BoxRec

Datsue wrote:

So... You didn't score it, but you did. & you agree DeGale won by two points, & by eight.

Well done.

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:

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.

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?

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.

Broomhall wrote:

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.

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?

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.

Kingfield wrote: I have no idea why you felt the need to make that post.

I also made a cup of tea in round 7, guess that goes against me too.

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.

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.

ThereByTheGrace wrote:

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.

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 more

ThereByTheGrace wrote:I would happily watch a rematch palooka as that was an entertaining fight. Both had their moments and degale deserved the win!

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

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:

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.

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.

Kingfield wrote:Semantics. They all had him winning. As did I.

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.

Horse wrote:

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.

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: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:

Kingfield wrote:Semantics. They all had him winning. As did I.

So did most people on this forum.

Why did you feel the need to write this nonsense?

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.

It's kind of like you don't know what you're talking about.

Kingfield wrote:Much like when you post your p4p lists.

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.

Horse wrote:

Kingfield wrote:Much like when you post your p4p lists.

Stop digging.

You should simply apologise for talking nonsense and be on your way.

Datsue wrote:

Kingfield wrote: I have no idea why you felt the need to make that post.

It's like when people look up at the summit of Everest, or the vast lonely expanse of the sea.

I also made a cup of tea in round 7, guess that goes against me too.

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.

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?