Carl Froch-Andre Dirrell: The Pre-Fight Report Card

[WESS]

Froch was embarrassed as I said he would be from Dirrell boxing his socks off.

Froch should have had 1-2 points deducted easily. A green fighter like Dirrell had Froch doing everything he could and STILL looked pathetic....

I had it 8-4 for Dirrell.... Clean punches all night from Dirrell. Froch landed more punches to the back of the head than anything else. Maybe an elbow or two...

There was times that it was such an ugly performance of punching from Froch that I thought I was watching Joe Calzaghe in there. It was pathetic...

[Carlisle]

Like I said before the fight Froch is garbage

Like I said before the fight and I will say it again Frochs skills are limited and his style is weak. Last night was a clear example of what happens when a fighters skills are limited and being outclassed by his opponent in his home town. Froch is garbage.

Taylor couldn't hurt him despite landing loads of clean power punches. He dropped him, but he wasn't even dazed. Whereas when he did the same to Pavlik, Pavlik could barely stand up.

Wanna bet 20k on tonight's fight? If you're so sure about his style being weak, how about backing up your opinion with some points.

[Dave Rado]

were you proud of that? Dirrell boxed circles around that kid.. Told u Frochs skills were limited

I've never defended his skills. You were attacking his style, not his skills. His style isn't his problem. And despite being limited, he beat Dirrell, albeit narrowly. It could have gone either way, but it definitely wasn't a robbery. And the judges were all from neutral countries, they just scored it how they saw it.

Dirrell was far too negative for anyone to pretend he was boxing circles round anyone - he out and out ran for most of the 12 rounds. Aggression is one of the four criteria that judges have to use when scoring a fight - and it's the second most important of the four - and that's mostly why he lost: that and the fact that the few really strong punches that landed almost all came from Froch, and effective punching is also a criteria used in the scoring. Dirrell landed at the most two really effective punches in the entire fight.

[Carlisle]

There is a reason why the fight was called controversial and the majority
of this forum and the media are saying Dirrell was robbed. You are defending Froch because you didn't have the knowledge to see that Frochs skills and style were limited going into this fight. We know you are wrong and you know you were wrong and now your just trying to save face. Froch will continue to get exposed during this tournament and you will continue to look like an idiot for trying to defend him. What you need to do is stop trying to convince us you know anything about boxing because it's obvious you don't.

I've never defended his skills. You were attacking his style, not his skills. His style isn't his problem. And despite being limited, he beat Dirrell, albeit narrowly. It could have gone either way, but it definitely wasn't a robbery. And the judges were all from neutral countries, they just scored it how they saw it.

Dirrell was far too negative for anyone to pretend he was boxing circles round anyone - he out and out ran for most of the 12 rounds. Aggression is one of the four criteria that judges have to use when scoring a fight - and it's the second most important of the four - and that's mostly why he lost: that and the fact that the few really strong punches that landed almost all came from Froch, and effective punching is also a criteria used in the scoring. Dirrell landed at the most two really effective punches in the entire fight.

[Dave Rado]

There is a reason why the fight was called controversial and the majority
of this forum and the media are saying Dirrell was robbed. You are defending Froch because you didn't have the knowledge to see that Frochs skills and style were limited going into this fight. We know you are wrong and you know you were wrong and now your just trying to save face. Froch will continue to get exposed during this tournament and you will continue to look like an idiot for trying to defend him. What you need to do is stop trying to convince us you know anything about boxing because it's obvious you don't.

If you can show me the post in which I said his skills were not limited, I'll donate all my points to you. Yet again you're demonstrating that you can't read.

All I was arguing with you about was whether the fact he keeps his hands low is a big problem for him. And there isn't a single fight report that said that that was a key problem for him in the Dirrell fight. So you've been proved wrong.

And only a biased idiot would call it a robbery. Boxingscene's fight report scored it by one round to Dirrell. It was very close, in the opinion of almost every boxing expert, and no very close fight can ever be called a robbery. It was controversial, but it was less controversial than Pac-JMM II, which was also not a robbery. A robbery is when one fighter clearly wins by a wide margin and yet fails to get the decision.

Boxing is not scored on the basis of who is more skilled or who is the more aesthetically pleasing - those are not even criteria that are taken into account. It is scored on 1) clean and effective punches, 2) aggression, 3) defence, and 4) ring generalship - in that order of priority. Dirrell landed more clean punches, but the ones Froch landed were more effective. Froch showed far more aggression. If Dirrell had only showed a bit more aggression instead of running like a scared rabbit for most of the rounds, he'd have won. All it needed was for him to win a couple more of the close rounds, and he'd have got the decision on the cards. Hopefully, he'll learn from that. The judges gave more weight to aggression than you did, but that's their right. Aggression is one of the key criteria that they're supposed to judge on, and some judges give more weight to it than others do. And to run away like a frightened rabbit for most of the rounds the way Dirrell did is no way to win a world title.

A case can be made that Dirrell deserved to win, but that doesn't mean he did win. It's a subjective decision, the fight was very close, and it all comes down to how much weight the judges give to effective (as opposed to just clean) punches, and to aggression. The judges were all from neutral countries, and so was the ref, so I don't see how you can claim they were biased. Whereas you are biased, because you're allowing the fact that you don't like his style to influence how you score the fight. Style is not a criteria in the scoring of fights.

I've always said that Froch would lose to Kessler and Abraham. Dirrell just blew it by using a bad game plan.

As for the idea that I would try to convince you of anything, when you can't even read, and you don't know the rules about how fights are scored, that's just ridiculous.

[S A M U R A I]

There was times that it was such an ugly performance of punching from Froch that I thought I was watching Joe Calzaghe in there. It was pathetic...

Looks at avatar... laughs...



| |

[The_Demon]

froch got beat.end of

[Carlisle]

In your own words you said most experts had Dirrel winning.. So I guess that means your unlike most experts? In other words you are still an idiot who was wrong and you quoting boxing scoring rules isn't going to change the fact that
you were wrong and that you don't know anything about the sport of boxing except what you read and see on tv. You've probably never played sports or picked up a weight to even consider yourself an athlete so you get kicks off insulting people in boxing forums and chat rooms. I train at Main Boxing gym in Houston Texas. If you really want to learn I can personally show your ***** ass what boxing is really about.. Silly boy.

If you can show me the post in which I said his skills were not limited, I'll donate all my points to you. Yet again you're demonstrating that you can't read.

All I was arguing with you about was whether the fact he keeps his hands low is a big problem for him. And there isn't a single fight report that said that that was a key problem for him in the Dirrell fight. So you've been proved wrong.

And only a biased idiot would call it a robbery. Boxingscene's fight report scored it by one round to Dirrell. It was very close, in the opinion of almost every boxing expert, and no very close fight can ever be called a robbery. It was controversial, but it was less controversial than Pac-JMM II, which was also not a robbery. A robbery is when one fighter clearly wins by a wide margin and yet fails to get the decision.

Boxing is not scored on the basis of who is more skilled or who is the more aesthetically pleasing - those are not even criteria that are taken into account. It is scored on 1) clean and effective punches, 2) aggression, 3) defence, and 4) ring generalship - in that order of priority. Dirrell landed more clean punches, but the ones Froch landed were more effective. Froch showed far more aggression. If Dirrell had only showed a bit more aggression instead of running like a scared rabbit for most of the rounds, he'd have won. All it needed was for him to win a couple more of the close rounds, and he'd have got the decision on the cards. Hopefully, he'll learn from that. The judges gave more weight to aggression than you did, but that's their right. Aggression is one of the key criteria that they're supposed to judge on, and some judges give more weight to it than others do. And to run away like a frightened rabbit for most of the rounds the way Dirrell did is no way to win a world title.

A case can be made that Dirrell deserved to win, but that doesn't mean he did win. It's a subjective decision, the fight was very close, and it all comes down to how much weight the judges give to effective (as opposed to just clean) punches, and to aggression. The judges were all from neutral countries, and so was the ref, so I don't see how you can claim they were biased. Whereas you are biased, because you're allowing the fact that you don't like his style to influence how you score the fight. Style is not a criteria in the scoring of fights.

I've always said that Froch would lose to Kessler and Abraham. Dirrell just blew it by using a bad game plan.

As for the idea that I would try to convince you of anything, when you can't even read, and you don't know the rules about how fights are scored, that's just ridiculous.

[Dave Rado]

In your own words you said most experts had Dirrel winning.. So I guess that means your unlike most experts.

I scored it to Dirrell by one round. To call a fight that close a robbery is pathetic childishness. The judges simply scored slightly more for aggression as is their right.

Even Gary Shaw said it was extremely close, and that Dirrell should have been a lot more aggressive, and he did not call it a robbery. Even Dirrell's corner said it was very close. Grow up.

As for who knows about boxing, considering you can't even read, and don't even know the rules of how to score a fight, for you to claim that about anyone other than you is just laughable!

I've had enough of responding to your juvenile posts. End of thread.

[Carlisle]

Froch is weak. Dirrell clearly won. Quote all the scoring rules you want he got his head boxed off.