Carl Froch is FINISHED!

[SteveDow]

Crusader: Of course this is how is should be but this is boxing. How many times have we seen a champion get the benefit of the doubt in a close fight, particularly when they are at home?? Everybody knows that this is an unwritten rule in boxing and challengers have to be prepared to go beyond just doing enough to circumvent this judging tendency.

Steve its not 'a challenger has to do more' its 'a fighter fighting another promoters fighter has to do more'. Its corruption plain and simple, nearly every fan had it to Dirrell, which makes it a massive robbery, there isnt even a case for Froch winning 6 rounds which he needed to do. Dirrell edged most of the first 6 (if not all), fought some close middle rounds (Froch won some here) and outfought/boxed Froch down the stretch. It was as clear as day

Totally disagree with you that the fight was as clear as day. Most of the rounds had so little activity that it came down to what type of fighting style the judges prefer. The choice was i) between Froch's come forward style which, while ineffective in that he didn't land much, would have been given credit by some judges for aggression; and ii) between Dirrells elusive slick style which occasionally caught and confused Froch but certainly didn't dominate any round and given that Dirrell ran for large parts of the fight would come across as too negative for many judges.

In this case the judges chose Froch. On another day they would choose Dirrell. To say that this fight was clear as day is ridiculous.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

direll is very negative, but tellingly the only person who was hurt during the fight was carl, his legs blatantly went after eating a huge left hook.

dirrell has some power, he needs to sit down on his shots more

i thought dirrell was hurt briefly in one of the middle rds.

forget what shot it was now.

definitely troubled him anyway.

froch was more hurt in the 10th no doubt.

Thought it was the 11th...

[stujones]

Dirrells footwork was more of a problem for Froch IMO. Kessler has quick hands, and I thought Abraham looked quicker today at Super Middle.

[Horse]

Here we go again slagging off another British fighter it's you people who should be ashamed. How the hell should you be expected to win the WBC belt by acting up like Dirrell did for 12 rounds? In flashes he was great, for the majority of the time he spent the fight holding, play acting and trying to con the ref. That's not how a belt should be won so it's his own tough sh** for ruining it for himself. He didn't want to box. Froch may get beat of kessler but for gods sake calling him a fraud and slagging him off already you lot are pathetic. I personally want my WBC champions to want to box, want to fight and be warriors. Not behaving like little scorned schoolboys like dirrell did. He has the ability to be a champion but he rightly did not win tonight by the way he ran and spoiled and hopefully learnt his lesson. But hey, don't let that stop you jumping on the slag a British fighter bangwagon eh? Zzzzzzzz

I agree. It makes me sick to see so many British posters slagging off Carl Froch after his close decision win.

[crusader]

direll is very negative, but tellingly the only person who was hurt during the fight was carl, his legs blatantly went after eating a huge left hook.

dirrell has some power, he needs to sit down on his shots more

i thought dirrell was hurt briefly in one of the middle rds.

forget what shot it was now.

definitely troubled him anyway.

froch was more hurt in the 10th no doubt.

Thought it was the 11th...

10th or 11th, he was also stunned in the round after that if I recall.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Crusader: Of course this is how is should be but this is boxing. How many times have we seen a champion get the benefit of the doubt in a close fight, particularly when they are at home?? Everybody knows that this is an unwritten rule in boxing and challengers have to be prepared to go beyond just doing enough to circumvent this judging tendency.

Steve its not 'a challenger has to do more' its 'a fighter fighting another promoters fighter has to do more'. Its corruption plain and simple, nearly every fan had it to Dirrell, which makes it a massive robbery, there isnt even a case for Froch winning 6 rounds which he needed to do. Dirrell edged most of the first 6 (if not all), fought some close middle rounds (Froch won some here) and outfought/boxed Froch down the stretch. It was as clear as day

Totally disagree with you that the fight was as clear as day. Most of the rounds had so little activity that it came down to what type of fighting style the judges prefer. The choice was i) between Froch's come forward style which, while ineffective in that he didn't land much, would have been given credit by some judges for aggression; and ii) between Dirrells elusive slick style which occasionally caught and confused Froch but certainly didn't dominate any round and given that Dirrell ran for large parts of the fight would come across as too negative for many judges.

In this case the judges chose Froch. On another day they would choose Dirrell. To say that this fight was clear as day is ridiculous.

Listen mate just look who landed more punches to the face, Dirrell was probably outscoring him 3-1 in allot of rounds, if Froch really hurts him or outlands him, then fair play give him the round ( think there was about 1 of those) but other than that Froch was missing his punches, Dirrell was landing his punches. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

BTW if you score on aggressive it has to be EFFECTIVE aggression

[jBacca]

Crusader: Of course this is how is should be but this is boxing. How many times have we seen a champion get the benefit of the doubt in a close fight, particularly when they are at home?? Everybody knows that this is an unwritten rule in boxing and challengers have to be prepared to go beyond just doing enough to circumvent this judging tendency.

Steve its not 'a challenger has to do more' its 'a fighter fighting another promoters fighter has to do more'. Its corruption plain and simple, nearly every fan had it to Dirrell, which makes it a massive robbery, there isnt even a case for Froch winning 6 rounds which he needed to do. Dirrell edged most of the first 6 (if not all), fought some close middle rounds (Froch won some here) and outfought/boxed Froch down the stretch. It was as clear as day

Totally disagree with you that the fight was as clear as day. Most of the rounds had so little activity that it came down to what type of fighting style the judges prefer. The choice was i) between Froch's come forward style which, while ineffective in that he didn't land much, would have been given credit by some judges for aggression; and ii) between Dirrells elusive slick style which occasionally caught and confused Froch but certainly didn't dominate any round and given that Dirrell ran for large parts of the fight would come across as too negative for many judges.

In this case the judges chose Froch. On another day they would choose Dirrell. To say that this fight was clear as day is ridiculous.

The first 2, maybe 3 rounds had little activity.

So you have to decide between the come-forward approach of Froch, who ultimately landed about 20 shots in the fight...

.. or the elusive, negative style of Dirrell, who happened to land quite a few times and appeared to hurt Froch on a couple of occasions.

[stujones]

Steve - sorry, fight was clear as day. I thought the last 5 rounds were beyond dispute all for Dirrell... one had a point deduction.

So for Froch to win by the margins he did... well he couldn't have. Don't forget the judges didn't give it to him by 1 point!

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Steve - sorry, fight was clear as day. I thought the last 5 rounds were beyond dispute all for Dirrell... one had a point deduction.

So for Froch to win by the margins he did... well he couldn't have. Don't forget the judges didn't give it to him by 1 point!

I think I had most of the first 6 to Dirrell, 7-10 shared (give them to Froch if you want), 11-12 Dirrell rounds

[joe3030]

Lets face it Froch was lucky to get this dec. He can only improve from here. He is still capable of still winning this though. Kessler and Abraham the two most dangerous guys in the tourny do not have the speed of Dirrell.

I doubt any of his opponents are writing Froch off after this fight so why should we be ?

[SteveDow]

Guys, it is all a matter of opinion. The way you are analysing the fight you would think that Dirrell put on a Calzaghe performance against Lacy or something!! The fact is that the rounds had very little activity in them. Often shots from both fighters did not land cleanly and there is no doubt in my mind that Dirrells tactics of constantly running did him no favours. As I said earlier, and as you would know if you watched boxing as regularly as I do, judges look for different qualities in a fighter. Some judges will give a fighter a round just for pressing the action even if he hardly lands anything and will penalise a fighter for running. This is a reality.

[chesh]

Crusader: Of course this is how is should be but this is boxing. How many times have we seen a champion get the benefit of the doubt in a close fight, particularly when they are at home?? Everybody knows that this is an unwritten rule in boxing and challengers have to be prepared to go beyond just doing enough to circumvent this judging tendency.

Steve its not 'a challenger has to do more' its 'a fighter fighting another promoters fighter has to do more'. Its corruption plain and simple, nearly every fan had it to Dirrell, which makes it a massive robbery, there isnt even a case for Froch winning 6 rounds which he needed to do. Dirrell edged most of the first 6 (if not all), fought some close middle rounds (Froch won some here) and outfought/boxed Froch down the stretch. It was as clear as day

Totally disagree with you that the fight was as clear as day. Most of the rounds had so little activity that it came down to what type of fighting style the judges prefer. The choice was i) between Froch's come forward style which, while ineffective in that he didn't land much, would have been given credit by some judges for aggression; and ii) between Dirrells elusive slick style which occasionally caught and confused Froch but certainly didn't dominate any round and given that Dirrell ran for large parts of the fight would come across as too negative for many judges.

In this case the judges chose Froch. On another day they would choose Dirrell. To say that this fight was clear as day is ridiculous.

My thoughts exactly. I was expecting a draw at the end, so a split decision didn't surprise me at all. Dirrell was a bit hurt just about every time he was hit (which, admittedly, wasn't often). That's why he held each time and was, finally, deducted a point.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Guys, it is all a matter of opinion. The way you are analysing the fight you would think that Dirrell put on a Calzaghe performance against Lacy or something!! The fact is that the rounds had very little activity in them. Often shots from both fighters did not land cleanly and there is no doubt in my mind that Dirrells tactics of constantly running did him no favours. As I said earlier, and as you would know if you watched boxing as regularly as I do, judges look for different qualities in a fighter. Some judges will give a fighter a round just for pressing the action even if he hardly lands anything and will penalise a fighter for running. This is a reality.

Its not a matter of opinion Dirrell outlanded him by 3-1 or 2-1 or whatever it was, walking forward and getting punched in the face is not a valid criteria for winning a round/fight, unless your Froch's mum/girlfriend, and if they were the judges I forgive them

[Datsue]

Guys, it is all a matter of opinion. The way you are analysing the fight you would think that Dirrell put on a Calzaghe performance against Lacy or something!! The fact is that the rounds had very little activity in them. Often shots from both fighters did not land cleanly and there is no doubt in my mind that Dirrells tactics of constantly running did him no favours. As I said earlier, and as you would know if you watched boxing as regularly as I do, judges look for different qualities in a fighter. Some judges will give a fighter a round just for pressing the action even if he hardly lands anything and will penalise a fighter for running. This is a reality.

Also reality: if you land five shots a round & your opponent lands zero, you deserve to win that round no matter how much backpedaling you do.

[crusader]

I didn't think Dirrell was hurt. His legs were always there, he just doesnt like to fight on the inside, and thus the holding. Froch was hurt worse in the 11th than Dirrell was at anytime. The majority of Frochs connects came in the clinch, Dirrell was landing the cleaner punches, harder punches, and put on a defensive clinic. Wether he was entertaining or not is irrelevant. This is boxing, it incorporates a wide variety of skills that fighters use to their advantage. Dirrell just happened to have superior hand/foot speed and boxing ability, so why on earth trade wiith Froch?

[SteveDow]

Guys, why don't you back your arguments up with some statistics to show that Dirrell landed 5 times more punches as you say?? Until then I cannot take what you say seriously.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Guys, why don't you back your arguments up with some statistics to show that Dirrell landed 5 times more punches as you say?? Until then I cannot take what you say seriously.

Watch the fight and count yourself, Froch barely landed a punch in a few rounds, if yo udont think Froch was massively outlanded your either biased, blind or perhaps intoxicated, the latter being forgivable

[SteveDow]

Guys, why don't you back your arguments up with some statistics to show that Dirrell landed 5 times more punches as you say?? Until then I cannot take what you say seriously.

Watch the fight and count yourself, Froch barely landed a punch in a few rounds

I did watch the fight and I believe that my analysis was totally correct. The rounds were very inactive, very few clean shots landed and the choice was between Froch's aggression and Dirrell's slick skills. To suggest that a fight this uneventful was won by a clear margin is ridiculous.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Guys, why don't you back your arguments up with some statistics to show that Dirrell landed 5 times more punches as you say?? Until then I cannot take what you say seriously.

Watch the fight and count yourself, Froch barely landed a punch in a few rounds

I did watch the fight and I believe that my analysis was totally correct. The rounds were very inactive, very few clean shots landed and the choice was between Froch's aggression and Dirrell's slick skills. To suggest that a fight this uneventful was won by a clear margin is ridiculous.

Just look at who scored the more clean punches in each of the 'uneventfull rounds' and you'll see it massively favours Direll. You have to score each round and you should score to the man who 'lands clean effective punches' in said round. There was very few rounds Froch did more

[Deserter]

Having not seen the fight and having to go by the testimony of posters here, as a massive Froch fan I'm gutted by two particular things:

1) It was pretty unanimous on here before the fight that he needed to jump on Dirrell from the 'get-go' and that's not some incredible insight from us, it was just common sense. So I'm struggling to understand why he didn't even attempt to do that.

2) I remember as far back as the Adamu fight most of us saying needed to bring the left hand up as he didn't have the reflexes to carry off that style. Some close to him argued that he'd either be able to get away with it at world level or would tighten up accordingly as he moved up, but clearly neither has happened.

I guess what I'm gutted about is that there's zero evidence that he's learnt from the Pascal and Taylor fights. The latter in particular should have acted as perfect prep for the Dirrell bout, but it seems as if any 'learning curvel has gone straight out of the window.

I'm really looking foward to seeing what he and his camp have to say in the wake of this one...

[banjo]

Oh my word, he gets a gift against a COMPLETE NOBODY

[Ted]

Lets be honest, froch is not as good as we hoped. sure his first fights were good ko wins, but questions were asked after fighting Magee a few years ago - he scored very easily against froch, and all bar the ko victory Magee would have ran it close.

But we all thought that frochs talent extended to an almost unshakable belief that he could ko his opponents when he needed to, AND HE WAS STILL ON A LEARNING CURVE.

And so he fights the talented pascal and proves us right on the first point - he doesnt move, although he didnt need a ko win - the fact remained he gets hit and rarely moves. Then he fights the multi-talented taylor, who boxes him round the ring for 12 rounds, but as we thought of froch we knew he would ko him as he tires - one would think he left it late though, i mean the 12th round? Was froch as good at his gameplan to pull off this ko? questions remained.

Until last night. Froch against a fast opponent struggles, maybe a ko will happen, can he do it, NO. Judges scored it and although Dirrell didnt do enough to take the belt off froch IMO,

Frochs a great fighter - but kessler and abraham would beat him (although i hope he never has to fight in germany).

I gotta say it but i think calzaghe would do an almost lacy-esq shut out job on froch.

He's too fast and moves all night long.

For froch in the future, i hope he eithers learns quickly from his mistakes or fights a lower grade opponent, heck they all do it.

Respect though that hes doing it the hard way.

[Finn]

and to think how many posters on this site were saying Froch could take Calzaghe ha ha ha

It would have been another calzaghe v lacy night.

Kessler v AA final in my opinion.

[Carbo]

Froch's problem isn't so much that he carries the left low, it's that the right is low, too. In fact, when he jabs, the right goes back well behind his head. It's genuinely awful technique, and some of us, despite loving Froch's will to take on all comers, the thrills he provides in the ring, and the sheer balls of the guy, haven't been intoxicated completely, as I believe some have here.

I've been saying for ages that he'd be found out at world level, and the last two fights have shown this.

He's won them both, but Taylor was winning handily and gave him all kinds of trouble -- cracking the so-called granite chin, and wobbling him on several other occassions -- before basically running out of gas. Of course styles makes fights, but Abraham dealt with Taylor far more comfortably that Froch. For Carl, it was life and death, for Abraham it was another day at the office.

I think this all reflects very poorly on Robert McCracken who either can't train good technique, or doesn't know how to get his fighter to listen. I remember during the Taylor fight he was telling Froch to hold his right across his face if he wanted to hold his left low, and Carl just did nothing.

I think Robert needs to sit down with Carl and spell out a few home truths in the most forceful way imaginable, because Froch is going to need wholesale changes if he's going to stand a chance of furthering his career at this level. Like I said before the fight "he might squeak past Dirrell but he hasn't got a chance against Kessler and Abraham." And, in fact, I think he'll be knocked out in at least one.

PS: Any links to the fight yet?

[Bennyblanco]

carl won tonight against what could turn out to be the best fighter in the tournament,give the guy a chance!

Dirrell didnt want to fight last night, every time froch went in dirrell either ran off or gave carl a big hug then went to his knees. granted froch should have gone for it when he had dirrell in the corners. Im a big boxing and froch fan but last night was a big anti climax. if anybody should be getting stick it should be dirrell for his anti - boxing tactics, the sad thing is dirrell could have easily won this if he made the effort.