Page 8 of 8
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 16:35
by Horse
crusader wrote:I can't see him winning a slugfest with AA, who also has very underrated defense.
Abraham's good defence is mentioned a lot when he is discussed. Is it really underrated?
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 04:04
by ArtOfWar
Boxing talk have the official scorecards up and Massimo Barrovecchio gave the last two rounds to Froch. What the f**k was he watching?
![[icon_witsend.gif] :witzend:](./images/smilies/icon_witsend.gif)
Dirrell wins the fight if he scores those two rounds properly.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 08:45
by THEBUTCH
The rounds were very tough to score. Dirrell pretty much shut up shop and boxed a very defensive fight rarely opening up with much success, Froch forced the fight for almost the entire fight but didn't land many significant punches either.
It could have gone either way, it's simply a question of what the judges preferred and Froch forcing the fight must have swung it his way.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 08:52
by stujones
ArtOfWar wrote:Boxing talk have the official scorecards up and Massimo Barrovecchio gave the last two rounds to Froch. What the f**k was he watching?
![[icon_witsend.gif] :witzend:](./images/smilies/icon_witsend.gif)
Dirrell wins the fight if he scores those two rounds properly.
Stinks!!!! That just stinks!!!!
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 08:53
by stujones
THEBUTCH wrote:The rounds were very tough to score. Dirrell pretty much shut up shop and boxed a very defensive fight rarely opening up with much success, Froch forced the fight for almost the entire fight but didn't land many significant punches either.
It could have gone either way, it's simply a question of what the judges preferred and Froch forcing the fight must have swung it his way.
Butch read the post above.... Dirrell dominated the 11th and 12th... and one judge gave those to Froch.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 08:54
by stujones
On a side note.... anyone got the official card (at the time of stoppage) of AA vs Taylor. Watching that for a 2nd time, I think people were a tad harsh on Taylor. I had it much closer on 2nd viewing, still Abraham ahead and in control - but a good bit closer.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 09:01
by jamesmcdonnell
ArtOfWar wrote:Boxing talk have the official scorecards up and Massimo Barrovecchio gave the last two rounds to Froch. What the f**k was he watching?
![[icon_witsend.gif] :witzend:](./images/smilies/icon_witsend.gif)
Dirrell wins the fight if he scores those two rounds properly.
Now that makes no sense. You see, when I see a scorecard like that, I always think. Has this judge decided upon looking at his scorecard 'hmm, this doesn't look right, Dirrell's ahead, I'd better score these for Froch.'
Please explain to me how on earth Froch wins the 11th and 12th? I gave dirrell the last three, but with the deduction the 10th was 9-9.
I think the judges should have to submit their scores for each round and put them in a box or something.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 09:03
by jamesmcdonnell
Horse wrote:crusader wrote:I can't see him winning a slugfest with AA, who also has very underrated defense.
Abraham's good defence is mentioned a lot when he is discussed. Is it really underrated?
I think that Abraham's defence is okay, it's not amazing, it's just a high guard. He has decent reflexes though and can pull away from shots nicely.
A good body puncher could soon bring those arms of his down. Not many of them around at SM though.
I think Froch will be able to punch through the guard of Abraham, because Abraham isn't going to be giving him angles.
I also think Froch is going to catch some humdingers though, and I don't know that he'll be able to take them for long.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 09:15
by stujones
Arthur Abraham reminds me very much of a Middle/Super Middleweight version of a prime Steve Robinson.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 09:41
by jBacca
I was really impressed with AA.
You can go to the body, but he doesn't leave much space below those elbows and his belt.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 09:56
by CheckHook
Abraham relies too much on his guard, in my opinion. He's got a solid enough defense, I can just see a volume puncher forcing Abraham into a shell or a heavy handed puncher splitting his guard. Better defense than most though, at least he keeps his hands high.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 10:20
by jamesmcdonnell
stujones wrote:Arthur Abraham reminds me very much of a Middle/Super Middleweight version of a prime Steve Robinson.
Good call.
The problem for those types is that against someone who can vary their attack and throw from unusual angles, they end up rooted to the spot in a shell taking punishment.
I think Froch, win or lose is going to have his moments against Abraham, but I think in the end he's going to come unstuck
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 11:49
by hitman_hatton1
ArtOfWar wrote:Boxing talk have the official scorecards up and Massimo Barrovecchio gave the last two rounds to Froch. What the f**k was he watching?
![[icon_witsend.gif] :witzend:](./images/smilies/icon_witsend.gif)
Dirrell wins the fight if he scores those two rounds properly.
rd 11 was just about the clearest rd of the fight.
dirrell pissed that rd.
i thought dirrell won the 12th on his work over the first 2 minutes or so.
unbelievable he gave froch them 2.

Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 12:14
by Horse
I thought Froch won the last round.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 12:17
by hitman_hatton1
Horse wrote:I thought Froch won the last round.
for that 30 second surge.
he missed most of those anyway.
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 12:20
by Horse
hitman_hatton1 wrote:for that 30 second surge.
he missed most of those anyway.
![[icon_knockout.gif] :KO:](./images/smilies/icon_knockout.gif)
No, I thought he did more throughout the round.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 13:12
by whiskey
Dirrell himself say's that Froch won the last round in his post fight interview.
Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 13:48
by hitman_hatton1
http://www.youtube.com/user/WOODDDDDDDY ... 4yRgivM9eo
froch speaking to bunce.
same old same old really.
bunce sucking him off a bit.
'i had meself 4 rds ahead'
course ya did carl.
did the italian judge enjoy his hot tub.

Re: Froch v Dirrell - Was it really a robbery?
Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 14:05
by jamesmcdonnell
G0mez wrote:Dirrell himself say's that Froch won the last round in his post fight interview.
12th is debatable perhaps, but the 11th, absofuckinglutely not. I'm sorry but either the judge doesn't know what the hell he's doing, or he was rigging his card.