BoxRec

opticald wrote:I could never feel sorry for Dirrell though after the tactics he used. So negative.

Hardly think Froch was that much better really, standing for long stretches out of range and happy to hold and let the ref break them when Andre held. he was hardly bulling forward walking Dirrel down was he? or pushing Dirrell back out of the clinches so he could keep punching? For long stretches of the fight Froch was flailing and clueless.

Terry D wrote:Carl took some nice lefts but they came late in the fight. The biggest worry Re Carl's legs dipping is that the war with Pascal and the near-spanking from Taylor seems to have eroded his chin. Tapping away at marble and all that.

Super Six has started pretty poorly. Kessler must be rubbing his hands together.

Well he has eaten quite a lot of shots during his career. It is quite possible.

I also think it's the fact he just couldn't see Dirrell's shots because they were so fast.

Maelstrom wrote:

opticald wrote:I could never feel sorry for Dirrell though after the tactics he used. So negative.

I don't get this outlook at all - even though you are not the only one of this opinion.

Dirrel hit and didn't get hit. Simple as that.

did he? dirrell was also hitting alot of thin air and glvoes.dirrell didnt do enough simple as that

Dirrell deserved the decision last night by outboxing Froch all through the fight. He landed the cleaner punches to the head and body and his footwork made Froch throw wild fresh air shots. Dirrell silenced the crowd by his tactics and seemed to rock Froch at numerous times. I thought he won by 4 or 5 rounds so Buncey's card surprised me abit. I think Froch is relieved that he won't be fighting that sort of opponent again in his next 2 fights. I still think Dirrell could be a major threat in this tournament.

WOODDDDDDDYA wrote:Dirrell deserved the decision last night by outboxing Froch all through the fight. He landed the cleaner punches to the head and body and his footwork made Froch throw wild fresh air shots. Dirrell silenced the crowd by his tactics and seemed to rock Froch at numerous times. I thought he won by 4 or 5 rounds so Buncey's card surprised me abit. I think Froch is relieved that he won't be fighting that sort of opponent again in his next 2 fights. I still think Dirrell could be a major threat in this tournament.

DIRRELL WILL LOSE ALL 3 FIGHTS .

WOODDDDDDDYA wrote:Dirrell deserved the decision last night by outboxing Froch all through the fight. He landed the cleaner punches to the head and body and his footwork made Froch throw wild fresh air shots. Dirrell silenced the crowd by his tactics and seemed to rock Froch at numerous times. I thought he won by 4 or 5 rounds so Buncey's card surprised me abit. I think Froch is relieved that he won't be fighting that sort of opponent again in his next 2 fights. I still think Dirrell could be a major threat in this tournament.

bingo - we have a winner!

Pretty much anyone on here that I have respect for is of a similar opinion.

Say why is it that Bunce hadnt the balls to pipe up?

In my opinion it was cowardice - or ignorance!

stujones wrote:Stoke Bloke... did you think Froch won all of the rounds from 1-8.

Certainly thought he dominated the earlier rounds, Dirrell went for it far too late, seemed reluctant to open up, only showed his class in flashes.

StokeBloke wrote:

stujones wrote:Stoke Bloke... did you think Froch won all of the rounds from 1-8.

Certainly thought he dominated the earlier rounds, Dirrell went for it far too late, seemed reluctant to open up, only showed his class in flashes.

Re: this post and your one previously.

Does a fighter deserve the victory for 'bringing the fight', despite not hitting his opponent and being wobbled on a few occasions himself?

jBacca wrote:

StokeBloke wrote:

stujones wrote:Stoke Bloke... did you think Froch won all of the rounds from 1-8.

Certainly thought he dominated the earlier rounds, Dirrell went for it far too late, seemed reluctant to open up, only showed his class in flashes.

Re: this post and your one previously.

Does a fighter deserve the victory for 'bringing the fight', despite not hitting his opponent and being wobbled on a few occasions himself?

NO HE DESERVES THE VICTORY IF THE JUDGES , JUST LIKE MOST PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE SEE A GUY WIN MORE ROUND THAN THE OTHER GUY , WHICH FROCH APPEARED TO DO , AT LEAST AT THE ARENA ITS HOW IT LOOKED , MY REPLAY VID IS DOWNLOADING AND ILL WATCH IT AGAIN AND SCORE IT TO SEE IF I GET A DIFFERENT OUTCOME BUT FOR ME IT WAS NEVER EVEN AS CLOSE AS A SPLIT . THE WHOLE PLACE WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR IT WAS A SPLIT DECISION . FROCH WON BY AT LEAST 2 ROUNDS BUT DEPENDING HOW YOU SCORED THE CLOSER ROUNDS EFFECTS IT , I HAD FROCH WINNING BY 4

jBacca wrote:

StokeBloke wrote:

stujones wrote:Stoke Bloke... did you think Froch won all of the rounds from 1-8.

Certainly thought he dominated the earlier rounds, Dirrell went for it far too late, seemed reluctant to open up, only showed his class in flashes.

Re: this post and your one previously.

Does a fighter deserve the victory for 'bringing the fight', despite not hitting his opponent and being wobbled on a few occasions himself?

Does a challenger deserve to win a title by running, negating any exchanges and rarely planting his feet and opening up when he ample opportunities throughout the fight? The fight as I saw it was pretty poor and Froch was very crude at times but nevertheless was more active, pressed the attack and had the greater successes.

Ant Evans wrote:

StokeBloke wrote:

stujones wrote:Stoke Bloke... did you think Froch won all of the rounds from 1-8.

Certainly thought he dominated the earlier rounds, Dirrell went for it far too late, seemed reluctant to open up, only showed his class in flashes.

Welcome to forum... but you clearly don't know how to score a fight buddy.

Haha! Thanks.

A forum would be boring if we all just agreed with each other the whole time I guess!

Does a challenger deserve to win a title by running, negating any exchanges and rarely planting his feet and opening up when he ample opportunities throughout the fight? The fight as I saw it was pretty poor and Froch was very crude at times but nevertheless was more active, pressed the attack and had the greater successes.

Greater successes? Like when? He was hitting nothing but air. Dirrell put on a defensive show (defense is a scoring criteria) and was much more accurate with his punches. He also had Froch rocked in the eleventh, planted feet or not. Activity and pressure mean nothing if a fighter can't land and Froch couldn't hit anything but air. The main criteria in scoring a fight is effective aggression and Froch wasn't effective at all. Dirrell outboxed him in my opinion, wether it was nice to watch or not.

crusader wrote:

Does a challenger deserve to win a title by running, negating any exchanges and rarely planting his feet and opening up when he ample opportunities throughout the fight? The fight as I saw it was pretty poor and Froch was very crude at times but nevertheless was more active, pressed the attack and had the greater successes.

Greater successes? Like when? He was hitting nothing but air. Dirrell put on a defensive show (defense is a scoring criteria) and was much more accurate with his punches. He also had Froch rocked in the eleventh, planted feet or not. Activity and pressure mean nothing if a fighter can't land and Froch couldn't hit anything but air. The main criteria in scoring a fight is effective aggression and Froch wasn't effective at all. Dirrell outboxed him in my opinion, wether it was nice to watch or not.

Excactly. The main criteria is effective aggression - and Dirrell showed next to none of this until too late in the fight.

If he (Dirrell) fights with the same tactics against Abraham in his next fight the consequences will be far worse than a disputed split decision.

StokeBloke wrote:

jBacca wrote:

StokeBloke wrote: Certainly thought he dominated the earlier rounds, Dirrell went for it far too late, seemed reluctant to open up, only showed his class in flashes.

Re: this post and your one previously.

Does a fighter deserve the victory for 'bringing the fight', despite not hitting his opponent and being wobbled on a few occasions himself?

Does a challenger deserve to win a title by running, negating any exchanges and rarely planting his feet and opening up when he ample opportunities throughout the fight? The fight as I saw it was pretty poor and Froch was very crude at times but nevertheless was more active, pressed the attack and had the greater successes.

Watch again on vid mate, you'll see that Froch has zero success, and that Dirrell had Carl wobbled a couple of times

For me Dirrell was very negative for the majority which was frustrating as he clearly had the skills, if not the psyche, to win the fight well. Having said that he still landed the better punches and made Froch look bad. Credit to Froch for wanting to make a fight of it but ultimately he couldn't do anything with him so I thought Dirrell won. Froch kept loading up on single shots which were never going to work against Dirrell's speed and reflexes.

Kessler beats everybody that fought last night with something to spare IMO.

Froch winning that fight is simply RIDICULOUS!

the fight played out exactly as i thought and unlike many here i enjoyed seeing Dirrel's defensive skills although agree it was too negative for the first 4 or 5 rounds.

Anyway i had the fight 4 Rds each after 8 and that was being kind to Froch who was made to look plodding and clueless in his rather obvious attacking style and then Dirrel clearly took that last four rounds which would make it 115-112 to him with the point deduction included.

I agree with what other's have also pointed out in that Froch was as much to blame for the negativity as Dirrel was, as soon as he mentioned about 'wanting to show the American's he was more than just a puncher' i knew he was Fuked!

The fairest thing to do would be to give Dirrel 1 point due the controversial split decision loss.

I'm still going to stick to my original pick of ANDRE WARD to win all 5 of his fights pretty easily and become a Superstar off winning the tournament.

Watching the fight again... Dirrell was only ULTRA defensive (Sven Ottke like) for like 3 rounds.

He was actually on the front foot for the opening 3 rounds. Froch was doing alot of fencing himself.

stujones wrote:Watching the fight again... Dirrell was only ULTRA defensive (Sven Ottke like) for like 3 rounds.

He was actually on the front foot for the opening 3 rounds. Froch was doing alot of fencing himself.

I think the most negative period was between the 7th to 9th when Carl started roughousing him.

Neither man looked willing to commit for the first 3 rounds, but Dirrel at least landed some punches during that period. The first three were very close as so little happened, but I gave Dirrell the 2nd and 3rd.

Yep, as I did.... I think this Dirrell makes Floyd Mayweather look like Gatti is a bit harsh... Froch was EQUALLY to blame for much of the fight. Did nothing.

I had really changed my opinion of Bunce, and was a fan, however he has regressed to his Audley bandwagon BBC days. I appreciate he has to do what he is paid for and i'm sure his remit with Setanta was to take the more honest approach.

I begrudgingly had Dirrell ahead with him clearly pulling away in the championship rounds. Furthermore I did have the American ahead early as I thought Froch had managed to do slightly less but those rounds were very close and I make an effort not to score a round even.
Dirrell was extremely negative, scoring with light flurries and then holding, running and going to the floor. I can only presume he was marked down for those tactics

Does anyone have the punch stats?

Coco wrote:Does anyone have the punch stats?

CompuBox only works HBO fights. So there wont be any.

Coco wrote:Does anyone have the punch stats?

Dirrell - thrown 456, landed 280
Froch - thrown 310, landed 12

sg1985 wrote:Punch don't mean anything remember? Hopkins-calzaghe.

Well when one guy lands more AND they are the cleaner, harder shots, than it can mean something.