I have no idea why you felt the need to make that post. I felt degale won, comfortably. But I left my scorecard in my bedside draw. Shame on me. Next time I do that I'll not watch the fight.Datsue wrote:
So... You didn't score it, but you did. & you agree DeGale won by two points, & by eight.
Well done.
Surely in your preparations for a big fight, you would put in some preparation for times when you have to let all your shots go and be able to recover if you dont get the guy out of there...even when I was boxing in the 70s/80s we did this, so I am sure with the science they have now they can do it better?Finn wrote:Lets not forget in the second round that degale took a bit of a pasting before he dug deep and turned it around. That was bound to affect his out put later in the fight. It looked at one point in that round that Dirrell was going to steam roll him.
Broomhall wrote:Surely in your preparations for a big fight, you would put in some preparation for times when you have to let all your shots go and be able to recover if you dont get the guy out of there...even when I was boxing in the 70s/80s we did this, so I am sure with the science they have now they can do it better?Finn wrote:Lets not forget in the second round that degale took a bit of a pasting before he dug deep and turned it around. That was bound to affect his out put later in the fight. It looked at one point in that round that Dirrell was going to steam roll him.
I have seen Degale switch off many times in fights, and I used to put it down to his injury preventing his training properly-I am glad he won, and I did think he woud win it, but Eubank had a problem with this in his career when big attacks would leave him gasping. So I think it is something he needs to address.
Worth pointing out without the 10/7 round in two he would have lost a majority decision.
I'm sure his tactics would have been different if it was not a 10-7. Can sometimes be difficult to know how to go from that.Broomhall wrote:Surely in your preparations for a big fight, you would put in some preparation for times when you have to let all your shots go and be able to recover if you dont get the guy out of there...even when I was boxing in the 70s/80s we did this, so I am sure with the science they have now they can do it better?Finn wrote:Lets not forget in the second round that degale took a bit of a pasting before he dug deep and turned it around. That was bound to affect his out put later in the fight. It looked at one point in that round that Dirrell was going to steam roll him.
I have seen Degale switch off many times in fights, and I used to put it down to his injury preventing his training properly-I am glad he won, and I did think he woud win it, but Eubank had a problem with this in his career when big attacks would leave him gasping. So I think it is something he needs to address.
Worth pointing out with the 10/7 round in two he would have lost a majority decision.
It's like when people look up at the summit of Everest, or the vast lonely expanse of the sea.Kingfield wrote: I have no idea why you felt the need to make that post.
No what goes against you-- & why I was laughing--was the way you mangle syntax & the fact you keep contradicting yourself. What makes it even funnier is that you're so knee-jerk defensive.I also made a cup of tea in round 7, guess that goes against me too.
Yep I agree but i think we underestimated dirrells recovery power he changed his tactics at mid point. Degale is still learning and is a world champ now! He can get better fair play to him for grinding it out but he should've boxed morepalooka wrote:I thought he'd blown it, that he'd got into a lead and was doing well and then he just didn't do enough, it ended up a very close contest.
On-topic: I thought DeGale edged it, but that Canadian judge was in La-La Land. The other two scores were spot on.palooka wrote:I thought he'd blown it, that he'd got into a lead and was doing well and then he just didn't do enough, it ended up a very close contest.
I was impressed with Dirrell, he wanted it and came back into the bout after being hurt, dropped and when both were tired - he isn't a front runner, he really wanted it.ThereByTheGrace wrote:Yep I agree but i think we underestimated dirrells recovery power he changed his tactics at mid point. Degale is still learning and is a world champ now! He can get better fair play to him for grinding it out but he should've boxed morepalooka wrote:I thought he'd blown it, that he'd got into a lead and was doing well and then he just didn't do enough, it ended up a very close contest.
I agree, I had reservations about it, thought it'd be a maul but both are excellent fighters and both did themselves proud ( though I honestly thought DeGale was going to fiddle his way to a points loss, he lost some urgency, he was maybe a nhit too tense).ThereByTheGrace wrote:I would happily watch a rematch palooka as that was an entertaining fight. Both had their moments and degale deserved the win!
these honest interviews have helped to change peoples opiniins on him. A lot of people would have just said the Canadian judge was right not the others!Finn wrote:Just saw an interview with degale post fight and he said he coasted in the middle rounds because he though he was well ahead and didn't want to take to many risks, he also said psychologically he was worried that he might gas if he kept pressing, but he still had slot left in the tank so he thinks he should have more confidence in his fitness. He said he was told in the 12 that he needed to win the round or it would be even and he was surprised because he hadn't realised he's given that many rounds away.
Pretty honest interview.
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/9 ... -by-future
Whilst that's all true, when it comes to taking half the fight off DeGale has plenty of form. Previously it's been put down to injuries/wanting to get rounds under his belt etc...but to then do it in a world title fight? I suspect it'll continue to be a recurring issue for him.Datsue wrote:
All the talk of McDonnell-centric "fading" seems off to me. Many a time some dude in an evenly-matched fight gets an early knockdown & gets carried away looking for the finisher while the other guy claws his way back. Seemed at least partly one of those, to me. & once momentum shifts & you've expended 3000 calories trying for the big finish & loading up huge single shots that miss, anyone's likely to have it put on them.
Boxerbeetle wrote:Whilst that's all true, when it comes to taking half the fight off DeGale has plenty of form. Previously it's been put down to injuries/wanting to get rounds under his belt etc...but to then do it in a world title fight? I suspect it'll continue to be a recurring issue for him.Datsue wrote:
All the talk of McDonnell-centric "fading" seems off to me. Many a time some dude in an evenly-matched fight gets an early knockdown & gets carried away looking for the finisher while the other guy claws his way back. Seemed at least partly one of those, to me. & once momentum shifts & you've expended 3000 calories trying for the big finish & loading up huge single shots that miss, anyone's likely to have it put on them.
So did most people on this forum.Kingfield wrote:Semantics. They all had him winning. As did I.
It's kind of like you don't know what you're talking about.Kingfield wrote:he had it won easy. put dirrell down twice, dominated him, was quicker and landed the much bigger punches.
you are all so negative.
I don't think so, Froch isn't a massive puncher, Groves hasn't got a good chin, Bute didn't get knocked out he was on his feet when the ref stopped it. The reason for him being negative was because he didn't have a fighters heart and he wanted to win on the back foot running all night.Horse wrote:Froch would have knocked him out if he was more aggressive. There's often a reason for it when fighters are being negative.digzee wrote:Yeah he's world class and put on a better performance tonight then he did against Froch, if he actually took the fight to Froch as he did tonight in the middle rounds he would've beaten Froch that night.
Well done James.
DeGale isn't a massive puncher, but he probably could have got Dirrell out of there if he'd actually done something in the third round.digzee wrote:I don't think so, Froch isn't a massive puncher, Groves hasn't got a good chin, Bute didn't get knocked out he was on his feet when the ref stopped it. The reason for him being negative was because he didn't have a fighters heart and he wanted to win on the back foot running all night.
Much like when you post your p4p lists.Horse wrote:So did most people on this forum.Kingfield wrote:Semantics. They all had him winning. As did I.
Why did you feel the need to write this nonsense?
It's kind of like you don't know what you're talking about.Kingfield wrote:he had it won easy. put dirrell down twice, dominated him, was quicker and landed the much bigger punches.
you are all so negative.
Stop digging.Kingfield wrote:Much like when you post your p4p lists.
I don't think he does have a stamina issue, I think he just lacks in confidence from gassing in the past when he did have issues.95gerog wrote:That was a flick of the coin for me, but I'm delighted degale got it. However, he definitely made it a nervy watch in the middle rounds. Dirrell was shakey for a couple rounds after the knockdown, but it was hard to tell if degale should have put the foot firmly on the gas for a stoppage. Glad he didn't in retrospect.
Degale can still definitely improve his engine, and I think he'll need to in order to stay at the top.
Huge respect for Dirrell, he will certainly be back.
I really do not understand why the forum tolerates your constant rude and abrasive manner. You rarely offer anything positive. Stop trying so hard.Horse wrote:Stop digging.Kingfield wrote:Much like when you post your p4p lists.
You should simply apologise for talking nonsense and be on your way.
I think you have put way too much thought in to your replies. He won. No confusion. Stop being negative.Datsue wrote:It's like when people look up at the summit of Everest, or the vast lonely expanse of the sea.Kingfield wrote: I have no idea why you felt the need to make that post.
No what goes against you-- & why I was laughing--was the way you mangle syntax & the fact you keep contradicting yourself. What makes it even funnier is that you're so knee-jerk defensive.I also made a cup of tea in round 7, guess that goes against me too.
Had I known you would get even more defensive at simply having someone relay your own addled thoughts back to you, I'd've made a snarky comment instead of gently reminding you of what you wrote, because it seems like a lot of wasted narkiness on your part otherwise & you might as well get worked up for something rather than nothing, eh?