Page 4 of 6
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 19:38
by damianhucker1
jBacca wrote:Coco wrote:Does anyone have the punch stats?
Dirrell - thrown 456, landed 280
Froch - thrown 310, landed 12
F ME , IF THAT RIGHT THEN IT CERTAINLY DIDNT LOOK LIKE IT IN THE ARENA , 12 ? ??? ARE YOU SURE ???? 12 LANDED PUNCHES IN 12 ROUNDS . WERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM ? LINK OF ANY KIND TO SHOW US MAYBE ???
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 20:19
by NazNaci1
Buncey called it the way he saw it. Some of the criticism towards him is disgusting. Why abuse the man simply because he didn't agree that Dirrell won.
Most of you guys thought Dirrell won, I thought he just sneaked it but given his performance, the fact the decision went the other way is not robbery or outrageous.
Froch tried to outbox him. Dirrell was just prepared to back off, fire a few salvo's (most missed btw) and grab for dear life. He was warned several times and had a point deducted - Nothing outrageous there.
Froch missed a hell of alot and looked awful, Dirrell just did not do enough, according to the judges. Dirrell looked the better fighter but his antics on the night, rightly or wrongly had a detrimental impact on the judges.
The ref wasnt biased (see Joe Cortez, for that one), I thought Dirrell just squeezed it, the judges, Buncey and Rosenthal did not. Not an outrageous decision.
Although Froch will have improve significantly next time out. I think he was (wrongly) trying to prove a point, that he could box a bit when he wanted to. Wrong strategy!
He was a little fortunate to come away with the win. Nothing more than that. When he fights Dirrell again, he most definately will have to improve as he will get absolutely no favours over there, he will have to win by KO. The Americans now want his blood and he is gonna have to step up again as I am sure he will.
Whether he wins, loses you got to give him credit for continually stepping up (something some British fighters and Promoters are reluctant to do).
Good luck to him. He will need it.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 21:09
by Coco
I think if the stats had been in Froch's favour, they would have been released by now!
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 21:55
by lowersmiths
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.
doing a ''johnny nelson'' is not outboxing someone. dirrell didn't want to fight until the finishing line was in sight. if one man wants to run, run, run there is little the other can do. froch was at least trying to make a fight of it.
dirrell was garbage and he knew it, he looked surprised when the split decision was announced.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 22:10
by jBacca
damianhucker1 wrote:jBacca wrote:Coco wrote:Does anyone have the punch stats?
Dirrell - thrown 456, landed 280
Froch - thrown 310, landed 12
F ME , IF THAT RIGHT THEN IT CERTAINLY DIDNT LOOK LIKE IT IN THE ARENA , 12 ? ??? ARE YOU SURE ???? 12 LANDED PUNCHES IN 12 ROUNDS . WERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM ? LINK OF ANY KIND TO SHOW US MAYBE ???
Come on Damian lad, get with it
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 22:35
by crusader
lowersmiths wrote: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.
doing a ''johnny nelson'' is not outboxing someone. dirrell didn't want to fight until the finishing line was in sight. if one man wants to run, run, run there is little the other can do. froch was at least trying to make a fight of it.
dirrell was garbage and he knew it, he looked surprised when the split decision was announced.
Making them miss and them hitting them with counter punches and quick combinations is the definition of outboxing someone. Dirrell landed more, got hit less, and had Froch in more trouble than he was at any point in the fight.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 03:26
by Steve89
StokeBloke wrote:As a new poster pon this forum (recommended to me by James A at the venue last night) I'm surprised so many people thought Dirrell won last night. OK, I was in the audience and you do get some influence from the home fighters fans, no doubt. Dirrell was just too negative for large parts of the fight though. Granted, when he opened up his work was good, accurate and far classier than Froch but at least he was bringing the fight. Froch looked like he was just looking for the one big shot the whole way through and loaded up far too often. I thought Froch was lucky not to get deducted a point in the earlier rounds for some of his tactics but ulimately I think he still won by two rounds.
Can you come up with any reason except for Froch "trying to bring the fight" for scoring that fight to Froch?You don't win a fight by trying,you win by succeedng.Direll suceeded,Froch failed.Bunce sold out and we all lived happily ever after.You lot do realise that Froch is a laughing stock after that fight? any credibilty he had is gone.All that smack talking before the fight was cringeworthy,then he gets into the ring and get's a boxing lesson and a beatdown in the last few rounds by a rookie in his 19th fight who's never been past 10 rounds.What a world champion!
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 04:10
by jamesmcdonnell
lowersmiths wrote: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.
If doing a Jonny Nelson isn't outboxing someone, then how come Jonny Nelson won so many fights?
If what you said was true, he'd have lost virtually every one of his fights.
doing a ''johnny nelson'' is not outboxing someone. dirrell didn't want to fight until the finishing line was in sight. if one man wants to run, run, run there is little the other can do. froch was at least trying to make a fight of it.
dirrell was garbage and he knew it, he looked surprised when the split decision was announced.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 04:12
by jamesmcdonnell
Steve89 wrote:StokeBloke wrote:As a new poster pon this forum (recommended to me by James A at the venue last night) I'm surprised so many people thought Dirrell won last night. OK, I was in the audience and you do get some influence from the home fighters fans, no doubt. Dirrell was just too negative for large parts of the fight though. Granted, when he opened up his work was good, accurate and far classier than Froch but at least he was bringing the fight. Froch looked like he was just looking for the one big shot the whole way through and loaded up far too often. I thought Froch was lucky not to get deducted a point in the earlier rounds for some of his tactics but ulimately I think he still won by two rounds.
Can you come up with any reason except for Froch "trying to bring the fight" for scoring that fight to Froch?You don't win a fight by trying,you win by succeedng.Direll suceeded,Froch failed.Bunce sold out and we all lived happily ever after.You lot do realise that Froch is a laughing stock after that fight? any credibilty he had is gone.All that smack talking before the fight was cringeworthy,then he gets into the ring and get's a boxing lesson and a beatdown in the last few rounds by a rookie in his 19th fight who's never been past 10 rounds.What a world champion!
I know, it's getting on my nerves people saying 'yeah, but you've got to do more than Dirrell did to win the fight.'
If that's so, then the same applies to Froch - who did even less to win the fight.
According to scoring criteria laid out by boxing commissions, Froch did not do enough to win thye rounds to win the fight, flailing around hitting thin air is not effective aggression.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 05:18
by gasman
ex-Editor of Boxing News on Froch-Dirrell fight:
http://www.fightwriter.com/?q=node/2422
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 05:31
by stujones
More I see it, more I think Dirrell was shafted... I fail to see how anyone who saw it on TV (areana might have been different) had it close.
First 4 rounds it was a fencing contest, with actually Froch on the back foot more than Dirrell. Then Froch starts to rough him up... maybe edging some of these rounds 5, 6, 7. Then it was all about Dirrell.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 05:44
by jayc
One of the reasons i dont post on this site very often is that their is a certain 'hard-core' element of posters who form an opinion and then rather than discussing issues flat out insult and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. I think to tell people 'you can't score a fight' etc when most people I know who went to the actual fight scored it for Froch is a little ridiculous? I had Froch winning just, but he was bloody terrible, saved only by the fact that Dirrell was even worse. Froch's footwork was shocking, moved back in straight lines, had no right hand and no defence (as usual) but for me Dirrell ran, held, moaned, fell over, ran some more, threw a couple of taps and then repeat. The fight changed when Dirrell wobbled Carl with a left and he realised he could go for it but it was far too late. Dirrell will get smashed by Abraham and Kessler must be laughing his Danish nuts off about this tournament.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 06:01
by Buncey
Shafted, robbery, disgrace, sold-out, failed to pipe up. You all need to get out more.
The reason that I never piped up and sold out by refusing to talk about the robbery, shafting disgrace is because I didn't think it was a robbery, shafting disgrace.
There is no scandal: Dirrell gets it by a round, Carl by two or a draw. Where is the fix, the robbery, the scandal?
Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.
Now if you brave warriors want to have a go at me, let me know and I will have ticket - a freebie - for you to attend one of my live shows and you can get up and we can all get a look at the size of your nuts. Don't worry, I will bring a magnifying glass.
This thread is starting to be very disrespectful of Carl Froch, when really it is an attack on me.
For one free ticket per set of tiny gonads:
[email protected]
Adios.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 06:04
by jayc
Buncey wrote:Shafted, robbery, disgrace, sold-out, failed to pipe up. You all need to get out more.
The reason that I never piped up and sold out by refusing to talk about the robbery, shafting disgrace is because I didn't think it was a robbery, shafting disgrace.
There is no scandal: Dirrell gets it by a round, Carl by two or a draw. Where is the fix, the robbery, the scandal?
Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.
Now if you brave warriors want to have a go at me, let me know and I will have ticket - a freebie - for you to attend one of my live shows and you can get up and we can all get a look at the size of your nuts. Don't worry, I will bring a magnifying glass.
This thread is starting to be very disrespectful of Carl Froch, when really it is an attack on me.
For one free ticket per set of tiny gonads:
[email protected]
Adios.
Haha, good lad Buncey.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 06:11
by chesh
That's a good review by Houston and should be read by all those who are outraged by the decision. . Bunce, Graham Houston, Claude Abrams and Terry D all had it for Froch. I scored it a draw. There should be no controversy. I think Dirrell created an illusion that he was winning by showing very brief flashes of brilliance, by showing what he could potentially do, rather than what he actually did. As for Froch, I don't know whether he had a problem with his right arm, but he wasn't throwing many straight rights, at least not in the later stages of the fight. A disappointing fight, awful clash of styles, but no robbery occurred.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 06:35
by Chambers2
Good article he sums it up perfectly
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 06:35
by stujones
chesh wrote:That's a good review by Houston and should be read by all those who are outraged by the decision. . Bunce, Graham Houston, Claude Abrams and Terry D all had it for Froch. I scored it a draw. There should be no controversy. I think Dirrell created an illusion that he was winning by showing very brief flashes of brilliance, by showing what he could potentially do, rather than what he actually did. As for Froch, I don't know whether he had a problem with his right arm, but he wasn't throwing many straight rights, at least not in the later stages of the fight. A disappointing fight, awful clash of styles, but no robbery occurred.
All very well, but what did Froch do.... nothing also.
This wasn't like the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight, in that in the rounds where the back foot, defensive fighter was being outwork. Froch was doing next to naff all also.... Hopkins ALWAYS ended the exchanges vs Calzaghe ontop... but at least Joe initiated a significant amount of exchanges. Carl didn't.
Some cards failed to make sense.... I aint talking about the ones you mentioned. But Thaxton's and Rawlings. Thaxton had Dirrell a couple of rounds up going into the 10th..... surely its beyond dispute that the 10th was a level round (due to point deduction) and 11th and 12th went to Dirrell.... so how did he have Dirrell only winning by a round at the end.
Rawling said going into the 11th he had Dirrell a couple up..... then at the end of the fight it was the same. Surely he should have had it by four rounds to Dirrell (which was my card).
This was more clear cut than Fury vs McDermott.... at least Fury threw and landed punches.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 06:48
by gasman
jayc wrote:One of the reasons i dont post on this site very often is that their is a certain 'hard-core' element of posters who form an opinion and then rather than discussing issues flat out insult and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. I think to tell people 'you can't score a fight' etc when most people I know who went to the actual fight scored it for Froch is a little ridiculous? I had Froch winning just, but he was bloody terrible, saved only by the fact that Dirrell was even worse. Froch's footwork was shocking, moved back in straight lines, had no right hand and no defence (as usual) but for me Dirrell ran, held, moaned, fell over, ran some more, threw a couple of taps and then repeat. The fight changed when Dirrell wobbled Carl with a left and he realised he could go for it but it was far too late. Dirrell will get smashed by Abraham and Kessler must be laughing his Danish nuts off about this tournament.
Well said. I had Froch nicking it by a round. You would think Froch got schooled to read some of the outlandish BS on this thread. It was a very close fight. I credit Dirrell for his tactics, he has great footwork and hand speed, it nearly won him the fight. He didnt LAND enough of the punches that he threw, that is why he didnt get the close rounds. He left it too late to step up his aggression. Bunce didnt sell out, tow the party line or con anyone. He gave an opinion, and a good one at that.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 07:07
by jayc
I dont think Dirrell is strong enough for the likes of Kessler/Abraham or even Froch, there was a huge strength difference. Add to that the fact both AA & MK can box to a very high standard than i think Dirrell gets knocked out. Froch was poor on saturday and im a big fan, he looked unable to deal with Dirrells movement or speed. For me AA will time Dirrell off the ropes much better and Kessler will be quick enough to catch him anyway. Dirrell has the tools to be a great fighter though, just not sure he has the mentallity, but he is young and can learn. I'm looking forward to seeing if Ward can win a fight for the USA as so far Europe is looking much stronger. (this isn't a massive shock as this is at super middle and europe has been strong since it's introduction). I want Froch to win the whole thing but dont think he can.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 07:53
by T.M.K
Buncey wrote:Shafted, robbery, disgrace, sold-out, failed to pipe up. You all need to get out more.
The reason that I never piped up and sold out by refusing to talk about the robbery, shafting disgrace is because I didn't think it was a robbery, shafting disgrace.
There is no scandal: Dirrell gets it by a round, Carl by two or a draw. Where is the fix, the robbery, the scandal?
Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.
Now if you brave warriors want to have a go at me, let me know and I will have ticket - a freebie - for you to attend one of my live shows and you can get up and we can all get a look at the size of your nuts. Don't worry, I will bring a magnifying glass.
This thread is starting to be very disrespectful of Carl Froch, when really it is an attack on me.
For one free ticket per set of tiny gonads:
[email protected]
Adios.
Best wishes Mr Bunce.
"T.M.K"
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 08:05
by jamesmcdonnell
Buncey wrote:Shafted, robbery, disgrace, sold-out, failed to pipe up. You all need to get out more.
The reason that I never piped up and sold out by refusing to talk about the robbery, shafting disgrace is because I didn't think it was a robbery, shafting disgrace.
There is no scandal: Dirrell gets it by a round, Carl by two or a draw. Where is the fix, the robbery, the scandal?
Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.
Now if you brave warriors want to have a go at me, let me know and I will have ticket - a freebie - for you to attend one of my live shows and you can get up and we can all get a look at the size of your nuts. Don't worry, I will bring a magnifying glass.
This thread is starting to be very disrespectful of Carl Froch, when really it is an attack on me.
For one free ticket per set of tiny gonads:
[email protected]
Adios.
Nothing wrong with my knackers steve I can tell you.
I'm amazed you seem to think there's any jealously involved, certainly on my part, good luck to you mate, I've got no problem with you.
I'll gladly come to your show, not to have a pop, but I'd like to talk about what I see as the inherent problems with boxing scoring, which I think this fight highlights perfectly. There's a number of things I think could be done to clear up the mess, and I do think it's a mess.
I've got no criticisms of Froch at all, other than he fought a very poor fight indeed. What's not to like about Froch - on this occasion however, he fought crap tactics, and even his corner would agree with me, because they were begging him between rounds to set things up with his jab.
My big problem with what you said, is the inherent hypocrisy in your two statements, one before the fight, stating that England is fair, above board, and beyond reproach, and then after the fight saying that the home fighter gets the nod in close fights.
Now it obviously cannot be both ways can it. I simply will not buy into condoning hometown decisions, or home advantage, I want to see the better man win on the night, nothing more, nothing less, regardless of nationality. Call me naive, but I think that glib acceptance of crap refereeing, and home baking is reproachable in all it's instances. Fine if you think that Froch won, but I think it's a dangerous precedent to just accept that when a fighter has home advantage they get a little bit of a boost in the scoring of each round - if that is so, then it has to change.
Who could forget Sven Ottke's gift win over Reid - totally flagrantly bent refereeing from overweight womble Roger Tillerman - an absolute outrage far worse than anything I might have said about this fight, but you have to call it as you see it.
If you honestly think Froch won the fight, fair enough, I don't agree with you at all, nor with the others on here who thought he won. This raises two issues. Were you watching this fight on a monitor or from ringside? I know there can be big differences between the two having scored fights from both positions.
Also, I'd love to see a scorecard from you, I'll challenge you now, if you can be arsed, to sit down, watch a replay, and give a justification in writing for each round. I know you're a busy guy, but perhaps it would be an interesting excersize.
Hell, I'll sit and watch the fight with you on your show and argue the toss with you over it if you like.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 08:05
by Roars Like Me
I'm guessing the Thailand or Germany statement is implying that those countries gift their fighters. My favourite 'gift' fighter from Germany was Sven Ottke - I'm guessing that Mr Bunce would have cried 'robbery' many a time watching an Ottke fight. It's lucky we don't stoop to that level here in good ol' Blighty
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 08:31
by Buncey
There is a desperate knight in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight who simply refuses to accept that he is wrong/hurt or possibly wrong/dead. The character was stolen by Medieval scholar Terry Jones and used in Monty Python's Holy Grail film. I'm also an expert on Chaucer, but who cares. The point I'm making is that a lot experienced people thought that Froch won, but for some reasons we are all being portrayed as deluded/crooked/sell-outs or something even more sinister.
Is it possible that we are right and that...possibly, just possibly, the people that thought Dirrell won are wrong? I have no problem accepting both results, but clearly some of the knights on here will simply not let it go.
Adios and an end to the affair and see you all at the Dubliner in Digbeth tomorrow night from 8:30.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 08:37
by jamesmcdonnell
Buncey wrote:There is a desperate knight in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight who simply refuses to accept that he is wrong/hurt or possibly wrong/dead. The character was stolen by Medieval scholar Terry Jones and used in Monty Python's Holy Grail film. I'm also an expert on Chaucer, but who cares. The point I'm making is that a lot experienced people thought that Froch won, but for some reasons we are all being portrayed as deluded/crooked/sell-outs or something even more sinister.
Is it possible that we are right and that...possibly, just possibly, the people that thought Dirrell won are wrong? I have no problem accepting both results, but clearly some of the knights on here will simply not let it go.
Adios and an end to the affair and see you all at the Dubliner in Digbeth tomorrow night from 8:30.
Possible - yes, in an infinite universe anything is possible - probable - nah not really.
Re: Bunce let himself down tonight
Posted: 19 Oct 2009, 08:38
by Wales
hows about a scorecard too...