BoxRec

Fuuckin sell out!

Amen. Never heard such blatant shite.

Anybody notice how annoyed Jim was getting with Buncy at the end

Buncey's always sung the song that makes him the most money, lets not pretend hes a voice of the fans any more, he isnt, if he ever was. Blatantly lying tonight

sg1985 wrote:Have to agree here. The old 'you have to beat a champion' doesn't wash here.

I actually still like that "you have to beat a champion" - but, I thought Dirrell did. Last 5 rounds he beat Froch. Landed more, and the more telling shots. Last 3 he was backing up Froch and he wobbled him.

One of those rounds should be scored 9-9 with the point deduction. Had the fight carried on as it did before the deduction... then it would have been close on the cards, and then what Bunce was saying would have been correct. Even though I couldn't seperate them after 8... had the fight been stopped on a cut or something then, Froch would have deserved to retain.

Not after the last 5 rounds... Dirrell beat up Froch... proving he was the champion.

stujones wrote:

sg1985 wrote:Have to agree here. The old 'you have to beat a champion' doesn't wash here.

Not after the last 5 rounds... Dirrell beat up Froch... proving he was the champion.

Felt it was only the last 3 he beat Froch up but still, he really should have done it from the first. He obviously had the ability to destroy Froch but wasted his big opportunity and gave the visual of running away from Froch all night even if Froch missed 90% of his punches. You'd swear someone had cut off his arms and dropped in there with a prime Mike Tyson the way he ran for 2/3rds of the fight.

man grenade wrote:think maybe stevie boy may feel different when he watches the footage lets not forget he is in the arena surrounded by pro carl froch fans all night so maybe he he is being a wee bit biased without even realising it.hope primetime stays in boxing and gives a better quality of service next time.

thats fair enough if you are a pizzed up fan - but he and the judges are supposed to be professionals and be objective.

I didnt think that the Primetime service was bad at all!

Easy now boys. The judges only agreed on four rounds - I had it 7 rounds to 5 and with the extra point that makes it a three point win.
Do you think that Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany.
"Dirrell beat up Froch"...'beat up' ?...now that has to be one of the craziest things I've read in a long, long time. Dirrell fought the right fight to nick the title, but it was not enough. Carl had to adjust and he did.
It was a fine start to a great tournament.

Adios.

Buncey wrote:Easy now boys. The judges only agreed on four rounds - I had it 7 rounds to 5 and with the extra point that makes it a three point win.
Do you think that Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany.
"Dirrell beat up Froch"...'beat up' ?...now that has to be one of the craziest things I've read in a long, long time. Dirrell fought the right fight to nick the title, but it was not enough. Carl had to adjust and he did.
It was a fine start to a great tournament.

Adios.

'Do you think Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany'...what the fook has that got to do with anything? If you think Froch won that fight, you can't score fights. Simple as that. Doesn't matter whether you're English, German, Thai or on the payroll.

Froch was embarassingly beaten last night. Not beaten up. Just taken to school.

.[/quote]
Just taken to school.[/quote]

Utter tripe.

Eraserhead wrote:

Buncey wrote:Easy now boys. The judges only agreed on four rounds - I had it 7 rounds to 5 and with the extra point that makes it a three point win.
Do you think that Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany.
"Dirrell beat up Froch"...'beat up' ?...now that has to be one of the craziest things I've read in a long, long time. Dirrell fought the right fight to nick the title, but it was not enough. Carl had to adjust and he did.
It was a fine start to a great tournament.

Adios.

'Do you think Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany'...what the fook has that got to do with anything? If you think Froch won that fight, you can't score fights. Simple as that. Doesn't matter whether you're English, German, Thai or on the payroll.

Froch was embarassingly beaten last night. Not beaten up. Just taken to school.

I thought Dirrell won, but taken to school?
After writing that you really shouldn't be telling anyone, let alone someone with far more credentials than anyone here, how they should or shouldn't be scoring fights mate!

sg1985 wrote:

Eraserhead wrote:
Froch was embarassingly beaten last night. Not beaten up. Just taken to school.

Oh come on? Taken to school? I agree Dirrell won, but it was far from a schooling? You want to see a schooling, have a look at the last time Gary Shaw brought over one of his fighters over. He was back pedalling all night, the only time he tried to land was in the last 3 rounds. Skipping your way round a ring for 9 rounds, and then skipping away and trying to land as a fighter tries to make a fight out of it is not a schooling.

Dirrell didn't look anything special for the first half of the fight, but he WAS taking Froch apart in the second half. He threw more, landed more and was making Froch look stupid. Froch gave it a final go in the last round and possibly one the last. Everything before that, aside from a couple of close early rounds, belonged to Dirrell.

No it wasn't Calzaghe-Lacy, but Dirrell dominated Froch for a good chunk of that fight.

Eraserhead wrote:

sg1985 wrote:

Eraserhead wrote:
Froch was embarassingly beaten last night. Not beaten up. Just taken to school.

Oh come on? Taken to school? I agree Dirrell won, but it was far from a schooling? You want to see a schooling, have a look at the last time Gary Shaw brought over one of his fighters over. He was back pedalling all night, the only time he tried to land was in the last 3 rounds. Skipping your way round a ring for 9 rounds, and then skipping away and trying to land as a fighter tries to make a fight out of it is not a schooling.

Dirrell didn't look anything special for the first half of the fight, but he WAS taking Froch apart in the second half. He threw more, landed more and was making Froch look stupid. Froch gave it a final go in the last round and possibly one the last. Everything before that, aside from a couple of close early rounds, belonged to Dirrell.

No it wasn't Calzaghe-Lacy, but Dirrell dominated Froch for a good chunk of that fight.

I'm with Eraserhead here.

Maybe 'schooling' Froch is abit far... but in the second half of the fight Dirrell was trading, and he was making Froch look very, very ordinary.

So many times when they were squaring off i was screaming 'throw the right, throw the right'.. but had to accept Carl couldn't get it off because Dirrell was in and out so quick, must have been a nightmare for the Cobra.

Just a shame Dirrell didn't do this in the earlier rounds, because just a little more leather thrown and everyone would be singing his praises.

OK, maybe 'schooling' is more of a 12 round thing and maybe it was a little OTT. All I'm saying is I hate this attitude that the challenger must somehow beat the champion 10 times in one fight just to get the decision. Dirrell won more rounds than Froch and should have clearly got the decision.

It's like saying Burnley need to score 10 goals against Manchester United to get three points. Boxing is the only sport that supports this fooked up theory.

It's a fight. 12 rounds. Whoever wins more rounds, wins the fight. Dirrell did that and he still lost.

Froch was superb against Pascal and Taylor, but last night left a bitter taste.

Eraserhead wrote:It's a fight. 12 rounds. Whoever wins more rounds, wins the fight. Dirrell did that and he still lost. .

Your spot on with this statement!!

Bomber 1 wrote:

Eraserhead wrote:It's a fight. 12 rounds. Whoever wins more rounds, wins the fight. Dirrell did that and he still lost. .

Your spot on with this statement!!

How did you score it mate?

Steve,

Yes, sorry struggled to come with the right term at 4 am in the morning. Beat up isn't correct... sorry there. What I meant was he wasn't THAT negative in the last 5 rounds. They were clear, he wasn't just running and moaning as he was for the first 8.

It was Dirrell that adjusted to win, not Froch who didn't do anything different.... just plodded on and lost rounds clearly.

jBacca wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:

Eraserhead wrote:It's a fight. 12 rounds. Whoever wins more rounds, wins the fight. Dirrell did that and he still lost. .

Your spot on with this statement!!

How did you score it mate?

I had Dirrell winning it by 2 rounds mate, I was a bit lost with the point deduction round if Im honest though cos I though Dirrell won that round clearly so should be a 9-9 round but I don't know wether it's a 10 point must system with the WBC?? Can anyone enlighten me on that??

Bomber 1 wrote:
I had Dirrell winning it by 2 rounds mate, I was a bit lost with the point deduction round if Im honest though cos I though Dirrell won that round clearly so should be a 9-9 round but I don't know wether it's a 10 point must system with the WBC?? Can anyone enlighten me on that??

My take on it is that the point gets deducted from the total after 12 rounds, not that it makes much difference I suppose as long as the point comes off

what Iam annoyed at with Buncey is that he is supposed to call it straight - fair enough in Jon Thaxton wilted under the pressure of his paymaster (even though he had Dirrell winning) - but you failed to give a balanced view of the result.

Anyone listening to you would have thought that it was a straight forward routine result and the the Mexican's view was a rogue one. I thought your post fight analysis lacked credibility.

The "voice of the fans" mantle seems to be slipping!

Buncey wrote:Easy now boys. The judges only agreed on four rounds - I had it 7 rounds to 5 and with the extra point that makes it a three point win.
Do you think that Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany.
"Dirrell beat up Froch"...'beat up' ?...now that has to be one of the craziest things I've read in a long, long time. Dirrell fought the right fight to nick the title, but it was not enough. Carl had to adjust and he did.
It was a fine start to a great tournament.

Adios.

couldn't agree with you more big man. dirrell was way way to cautious..this is the super 6 you can't try and steal your way to a title it was good stuff seeing you on the telly again buncey.great punditry

Dirrell outclassed Froch, who essentially resorted to everything but kicking in order to make contact. Actually, he should have had a go at putting the boot in, that spineless ref would've likely penalised Dirrell for ducking too low.

Fair enough, Dirrell may not have done enough in the early going to make it a near shutout but the 2 pro Froch scorecards were risible. Clear hometown favouritism, Dirrell got jobbed.

Don't feel too bad though Steve, it is what it is. These days it's hard enough to get a TV gig for top boxers, let alone top journos. I dont like the see no evil, hear no evil act, but I understand.

gemmell wrote:

Buncey wrote:Easy now boys. The judges only agreed on four rounds - I had it 7 rounds to 5 and with the extra point that makes it a three point win.
Do you think that Dirrell would have got the decision in Thailand or Germany.
"Dirrell beat up Froch"...'beat up' ?...now that has to be one of the craziest things I've read in a long, long time. Dirrell fought the right fight to nick the title, but it was not enough. Carl had to adjust and he did.
It was a fine start to a great tournament.

Adios.

couldn't agree with you more big man. dirrell was way way to cautious..this is the super 6 you can't try and steal your way to a title it was good stuff seeing you on the telly again buncey.great punditry

says Gemmell from *cough*Nottingham*cough*

No doubt Dirrell won a close but clear decision. It was a very good display of how to win a fight on the back foot. A boxer of Dirrells ability does not stand toe to toe with an aggresive puncher like Froch, to some it may have looked negative but to the purist it was a classic display of how to box off the back foot and tieing Froch up was just part of his tactic to win the fight.

Bomber 1 wrote:

Eraserhead wrote:It's a fight. 12 rounds. Whoever wins more rounds, wins the fight. Dirrell did that and he still lost. .

Your spot on with this statement!!

apart from the fact its not true... win 5 rounds 10-8 and your opponent wins 7 rounds 10-9 and you win the fight, even though you have won fewer rounds !!!!!!

and there are many permatations of this.

in my opinion, its time for the judges scores to be known to the fighters and the stadium during the fight. i cannot think of any other sport where you do not know if you have won or not until after the event.....apart from match fishing !! ....

any more??