Carl Froch is FINISHED!

mickey1975 · Post by **mickey1975** » 18 Oct 2009, 09:54

but his tactics DID work last night.to any nuetral,dirrell won it handily.the lads on here,even the ones who like froch largely scored for dirrell.he even outpunched and rocked "granite chin".

Pat Butcher · Post by **Pat Butcher** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:04

From where I was sat I thought Froch got a lucky decision but a lot of the rounds were very close. The 1st was utter shite. Dirrell was negative but in the later rounds I had him winning and think Froch needed to up his work rate.

Could do with watching it again on the telly while sober.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:12

opticald wrote:You are using other peoples testimony to form an opinion. You haven't even watched Holyfield Valuev yourself. Mate, are you intentionally being thick here or can you genuinely not see the point being made? Can you not the the absolute ridiculous idea that you can comment on fights without seeing them and then say "well other people thought it was fair" as a way to strengthen your position?

What about my previous statement was ambiguous?
I will say it again one final time in a bit to get clarity. I have never voiced my own opinion on who won out of Holyfield vs Valuev because I haven't watched the fight. What I have said, is that there are differing opinions over the verdict. That is a factual statement. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for using other people's testimony to form an opinion, as my previous post pointed out, every single one of us do it in our everyday lives in all manner of contexts. If, for example, a poster on here had said Dirrell had been awful in training and had been dropped on numerous occasions by very average sparring partners, you, and many others on here, would allow that to influence your opinion of how the Froch fight might play out if you trusted that poster.
As a betting man, I'm sure you go through this process on a regular basis - the fact you woiuldn't have witnessed the incident first-hand wouldn't lead you to discarding the opinion out of hand, if you're completely honest.

lowersmiths · Post by **lowersmiths** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:21

lowersmiths · Post by **lowersmiths** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:25

Lowersmiths, in answer to your reasonable question, I have a really simple answer:
All of us, without exception, will at times form opinion based on third party information - newspaper readers do it every single day. You know that only too well.
The determining factor when forming those opinions are whether the sources are reliable ones. In terms of this forum, I trust and believe in the reports I hear from the majority of posters on here. And if there is a scenario like this morning where pretty much 100% of posters are saying that Carl started tentatively and got tagged because of his hands-down style, then call me crazy, but I'll tend to believe them.
Surely as a fellow expat who suffers a similar lack of access to live fights you are forced on occasion to form views of a fight based on second-hand knowledge, whether that comes in the printed form like Boxing News and Boxing Monthly, or through digital content like http://www.fightnews.com and this forum?
I should also add that I prefaced the whole thing by clearly saying that I was going by the testimony of posters on this site, so I fail to see what the whole drama is?

couldn't you download it onto your kindle

opticald · Post by **opticald** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:29

Deserter wrote:
opticald wrote:You are using other peoples testimony to form an opinion. You haven't even watched Holyfield Valuev yourself. Mate, are you intentionally being thick here or can you genuinely not see the point being made? Can you not the the absolute ridiculous idea that you can comment on fights without seeing them and then say "well other people thought it was fair" as a way to strengthen your position?
What about my previous statement was ambiguous?
I will say it again one final time in a bit to get clarity. I have never voiced my own opinion on who won out of Holyfield vs Valuev because I haven't watched the fight. What I have said, is that there are differing opinions over the verdict. That is a factual statement. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for using other people's testimony to form an opinion, as my previous post pointed out, every single one of us do it in our everyday lives in all manner of contexts. If, for example, a poster on here had said Dirrell had been awful in training and had been dropped on numerous occasions by very average sparring partners, you, and many others on here, would allow that to influence your opinion of how the Froch fight might play out if you trusted that poster.
As a betting man, I'm sure you go through this process on a regular basis - the fact you woiuldn't have witnessed the incident first-hand wouldn't lead you to discarding the opinion out of hand, if you're completely honest.

Listen.

The discussion was on the merits of Holyfield as an opponent for the Haye vs Valuev winner. YOU had plenty to say on the subject and said Holyfield didn't "deserve" a shot at Haye or Valuev. You formed this opinion on the basis of posts on a forum that said the decision in the Holyield vs valuev fight was fair.

These are facts.

Now, can you not see the lunacy involved in your reasoning in the above instance? You are commenting on the merits of Holyfield without seeing his clear win over Valuev. Your only retort can be, "well, some people on a forum said it was fair, i haven't watched it".

Absolute MUGGERY.

Now we have a topic on Carl Froch. You AGAIN have not see the fight but have PLENTY to say on the subject.

And you expect to be taken seriously on the forum?

Mug.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:40

lowersmiths wrote:do you read movie reviews and then tell people all about the film and your opinion of it?

Why did you post an opaque reply rather than answering my original response? Are you seriously suggesting that you have never formed an opinion on a fight or fighter based on second-hand information? As someone who has professed his love for Boxing News in the past, am I to believe that you read it from cover to cover, but refused to allow the articles in there to sway your view of a fight or fighter in any way, shape or form, because you hadn't watched it yourself? You'll have to excuse me if I find that somewhat hard to believe.

I will, however, indulge your somewhat bizarre question:
I would read reviews and listen to opinions of people who'd seen the film. If those reviewers and viewers unanimously mention that during the course of the film a specific incident happens involving an actor and make it as a factual statement then I would have no problem with repeating that statement as I would have no reason to believe it wasn't the case e.g. "Apparently in Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is involved in a parkour chase scene."

Crucially, this is not the same as claiming I have seen the film myself and offering my verdict on it. Please grasp this important distinction as it is directly relevant to the Froch fight.

opticald · Post by **opticald** » 18 Oct 2009, 10:46

Deserter wrote:
lowersmiths wrote:do you read movie reviews and then tell people all about the film and your opinion of it?
Why did you post an opaque reply rather than answering my original response? Are you seriously suggesting that you have never formed an opinion on a fight or fighter based on second-hand information? As someone who has professed his love for Boxing News in the past, am I to believe that you read it from cover to cover, but refused to allow the articles in there to sway your view of a fight or fighter in any way, shape or form, because you hadn't watched it yourself? You'll have to excuse me if I find that somewhat hard to believe.

I will, however, indulge your somewhat bizarre question:
I would read reviews and listen to opinions of people who'd seen the film. If those reviewers and viewers unanimously mention that during the course of the film a specific incident happens involving an actor and make it as a factual statement then I would have no problem with repeating that statement as I would have no reason to believe it wasn't the case e.g. "Apparently in Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is involved in a parkour chase scene."

Crucially, this is not the same as claiming I have seen the film myself and offering my verdict on it. Please grasp this important distinction as it is directly relevant to the Froch fight.

Mate what you are doing is forming opinions and presenting them based on information that you have recieved from a forum. Take the holyfield example. Surely anybody who watched holyfield outbox Valuev to a clear decision win, only to get robbed, could not question his merit or whether or not he "deserved" to fight DAVID HAYE since Holyfield is the rightful champion of the WBA at this moment in time.

However, your defense to that would be, "Well people on a forum said something different". However, if you watched the actual fight yourself, you would see a clear win for Holyfield.

There is nothing wrong with taking what people say into account. But to base you ENTIRE OPINION on a fight on what other people on a forum say, and then to present arguments on a forum based on what other people say without seeing the fights yourself, is actually an insult to the forum imo.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 18 Oct 2009, 11:04

opticald wrote: Mate what you are doing is forming opinions and presenting them based on information that you have recieved from a forum. Take the holyfield example. Surely anybody who watched holyfield outbox Valuev to a clear decision win, only to get robbed, could not question his merit or whether or not he "deserved" to fight DAVID HAYE since Holyfield is the rightful champion of the WBA at this moment in time.

However, your defense to that would be, "Well people on a forum said something different". However, if you watched the actual fight yourself, you would see a clear win for Holyfield.

There is nothing wrong with taking what people say into account. But to base you ENTIRE OPINION on a fight on what other people on a forum say, and then to present arguments on a forum based on what other people say without seeing the fights yourself, is actually an insult to the forum imo.

Crucially, we're getting to the crux of the matter. I don't want to dwell on the Holyfield vs Valeuv incident as it's derailing the thread when I'm sure others would prefer to be discussing Froch, but if you'll re-read it you'll see my whole point in that thread was that irrespective of the Holyfield vs Valeuv result it wouldn't change my opinion of Holyfield as being an unworthy challenger to Haye should he win i.e. even if I watched the fight and agreed with you that Holyfield won, I still would not accept he should be first in line to challenge Haye should he win. I'm entitled to my opinion on that, in the same way you are yours.
In a bid to drag it back to the Froch fight, I referred only to two very specific points that crucially no-one including you has argued with. Firstly, he fought tentatively in the opening rounds. Secondly he fought with his hands low. This was directly based on the first-hand statements of those watching the fight live. This is simply not the same as pretending to have an entire opinion on a fight.

opticald · Post by **opticald** » 18 Oct 2009, 11:11

Look mate, if you want to comment on fights you haven't seen thats fair enough. Every fight is subjective to a degree, especially this Froch Dirrell one. It's up to you to comment on fights you haven't seen if thats what you want to talk about. My point to you would be that you might watch the froch dirrell fight and see something different than what you are saying right now without seeing it. Why did Froch start tentatively? Was he unable to come forward? Was he out of ideas? Was he just being careful? Was he hurt early? Why were his hands low? Were they low for the whole fight? Did he bring them up and have a proper defense from time to time? Were they low when he was at distance and high when they were in close?

I can answer these questions because I have seen the fight. I can't answer them conclusively but I can make a much better effort than you can, having not seen the fight and going off comments on a forum.

We will leave it here as it is getting repetitive.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 18 Oct 2009, 11:14

opticald wrote:Look mate, if you want to comment on fights you haven't seen thats fair enough. Every fight is subjective to a degree, especially this Froch Dirrell one. It's up to you to comment on fights you haven't seen if thats what you want to talk about. My point to you would be that you might watch the froch dirrell fight and see something different than what you are saying right now without seeing it. Why did Froch start tentatively? Was he unable to come forward? Was he out of ideas? Was he just being careful? Was he hurt early? Why were his hands low? Were they low for the whole fight? Did he bring them up and have a proper defense from time to time? Were they low when he was at distance and high when they were in close?

I can answer these questions because I have seen the fight. I can't answer them conclusively but I can make a much better effort than you can, having not seen the fight and going off comments on a forum.

We will leave it here as it is getting repetitive.

Fair enough. I'm happy to leave it there as I'm sure it's getting tiresome for everyone and we've both stated our cases.

lowersmiths · Post by **lowersmiths** » 18 Oct 2009, 11:29

Deserter wrote:
lowersmiths wrote:do you read movie reviews and then tell people all about the film and your opinion of it?
Why did you post an opaque reply rather than answering my original response? Are you seriously suggesting that you have never formed an opinion on a fight or fighter based on second-hand information? As someone who has professed his love for Boxing News in the past, am I to believe that you read it from cover to cover, but refused to allow the articles in there to sway your view of a fight or fighter in any way, shape or form, because you hadn't watched it yourself? You'll have to excuse me if I find that somewhat hard to believe.

I will, however, indulge your somewhat bizarre question:
I would read reviews and listen to opinions of people who'd seen the film. If those reviewers and viewers unanimously mention that during the course of the film a specific incident happens involving an actor and make it as a factual statement then I would have no problem with repeating that statement as I would have no reason to believe it wasn't the case e.g. "Apparently in Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is involved in a parkour chase scene."

Crucially, this is not the same as claiming I have seen the film myself and offering my verdict on it. Please grasp this important distinction as it is directly relevant to the Froch fight.

because i was working so didnt have time to write much....plus i deleted it soon after i posted it because you always make me think of kindles :)

as opticald has stated, you are merely regurgitating opinion and then passing it off as quasi-fact, seemingly just so you can talk on the boxrec forum about the hot topic of the day.

you didn't state facts ... ie froch threw a left, dirrell ducked and then came back with a right hook, you stated interpretations of a fight as fact.

it seems a bit crazy to me

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:04

lowersmiths wrote: as opticald has stated, you are merely regurgitating opinion and then passing it off as quasi-fact, seemingly just so you can talk on the boxrec forum about the hot topic of the day.

you didn't state facts ... ie froch threw a left, dirrell ducked and then came back with a right hook, you stated interpretations of a fight as fact.

it seems a bit crazy to me

Quasi-fact

Is it not factual that Froch started tentatively? Is it not factual that Froch carried his hands low again? If not, at what point does it become 'fact'?
And before you leap in with 'when you watch the fight', I'll refer you again for the precedent that sets for any second-hand information you consume, such as a newspaper, for example. Am I unable to refer to Michael Jackson's death as a fact because I only read it in the paper rather than witnessed it?
Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

As for the thinly-veiled dig - I got up at 6.30am this morning and the first thing I did was log onto the RbR thread on Boxrec as I wanted to get a 'feel' for the fight rather than just read a result. As a huge Froch fan, I was reading through the various commentators and getting more and more despondent when reading about the slow start and the porous defence - it's that disappointment that led me to make my post.. I was genuinely gutted that he hadn't appeared to address those two key areas as I desperately wanted him to win, and win in style.
The inference that I did it just so I could be in on the 'hot topic of the day' is pathetic and i'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.

davidas · Post by **davidas** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:15

Some of you lot make me absolutely cringe. You need to rub your egos constantly and try and make a name for yourself by being controversial and then sitting back watching the aftermath.

And even better if its a well liked English fighter - yeay then its Christmas time lets get all the negatives out and pick through them as we type with one hand while acting like the strokers you are with the other.

ourkid1984 · Post by **ourkid1984** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:22

I can't believe how many people think that Dirrell was robbed!

He didn't throw hardly any punches, looked foolish falling over, looked like an amatuer when holding all the time, looked hurt everytime Froch managed to hit him.

He's just trying to fool people with his movement that clearly went in the later rounds and trying to be a poor mans Mayweather or Jones jnr.

Having watched many of Dirrells fights on Youtube, he looks quite aggresive when he knows that he's fighting people who he can easily beat but when he gets into the ring with someone who can easily beat him he goes on a run around the ring, a completely over rated boxer who hasn't got anything apart from speed.

Froch was trying to make a fight of it and must of threw more punches and wouldn't be suprised if he landed more.

I just wonder what people will be saying when Froch fights Kessler

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:22

Froch is always fighting that way with the low left and being so dangly. On world level he's less and less getting away with it and was lucky he had his punch vs Taylor and getting a gift vs Dirrell. He beat Pascal on points legit but Pascal seemed to turn negative after finding Carl so easy to hit. His power was only looking strong when he was beating on domestic guys and super middle has been easy for average euro class europeans to win world titles in.

When a fighter scores more cleaner blows and doesn't foul constant they deserve the win no matter how they fight.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:26

i dont think carl is at all finished. direll has truly exceptional reflexes, he was able to make carl look frankly foolish at times. not many fighters have the speed and reflexes of dirrell, in fact i cannot think of anyone else at 168 for a start.

kessler is flat footed, \and that will suit carl, but i wonder how he will fare against the danes ramrod jab and right hand, froch was hurt by dirrell, and i think kessler and abraham hit hard enough to dent him.

abraham looked sensational against taylor, but then taylor didn't offer much in the way of offensive output at all, he went into a survival shell and didnt fancy it at all.

kessler will have struggles with direll, hes just so damned fast and elusive, but it think the consistency of the danes jab will enable him to keep dirrell honest.

i have concerns about whether this tournament will be seen through, i think taylor will pull out, and are dirrells people going to let him travel to the lions den again.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:32

jamesmcdonnell wrote: i have concerns about whether this tournament will be seen through, i think taylor will pull out, and are dirrells people going to let him travel to the lions den again.

I would be genuinely gutted if that were the case - not just because of this tournament falling apart and therefore some potentially great fights not happening, but even more so because of the precedent it would set.
I'm sure we're all in agreement that we need to see more of this type of 'showdown' across the divisions, but if the first one founders you can kiss goodbye to any others.
Unfortunately though James, I think you're completely right to have those concerns.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:39

nothing else for dirrell out of this tourney. he pulls out, he's fvcked - blacklisted most likely, in most ppl's shit list for 2 extremely negative performances v curtis stephens and froch. no network would touch him.

anyway, it seems that abraham will fight dirrell in america. dirrell gets home advantage.

even if froch was finished, consider this: pre dirrell, he beat 2 guys in super 6 calibre fights, pascal and taylor. you have to wonder if that has taken something out of froch, while t'others were having showcases, mismatches and marking time fights. justa thought.

Finch · Post by **Finch** » 18 Oct 2009, 12:56

I haven't seen the Froch fight but i'll watch the replay later (just catching the end now).

However, by all accounts Froch lost last night to an unproven fighter, he also lost to Taylor so hasn't actually beaten anyone apart from Pascal. (Not sure why he considers himself lb4lb all time great material but hey ho)

I saw Abraham blast Taylor out of there last night, Abraham also outboxed him. I am very very confident that Abraham and Kessler will put two losses on Froch's record over the next year and i CAN'T WAIT to see it!

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 18 Oct 2009, 13:07

froch stopped taylor. how ca you lose to comeone when you stop them with an avalanche of shots?

Finch · Post by **Finch** » 18 Oct 2009, 13:19

Autobarn wrote:froch stopped taylor. how ca you lose to comeone when you stop them with an avalanche of shots?

He got out boxed and bar the last 14 seconds would have lost - FACT. He got lucky against Taylor, it was more a case of Taylor losing it through lack of stamina.

Sounds like he was lucky last night too, but he's going to get bashed in the next two fights.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 18 Oct 2009, 13:34

you and your facts

damianhucker1 · Post by **damianhucker1** » 18 Oct 2009, 13:59

AS I JUST SAID ON THE OTHER THREAD I HAD FROCH 4 ROUNDS UP SO CERTAINLY CAN SEE WHY HE WON , I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT PEOPLE SCORED THE CLOSER ROUNDS DIFFERENT TO ME , IVE ONLY JUST COME ONE HERE AS IVE JUST GOT HOME AND IM SHOCKED TO SEE THE OPINONS ON HERE , YES IT WAS A POOR FIGHT BUT I DIDNT SPEAK TO A SINGLE PERSON IN THE ARENA OR OUTSIDE ETC THAT THOUGH DIRELL WON , NOT ONE . COMPLETELY PUZZLED , EVERYONE WHERE I WAS SAT WAS SHOCKED IT WAS EVEN A SPLIT DECISION AS ALL DIRRELL DID WAS SPOIL .
NOT DEBATING IT OUT WITH ANYONE AS I CAN SEE THAT ON HERE EVERYONE THINKS DIFFERENTLY TO ME BUT IM REALLY SURPRISED .

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 18 Oct 2009, 14:10

Even though Froch lost by 2-3 rounds, I could see why people in the cheap seats in the arena may have scored it differently...

1) It could have looked from a distance like Froch's shots were landing, when in fact Dirrel made him miss 90 percent of the time
2) Everyone was probably drunk
3) The crowd were obviously behind the hometown man. When you are biased you see things differently.... You also convince yourself your man is winning
4) I suspect the average Froch fan doesn't watch much boxing, so probably arent the best at scoring fights.

Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Froch: the most disappointing things for me

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Froch: the most disappointing things for me

Re: Froch: the most disappointing things for me

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!

Re: Carl Froch is FINISHED!