What constitutes a robbery?

[Crazylegs77]

1) Fight not even close
2) Robbed fighter clearly gave it his all
3) Robbed fighter usually non hometown fighter/not favorite to win/reigning champion.
4) Scorecard hard to understand wide margins.


Now with Froch Dirrell

we have
1) Close fight
2) Dirrell did not look as if he gave it his best effort.
3) Dirrell not the hometown fighter
4) Split decision

1 out of 4 for the robbery criteria.

Controversial decision perhaps but not a robbery.

[The Monk]

1) Fight not even close
2) Robbed fighter clearly gave it his all
3) Robbed fighter usually non hometown fighter/not favorite to win/reigning champion.
4) Scorecard hard to understand wide margins.


Now with Froch Dirrell

we have
1) Close fight
2) Dirrell did not look as if he gave it his best effort.
3) Dirrell not the hometown fighter
4) Split decision

1 out of 4 for the robbery criteria.

Controversial decision perhaps but not a robbery.

You forgot the 5th factor; an American loss.

[The Gambler1981]

It was not a close fight, 2-4 are unimportant. Did the guy win that should have won and there is no real case to be made for the guy getting the win that got the win.

I have yet to hear a sound case for Froch actually winning.

[George W Bush]

1) Fight not even close
2) Robbed fighter clearly gave it his all
3) Robbed fighter usually non hometown fighter/not favorite to win/reigning champion.
4) Scorecard hard to understand wide margins.


Now with Froch Dirrell

we have
1) Close fight
2) Dirrell did not look as if he gave it his best effort.
3) Dirrell not the hometown fighter
4) Split decision

1 out of 4 for the robbery criteria.

Controversial decision perhaps but not a robbery.

No here's how you know if it's a robbery:

1. Would the fighter have been given the decision, and praised for being a defensive genius, if his name was PBF?

[Pullcounter]

1) Fight not even close
2) Robbed fighter clearly gave it his all
3) Robbed fighter usually non hometown fighter/not favorite to win/reigning champion.
4) Scorecard hard to understand wide margins.


Now with Froch Dirrell

we have
1) Close fight
2) Dirrell did not look as if he gave it his best effort.
3) Dirrell not the hometown fighter
4) Split decision

1 out of 4 for the robbery criteria.

Controversial decision perhaps but not a robbery.

lolz.... dirrell/Crotch wasn't close... 8-4 Dirrell!!!!

[Dirk Diggler UK]

A robbery is when someone dominates a fight and then gets ripped off.

Like when the Yanks robbed Lennox.

[NakiFan]

Monk had it right.

the yank lost, clearly it was a roberry

[jrosales13]

lolz.... dirrell/Crotch wasn't close... 8-4 Dirrell!!!!

So in your own opinion Froch could not possibly have won more then 4rds? Not even a case could be made that he won more then 4rds?

[The_Demon]

lolz.... dirrell/Crotch wasn't close... 8-4 Dirrell!!!!

thats being generous too froch aswell pull

[S.G.]

1) the fight wasn't close, 2) it's insulting to insinuate Dirrell didn't give it his all just because he opts to box defensively rather than laying it all on the line, 3) yeah, 4) 115-112 to Froch - yeah ****in' right!