj-3 on Oct 19, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hatton and Calzaghe (really? okay, at least not as much as Hatton)
Good Lord yes, Calzaghe held a lot. A LOT. It was one of his best defensive maneuvers. He used it amazingly well to disrupt rhythm and frustrate the shit out of guys.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 19, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and it should be noted
that Calzaghe, especially, was far more artful with his clinches. He knew just when to let go, so that it seldom earned a second look from the judges. Dirrell could learn something from him.
As for “engaging,” Dirrell outlanded Froch, so I’m not clear how engaging should really matter, outside of the fact that it’s harder to land power shots (for most fighters anyway) on your bicycle. Insisting that a figher “engage,” rather than throw and land shots, can be used as an excuse to insist that you have to go toe-to-toe to score points. You don’t. You have to hit and not get hit.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 19, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had Dirrell winning… and I wasn’t here chatting and contributing to um… group think.
Froch should have gotten some point taken off for clear rabbit punches…
It was a dirty fight and with a better ref this could have been a significantly better fight…
"Boxing is dirty," said Casamayor. " The day I’m not ready to be a dirty fighter is the day I don’t fight anymore because it will mean that I have no heart for it anymore."
by Zocalo on Oct 18, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What part of this fight did Froch win?
Clean Punches? Nope. Power Punches? Nope. Pressure? I guess whatever that means. Defensive Ability? Nope. Counter Punching? Nope. Rabbit Punching? Yup.
Just so you know pressure and rabbit punching wins fights!
by waldo47 on Oct 18, 2009 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you forgot holding behind the head and hitting
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Oct 19, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly with all the rabbit punches, he(Dirrell) should have gone down for the count and gotten the DQ-W…
"Boxing is dirty," said Casamayor. " The day I’m not ready to be a dirty fighter is the day I don’t fight anymore because it will mean that I have no heart for it anymore."
by Zocalo on Oct 18, 2009 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why I can buy a 114-113 Froch win
first, for the record, I had Dirrell winning the fight. BUT I gave Froch round 1 and I think from round 6 on the judges really did not like the way Dirrell constantly jumped into the clinch as soon as Froch got anything going. When Froch got dirty, it threw Dirrell off his game and he stopped jabbing. Froch turned it into a brawl and if your a judge who did not like Dirrell’s constant flopping and clinching I can see giving a slew of those later rounds to the Cobra.
The best thing about this tourny? They could fight again . . .
It hasn’t tainted it at all for me, its boxing. Both fights last night were incredibly exciting and had great storylines.
by mason_beer on Oct 18, 2009 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The best thing about this tourny? They could fight again . . .
Exactly…
"Boxing is dirty," said Casamayor. " The day I’m not ready to be a dirty fighter is the day I don’t fight anymore because it will mean that I have no heart for it anymore."
by Zocalo on Oct 18, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
did not like Dirrell’s constant flopping and clinching
Oh I’m sorry i thought it was the refs responsibility to take points off for excessive holding and clinching, not the judges. Clinching is part of the game, get used to it or learn how to counter punch. Also, people in England complaining about clinching, seriously (There is only one……).
by waldo47 on Oct 18, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
all I’m saying is that Dirrell in the later rounds wasn’t counter punching either, he was running away and clinching. Clearly these refs didn’t like it, and they were reinforced by the fact that the ref took a point from Dirrell.
Matrix still should have won the fight
by mason_beer on Oct 18, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excessive clinching is not part of the game and can lead to a dq. I don’t know where you got that from.
by gunranger on Oct 18, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, people in England complaining about clinching, seriously (There is only one……).
Calzaghe isn’t English but he also clinched a lot, but he was a little more subtle and clever about it.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you don't actually think he means Calzaghe?
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
by Chaos100 on Oct 18, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I was saying there was another example of a heavy clincher.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank God for that...
I thought for a second you’d taken leave of your senses. :)
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
by Chaos100 on Oct 18, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On a semi-related note while we’re talking some Froch: I know it won’t happen with Carl being tied up for the next 18-24 months, but wouldn’t a Froch-Librado Andrade fight be a war? My God. Two guys that love to stand and trade.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don’t you dare make me regret this tournament SC….damn you.
by waldo47 on Oct 18, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or Bika for that matter. How about all three in the ring at once!
by taco pal on Oct 18, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do hope Andrade-Bika will happen. Probably won’t, or if it does it won’t get on TV, but that’s another brawl waiting to happen.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two iron-chinned Frankensteins hammering each other in center ring. That would’ve been great. Maybe Taylor will drop out between rounds and they could sub in Andrade?
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way Andrade gets subbed in. If JT drops it’ll DEFINITELY be Allan Green, since he’s also a DiBella fighter.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can dream, can’t I? Green-Abraham might be an entertaining scrap.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Taylor will drop out before he fights Ward. If Ward manages to knock him out or at least hurt him badly, then I could see Green taking the Taylor spot for the third round fight vs. Kessler. Green would presumably inherit Taylor’s place in the standings as well, so he would probably start out in too big of a hole to get into the semis, even if he managed to pull the upset on Kessler. So the only opponent we’d get to see Green (or Andrade or whoever else) fight in the tournament would be Kessler.
by taco pal on Oct 18, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If The Good Allan Green showed up I think he’s got the power to be trouble for plenty of guys. If The Bad Allan Green showed up Abraham or Kessler would break his face.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather see Abraham-Andrade
Unstoppable force vs immovable object
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 18, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scores
There seems to be a lot of writers not willing to give up their scorecards. Dougie Fischer has a completely non-insightful ‘will vs skill’ article to praise Froch’s heart or something. Another article on TSS has a ‘Dirrell needs to quit holding’ article, again no scorecards. Don’t see anything on maxboxing either. Can’t find an AP scorecard either. You got anything from the ‘official’ sources?
by waldo47 on Oct 18, 2009 5:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is common
I remember it was like pulling teeth asking for people to submit their scorecards in the wake of the Diaz-Malignaggi “robbery.” It’s harder to defend twelve mini-fights then it is to say something about “the general feeling” they got about who won the fight overall. Dirrell won eight mini-fights on my card, which won him the decision for me.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had Dirrell winning easily.
I just found the comments by Froch after the fight to be plain stupid. He just wants someone to stand and trade with him and if they don’t then they are not warriors/fighters. He is correct on this point Dirrell is a boxer and he gets paid to box not stand and trade. Why should Dirrell do something that is not his strength, even though when they did stand and trade he seem to hurt Froch and easily dodge the counter fire, when he has so many tools from which to choose. Dirrell showed me last night he has a chance to be a star and long reigning champ. I still think he should have hit him low for all the rabbit punches.
by TXroyal on Oct 18, 2009 5:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought Dirrell won too, but to play devil’s advocate here, there are some boxers who avoid firefights but are able to do it with some artistry: Winky Wright, Wladimir Klitschko, Floyd Mayweather, and Sergio Martinez all have different styles, but the common thread between them is that they avoid brawls while looking good (not necessarily exciting, but good) doing it. What Dirrell did last night to avoid a firefight was more along the lines of what Paul Malignaggi did in his fight with Hatton. It looked sloppy.
by taco pal on Oct 18, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What Dirrell did last night to avoid a firefight was more along the lines of what Paul Malignaggi did in his fight with Hatton.
I know what you’re saying, but Hatton outlanded and punished Paulie, while Froch did neither to Dirrell. Those fights really look nothing alike to me. Hatton’s aggression was effective.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 18, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’re kind of talking past each other here. Hatton’s offense was certainly more effective than Froch’s was, but that doesn’t mean that Dirrell’s method of playing defense lacked any similarity to Malignaggi’s. Dirrell’s results were more successful, but that doesn’t change the fact that the means were ugly.
Now, obviously, the difference in results isn’t an unimportant consideration, nor is the fact that Dirrell was able to generate some good offense (compare with Malignaggi, who generated none at all). Clearly, it would have been a total crime to treat Dirrell the same way Malignaggi was treated – but then, nobody did treat Dirrell that way, not even the two judges who gave the fight to Froch. They both gave Dirrell five rounds each, while Malignaggi would have won, at most, one round if McGirt hadn’t stepped in.
The point is that (1) you can affirmatively be docked credit for the particular method you use to avoid a brawl, and (2) this doesn’t necessarily prove that you have to brawl in order to win a decision.
by taco pal on Oct 18, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I wasn’t disagreeing with you, really. I know what you’re saying and I agree with it.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 19, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool. Really enjoying participating on this blog, by the way. One of the few sane places on the Internet for boxing discussion, as I know you’ve mentioned before.
by taco pal on Oct 19, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Running
I was at the fight and although I didn’t think Froch looked good, in fact limited was how he looked, Dirrell simply did too much running to take the win. We had a really good high up view and it was strange to see a boxer running away so much and his opponent running after him at times.
I think in the context of the SuperSix the decision was maybe a little harsh on Dirrell, it seems people are looking at things a little differently when the tournament is involved. Looking on it as a straight fight for the belt the challenger didn’t do anywhere near enough to win it.
by nffc on Oct 18, 2009 6:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Running is not illegal, nor should it affect scoring
See also Ali, PBF, etc.
The simply fact is that Dirrell massively outlanded Froch, both in power punches and jabs, even if he did it on his bicycle.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, Sweet Pea ran like greased lightening against Buddy, but he still beat him. Dirrell beat Curt Stevens handily by running and potshotting. That fight STUNK and I wanted to throw Andre off a cliff for his marathonning, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t think he won. Some styles are stinky, winning styles.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Running is not illegal, but it overstates the case to say it shouldn’t affect scoring.
by taco pal on Oct 18, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking on it as a straight fight for the belt the challenger didn’t do anywhere near enough to win it.
Nothing personal, but when will people stop with this ridiculous line of reasoning? That’s like saying the Dodgers need to beat the Phillies by at least three runs because they are defending champions. No they don’t.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nothing personal taken but it is what it is, always has been always will. The fighters know before they step in the ring, Dirrell knew for sure.
What that means in reality is that his tactics were just plain wrong if he wanted to “win”. On hostile turf, fighting the belt holder, with 7,490 fans versus your 10 a knockout would help…but at a bare minimum 2 or 3 times in the whole 12 rounds you have to plant your feet, puff your chest out, bite down on the mouth guard and not take a step back.
by nffc on Oct 19, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to begrudgingly agree
I hate that old fart line of bullshit, because it’s absolutely moronic if held up to any standard, but enough people see it that way that in an “away” fight, you should probably fight like it’s true.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 19, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ring says Taylor has severe concussion and is in Berlin for a week
http://www.ringtv.com/blog/1223/taylor_remains_in_hospital/
Let the speculation begin.
I would think that the Bute-Andrade winner would be a perfect fit because they bring in a big name, a natural constituency from Canada or Mexico, and a major title belt. I hope Taylor is okay, but if he’s already getting severe concussions and he still has Ward and Kessler to fight? He needs to think about hanging them up
by mason_beer on Oct 18, 2009 6:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I had Dirrell overwhelmingly ahead on the cards. I was furious at the ref for the second half of the fight. When he took a point away from Dirrell instead of Froch, I through my drink at the television and seriously terrified my cat, who is still looking at me like I’m crazy. The ref lost control of the fight and then punished the victim.
Clinching is a legitimate tactic that can sometimes be overused and rarely results in a deduction. Rabbit punching is dangerous and illegal. Period.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 6:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I also thought Dirrell
made Froch look like a lumbering fool at several points in the fight, and to repeat a point someone made up the thread, his post-fight comments didn’t reflect well on him. His cockiness borders on ignorance.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why Froch Won From The States
I think Dirrell is the better fighter, for the msot part, fought the better fight but Froch won the fight for a couple reasons.
1) Carl Froch made Dirrell fight Froch’s fight. Froch is a better brawler and made it a dirty fight… something he is much more comfortable with.
2) The point deduction. I saw it about even if you ignored the point. Froch got Dirrell to fight dirty knowing in his home town there is no was he was getting a deduction (though he should have). Im sure the ref knows what could happen with a stadium full of angry british fans.
3) For the same reasons as 2, it was a home town decision. Every sport has home field advantages and home judging. Some of it is having the crowd make small glancing blows seem like round winning shots. As a judge Im sure its easy getting caught up in the same emotional wave as the people behind you. Some of it is just getting home safe. It happens everywhere. Dirrell’s grandfather told him he is not getting a decision there.
4) Not saying I agree with it, but this was a title fight and Judges feel you have to take the belt from the champ. Its like tie goes to the runner in baseball. Close rounds go to the champ in boxing. If you understand the logic here, challengers will have to press the Champ and force them to fight. You wont have matches where both guys take it easy in hopes of squeaking out a decision.
5) Dirrell fought Froch’s fight and clearly got frustrated. All the holding made him look bad. Like any good British athlete, Froch is an excellent actor and played it up by putting his arms out complaining when he could. When Dirrell complained he got hit in the face.
After all of it, experience showed through and Froch made Dirrell look bad knowing full well that in that stadium, he could do no wrong. Did he win any American fans? Not at all. In a rematch, I think Dirrell takes it easily.
Here is whats great: This is a tournament. Dirrell clearly has the talent to make it to the top 4 which could set up that rematch very soon. As a young guy, he will learn from this and I only see him getting better as the Super 6 goes on.
By the way can I say I love the extra point for a KO. In the Abraham fight… Action in the 12th of a one sided fight? Yes please. The sport needs more of that. Its much like the UFC fighters going at it for their bonuses. It creates a lot of excitement which is only good for the sport.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 18, 2009 7:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It really sounds like you are making excuses. Your points 2 through 4 are all bad reasons to give a fight to someone. Why endorse such things? Why not judge fights the way the rules state? Why accept bad hometown decisions just because they happen all too often?
I also thought Froch was clearly more frustrated than Dirrell (hence the constant, dangerous, and illegal rabbit punching), and for the most part, Dirrell made Froch fight HIS fight, not the opposite, chasing Dirrell haplessly around the ring and winging at air. Ironically, when Froch actually did draw Dirrell into more engaged exchanges, such as in round 11, he still clearly lost.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am making excuses. Had Dirrell won Id be trying to justify it to the angry British fans right now. Im defending judges and judging in general. There is no formula. Its not scientific. Its based on the opinion of 3 people. Who by the way are sitting between a very vocal pro Froch crowd and their fighter.
Personally, I would rather see a challenger not take the belt in a decision that could go either way than a champ loose the belt in a decision that could have gone either way. If it could go either way, the challenger did not prove they are better than the champ who has already gone through his own trials to earn the belt. Like I said below, its has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I dont know that Dirrell wanted to get into the holding game it became. He sure complained a lot during. Froch seemed to know he could do no wrong in there and consequently the fight taking that down turn only helped him.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 18, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I misunderstood your tone. I didn’t know you were trying to explain bad judging. I got the impression you were justifying it. But I’ll take you at your word here.
As for the issue about challengers and champs, the thing is, from a judge’s perspective, fights can’t “go either way.” Their job is to score each round as best they can and add up the scores. The idea that a fight could have gone either way represents a general broad perspective on a fight, not a round-by-round, judges’ perspective (or at least that’s how it’s supposed to be). The judges job is to judge rounds, not just give all the close ones to the champ.
But the idea is particularly galling in the context of the super 6. First, Froch is a titleholder, not a champ. And second, this is the SUPER SIX!! The whole idea is that everyone should get an even chance. Are you really saying that you don’t think each of these guys should have a level playing field for this kind of tournament? I think that really goes against the whole spirit of the thing, which I always thought was to provide a better way of determining superior fighters than the usual alphabet soup method.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im glad we are on the same page about my intent there.
I understand its who wins the round, but look at how they do it. They watch three minn of action then write down a 9 or a 10. Guys steal rounds in the last 10 seconds all the time… its a flawed system. When they look at their card and think “well who won that round? Dirrell landed those power shots, but had to keep grabbing Froch, which he was warned about. Froch was scoring here and there” Then subconsciously they do a little ask the audience haha. “Well 15K people liked what Froch did” Its a messed up system. They should be watching in a dark room with no audio getting compubox numbers as soon as the round ends. I dont know what to tell you.
As for giving it to the belt holder, if a round is a coin toss in their minds, thats what they do. They have been doing it for ever. I dont know what to tell you.
The whole idea is that everyone should get an even chance. Are you really saying that you don’t think each of these guys should have a level playing field for this kind of tournament?
The fight was in Froch’s back yard. How even can that be? Dirrell’s grandfather even said he was not getting a decision there .
by ryanwk628 on Oct 18, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll just say that I think
we should expect a little more professionalism from boxing judges than your posts suggest. I know you mean to just describe the fucked-up system, but if you look at how you said things, it does sound like you are defending and excusing the judges’ behavior. I think we have a right to expect better from supposed “professionals” and ire, not justification, is what’s in order here. I’ll leave it at that.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 possibilities
Look there are 2 explanations for these types of decisions. First is simply the judges just suck, and can’t watch boxing effectively. Second is that they are unjustly influenced by the crowd. So if the judges just suck there would have to be robberies on the road, which in recent history, has never happened. This means that judges are being greatly influenced by the crowd. I’ll repeat this again. The impartial judges are greatly influenced by the crowd. Dear Super Six, this is not hard to fix. Put an HD camera where each judge sits, and have them judge from a sequestered room. (Yes I realize that audio is an issue but if the crowd is deafening are you really hearing the difference between gloves hitting flush or being blocked?) Anyways this shiat needs to be fixed mostly because its embarrassing for the sport of boxing. Or else have more judges (like 5) and throw out the highest and lowest card.
by waldo47 on Oct 18, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this, having read the whole debate.
Whether or not the other guy realizes he’sdoing it, his posts seem to be the vocal/literary equivalent of a shrug of the shouldersand a pat on the back of the guy who got robbed.
And yes, I’m British (live about an hour and a half drive from the arena in question), and yes, I feel it was a robbery.
Home venue is NOT an excuse to rob someone of a win they clearly earned.
A gaudy leather belt with some shiny stuff on it is NOT an excuse to rob someone of a win they clearly earned.
My views on it are also here (AbsolutelyFlawless);
http://www.cueclubinternational.com/viewtopic.php?forum=29&topic=31265
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
by Chaos100 on Oct 19, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's great
But none of these reasons you have given have anything to do with the scoring of a fight, and reasons 3 and 4 you are saying you believe the scoring was correct not because of what he did in the ring that night, but because of where the ring was located or because of what he did in some other ring, some other night. That’s pretty much what 90% of critics of the decision are saying. Really, it’s just a nicer way of saying “the scoring was a home-cooked sham.” Because it happens a lot doesn’t make it correct.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I thought it was close.
With a lot of rounds that could go either way depending on what you look at. But a Champ, fighting at home, is going to always win close rounds.
Im sure we have all been to live fights where we dont know who some of the under card guys are, but because the crowd is pulling for them, you get caught up in that. These are judges. There is no scientific method for deciding who wins rounds. Im sure that when the noise goes up for Froch, it makes what he does seem better. Do you know what I mean?
And the notion that you have to take it from the champ, thats part of the sport. There is no computer that has a formula for who wins round. If there is this much disagreement, how can you justify taking someones title away? Thats like in court, someone has to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Had Dirrell made it convincing, we wouldnt be having this debate.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 18, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But a Champ, fighting at home, is going to always win close rounds.
That’s not true, on many levels. For one thing, Froch is not a “champ”; he’s a titlist. And Champ or Beltholders alike have lost many, many close rounds on home turf. For instance, Carl Froch lost 2 of them, and lost an additional 6 rounds that were not close at all. The whole notion behind a “hombrew” is that judges are scoring rounds incorrectly in favor of a hometown fighter… why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Had Dirrell made it convincing, we wouldnt be having this debate
Also wrong. The whole reason we are having “this debate” is that, he convinced us. Apparently he didn’t “convince you”, even though you seem to be saying that you were scoring rounds for Froch because “he’s the champ.” Okay, that’s your criteria for scoring a fight. Do you also take into account the color of his shoelaces? Hair length? Political views? Well, you’re welcome to do that too, but it’s impossible to have a debate about it, because none of that is a rational to score a fight.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t mean to be a jerk about it, either. But it would be like me saying to you “I thought Dirrell won the seventh round because he’s got longer feet.” How are you gonna debate me? What’s the counterpoint? It is the same with this business of “you have to do more to beat the champion.” It’s just as nonsensical.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me say this first: Im not saying I agree with it... Im going into the judging
Its a flawed system. They are influenced by the crowd just as much as we are influenced by the American commentary. Had we listened to the British cometary we may think differently about the fight. As for what they do, Ill just copy what I said above:
“They watch three minn of action then write down a 9 or a 10. Guys steal rounds in the last 10 seconds all the time… its a flawed system. When they look at their card and think "well who won that round? Dirrell landed those power shots, but had to keep grabbing Froch, which he was warned about. Froch was scoring here and there" Then subconsciously they do a little ask the audience haha. "Well 15K people liked what Froch did" Its a messed up system. They should be watching in a dark room with no audio getting compubox numbers as soon as the round ends. I dont know what to tell you.
As for giving it to the belt holder, if a round is a coin toss in their minds, thats what they do. They have been doing it for ever. I dont know what to tell you."
by ryanwk628 on Oct 18, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I muted Gus
Personally, I was getting a little sick of his hectoring on behalf of Dirrell. But I couldn’t give a hairy turd what Gus Johnson or anyone else is blabbering about while I am watching a fight. It does not effect me, or how I score rounds. Neither does what country a guy is from, what color his eyes are, what he had for breakfast, or whether or not he carried a fancy belt into the ring with him. These are all non-factors in scoring, and certainly professional judges shouldn’t consider them. If your saying “well, they do” that isn’t the same as arguing that they “should…” and frankly, that’s not really debating anything. No one here or anywhere else, thinks that this is the first questionable hometown result in the history of Boxing. But if you are arguing that judges “should” factor in things like hair color, country and belt size - as you seem to be - then that’s just silly. I don’t really have any answer for it.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When did we get on belt size? I thought we agreed it was based on shoe size
by ryanwk628 on Oct 19, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Carl walked in with that big, awesome WBC belt after all. That’s apparently worth a two point swing on a round. After all if the judges see a close round that Dirrell narrowly wins, not only should they not score that round a 10-10 draw, but they should just hand it to Froch, 10-9. If Dirrell wanted to win the round, the dummy should have remembered to bring in a big fancy belt.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 19, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
10-10 rounds rarely happen. Judges feel the need to pick. Do I agree with that? No. But the reason they do what they do is because they are paid to pick one, not to say its too close to call.
What if they did that in baseball? Balls and strikes too close to call? And we all know that big names get bigger strike zones. Is it right? No. Is it the way it is? Yes. Do top QBs get more protection from the league in terms of calls (dont want your money makers getting hurt)? Yes. Does the NBA make efforts so its All Stars dont foul out (because thats who the fans pay to see)? Yes.
You see a close round but give it to Dirrell. The next guy sees the same close round and gives it to Froch. Judges tend to give even rounds to the titlist. It is supposed to force the challenger to be aggressive and prove himself worthy. Boxing is an old sport and this is an old concept.
Its like women. You have 2 women your interested in. Both are equally attractive. Present good arguments why you should be with them. Both are great in bed and you enjoy their company. All things being equal, you pick the one youre feeling more for on that given day, but that could change tomorrow. How do you pick? One of them is your wife. Does that change things? Thats how boxing commissions feel about their champs. Im not saying I agree with it, but thats why the belt matters TO THEM.
If you dont like it, well create your own sanctioning body and do it your way. I guarantee you there will be people who get just as upset with some of your decisions.
OK Im done trying to explain why it is the way it is. None of us are going to change it. If you want to try, well good luck.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 19, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boxing is an old sport and this is an old concept
Geez, sorry. I am new to this whole Boxing thing. Thanks for explaining it all.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 19, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s a better analogy than that girlfriend thing: Embezzlement.
Since the invention of Money, people have been cooking the books and quietly stealing it from each other. It’s long been part of the price of doing business, so if you start a company, you should just accept it. No need to call anyone out on it, when it inevitably happens. Just shut up, move on and make more money. How about Jim Crow Laws? Segregation?? Hey, that’s just the way things have always been. Leave well enough alone, even if you think it’s completely crooked.
Your just not going to win a lot of support for this concept by saying “that’s just the way things are” and “start your own sanctioning body.”
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 19, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your just not going to win a lot of support for this concept by saying "that’s just the way things are" and "start your own sanctioning body."
Why not? Seems everyone with a gripe and a couple million dollars has. Big part of the reason the sports so fucked up.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 19, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You see a close round but give it to Dirrell. The next guy sees the same close round and gives it to Froch. Judges tend to give even rounds to the titlist. It is supposed to force the challenger to be aggressive and prove himself worthy. Boxing is an old sport and this is an old concept.
An old, stupid concept. “Well he won, but not by ENOUGH, so the guy that might’ve been gift-wrapped a title belt because the sanctioning body president felt he was a handsome young man gets the round.” If nothing else, it’s outdated by the idiotic notion of who in boxing is a “champion” now. These meaningless belts don’t deserve to designate favoritism.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 19, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you say he won. A whole mess of people in England see it differently. It was close. I dont know what to tell you. Judging is not an exact science.
Maybe baseball should put sensors in the ball, bag and glove so we can eliminate the tie goes to the runner rule. We have the technology.
And we are going to call for judging reform before overhauling the sanctioning bodies and match making promotional b.s.? At least close decisions give us something to talk about as opposed to guessing on hypothetical fights that the powers that be will never let happen.
All these promoters got on the same page and made the super 6 happen. Thats a huge step for the sport. Can they do judging reform at the same time? Right after they walk on water.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 19, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The stuff needs to repaired at the booking level. When international fight take place, you are always going to have a home crowd/hostile territory situation… nothing will ever change that, and I’m not saying it should change. But what I can’t stand is when you have a fight of this magnitude and, while everybody is busy waxing poetic about the warriors and the training and etc, three blind mice and a referee who nobody has ever heard of are being recruited to run the damn show. Where the heck did they dig up Alejandro Mapula? He looked absolutely “at sea” out there.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 19, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you say he won. A whole mess of people in England see it differently.
Shocking.
“Tie goes to the runner” is not the same thing. You’re suggesting that you have to win by a certain margin. At what point is it just handicapping?
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 19, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is handicapping. Im not saying Im for it, but thats what they do in lieu of 10-10 rounds.
However, I think all things being equal, Id rather see a challenger not take the title because of a BS decision than a titlist loose his title on a BS decision.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 19, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All things are rarely equal.
Bad Left Hook
"Well Howie, I think I'm going to stay outside and outjab him." -- Tex Cobb telling Howard Cosell how he would approach Larry Holmes
by SC on Oct 19, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I would be way more ok with a challenger getting a BS decision than the champ. What happens if the champ gets screwed? The public clamors for a rematch, and the challenger is not going to have any other big money options so he’s going to give it to him. What if the champ wins by a questionable decision? The champion runs as far as possible from challenger never to see him again. Yeah you are completely right, that second option is a lot better, how ever could I doubt such sound logic.
by waldo47 on Oct 19, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This completely lacks logic
If a fighter wants to charge into a counter-puncher and get hit while he dances out of the way and makes the brawler miss and look amateurish or the brawler goes in so fast that the counter-puncher clinches him up and nothing is landed except illegal rabbit punches how is that imposing your will? I could run in and tackle a boxer repeatedly while getting pot shotted. That isn’t imposing my will
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Oct 19, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Froch’s post-fight comments paraphrased:
If you don’t stand immobile and toe-to-toe exchanging punches with your opponent until one of your falls over, you’re not a “real fighter.”
If you see the back of your opponent’s head, you should hit it as much as possible.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Oct 18, 2009 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dirrell Robbed in Nottingham
Andre Dirrell fought an outstanding fight against the hometown favorite Froch. Every viewer outside of Nottingham sees the decision for what it was, robbery. Froch proved himself to be a classless fighter by resorting to dirty tactics. Dirrell out performed Froch in every area. His superior speed and talent all but eclipsed Froch’s awkward technique. The referee was very biased toward Dirrell and should be reprimanded for such a blatantly erroneous point deduction. Froch got away with numerous punches after the break, to the back of the head, and even a street thug style body slam. His comments after the match were totally delusional and far removed from reality. Froch has mistaken talent and finesse for cowardice. I look forward to seeing Froch meet another world class fighter outside of his bias venue. Andre Dirrell is a true champion who has his best days ahead of him.
by Maurice Blanco on Oct 18, 2009 7:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You guys can agree and disagree. I agree entirely, but Beyoncee still had the best video of the year.
"Penelosa is not human." -Max Kellerman on Gerry Penelosa during the Juan Manuel Lopes-Gerry Penelosa bout.
by Sickle on Oct 18, 2009 10:16 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
All time! All time!
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
by jrok on Oct 18, 2009 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
rec’d
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
by BrianBrock on Oct 19, 2009 6:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a Froch fan but Dirrell won that fight without a shadow of a doubt in my opinion. Dirrell is exceptionally talented and fought the right fight, although it did end up being a rather boring fight to watch, especially after the Abraham fight.
by God_is_an_Owl on Oct 19, 2009 7:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
