BoxRec

I have read all the posts post Froch - Dirrell and one thought that comes to the front every time is that boxing is such a subjecctive sport to watch and score.

Many people on here have posted that Dirrell fought a tactically brilliant fight, that he was way better than Froch, that he was "robbed" of the victory.

I disagree on many levels. Whether it is right or wrong, we all KNOW that in order to win a title, the judges want to see you TAKE the title, not bitch your way to it in one of the most negative displays of spoling seen for many years.

If Dirrell was as good or (smart) as people are saying, then why the hell didn`t he realise that in a champions backyard, you simply do not fight the way he did and expect to get a decision. Certainly he had skills, but his gameplan for actually taking the title were all wrong.

The fact is that often a fighter does not get the decision, when he has fought a technically better fight then the other man. Dirrell (or his camp) should have known this (which one guy obviously did "You aint gettin no decision here), yet Dirrell chose to apply different tactics.

I am not a seasoned scorer of bouts, but I had that fight a draw, simply due to the fact that Dirrell did not do enough to "win" the rounds for me and whilst Froch did bugger all as well, he was the aggressor and for me, that counts for something. Thus many rounds I gave even and with the one point deducgtion I had it a draw going into the last and gave that one even.

Old fashioned, stupid or simply wrong, I still beliegve that you have to take a title and that display from Dirrell (in my eyes) was not worthy of taking a title.

What is sad to see is that he obviously had the skills to take the title, as he was the superior boxer in that ring, no doubt.

Styles do make fights and the clash of styles here was horrific.

As for Froch, I admire hhis guts, his heart and his willingness to fight anyone.

With Kessler and Abraham next, he will have to step up his game against two very dangerous opponents. I think the Kessler fight will actually suit Froch, whilst Abraham could be another bad clash (Abraham just covers up and lets fly a few flurries each round)

Kessler should have enough to beat Froch and even stop him, but I would not count Frochy out just yet. He has the balls to get stuck in against Kessler and maybe he will suprise a few of us. Froch has gone down in my estimations, mostly for the way he failed to impose his fight on Dirrell. I will still be shouting the geezer on in Copenhagen though, no doubt about that.

dirrell fought completely the wrong fight, he boxed scared and was possibly overwhelmed by the occassion or concerned about his fitness due to making weight.

lowersmiths wrote:dirrell fought completely the wrong fight, he boxed scared and was possibly overwhelmed by the occassion or concerned about his fitness due to making weight.

You could be right in that assessment, but nevertheless Dirrell still won more rounds than Froch IMO, if rounds are won by landing more punches than your opponent, and taking fewer. That's what it's about, isn't it? Dirrell was making Froch miss with maybe 90% of his work and Froch showed very little in terms of strategy. Yes, he was the one going forwards, and I understand some people will have scored for that, but it was far from effective aggression. For me, if a punch doesn't land, it doesn't count.

hmmm. i may be in the minority here. i quite enjoyed watching Dirrell's evasive moves. when a guy has speed and athleticism its good to watch him dance around his man. as long as he lands the odd shot here and there.

Dirrell didn't fight a particularly intelligent fight, but he still did enough to win clear. I don't know enough about him to know if he has stamina/chin issues. I thought he did when Froch was roughhousing him. If his stamina/chin is fine... then he should have KO'd Froch by fighting the way he did in the last 4/5 rounds.

He still was a clear winner for me... and a shame I think he's going to be a member of the who needs him club.

Dirrell = mindset of Audley Harrison

Very negative and not a warrior.

A runner.

he is a rookie boxing genius. Has all the tools and talent, but still lacks experience and was scared by the event. Reminds me of a young leonard vs Duran.

neither

He should have realised sooner that he could trade and get the better of Carl Flop but he didn't. I still thought he won clearly though. Being a huge PBF fan I'm not averse to watching people do their best not to get hit and that is what Andre did.

At least he has the 0 gone without the loss of confidence that sometimes accompanies it. When he watches the tape he will know he should have done better but it wasnt a 'defeat' that he should lose heart from, after all, he did very well considering it was such a major step up in class

Counter-puncher wrote:hmmm. i may be in the minority here. i quite enjoyed watching Dirrell's evasive moves. when a guy has speed and athleticism its good to watch him dance around his man. as long as he lands the odd shot here and there.

Me too.

It took a few rounds to get over the frustration of Carl not being able to hit Dirrell, to accept that Dirrell was looking slick and quality.

I think the fact that Froch was missing so much spurred Dirrell on to dance around some more, due to the fact he was making the champion look silly.

How people give the fight to Froch purely because he was the aggressor is beyond me. I watched with a room full of casual boxing fans and they were all adamant Dirrell had the fight in his bag, and we were all singing for the Cobra.

i just really like to watch movement and elusiveness when its done with that level of virtuosity especially the escapes off the ropes

i can watch SRL doing little more than circling the ring and enjoy it

not sure if i fit the boxrec profile there, i reckon 'barn will be preparing some sort of effigy to burn even as we speak 'fast feet and slapping flurries, aaaarrrggh' etc :)

dirrel suprised me with how fast he was, i knew he was quick but he seemed faster than usual and he punched hard consistantly though the fight

If he had stood in the pocket all night and Flop managed to land on him cleaninly and frequently and he got knoked out he'd be yet another american hype job, the new lacy, yadayadayada

Dude employed these perfectly valid tactics against Curtis Stevens but you expect him to behave differently when fighting a much higher level of opponent

Those that dont like him/his style can you at least admit that he landed more punches and took less in return

I am genuinely astonished by all of this. The majority of folk on here seem to spend no end of time accusing the stand-up MMA of being nothing more than dumb brawling, and then complain when a bloke in boxing doesn't put his two feet flat on the floor and just swing his arms around.

Dirrell won that fight by hitting his opponent with punches and making his opponent's punches miss. I really do wonder what those who think Froch won are looking for in a boxing match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fztqCbOUiTY

that's a lot of clinches.

Terry D wrote:I know it is all subjective but this fight was a 2-3 pointer either way. This whole fuss is ridiculous. Plus, you'd have to be a pissed-up spastic to describe Dirrell as a 'boxing genius'. Check out Duran, Locche and Toney, for starters, that is how you defend yourself. Then move onto Pernell Whittaker. Dirrell, and Froch to be fair, made a lot of bold pre-fight statements and then failed to even try to live up to them. Froch has lived up to his boasts in his past two fights, Dirrell's mouth made cheques that he could not cash in the fight itself, he showed nothing that would suggest that he will be able to engage with Kessler or Abraham, so we will get more of the same from Dirrell. Fair enough, but it does not bode well for the Super Six.

you were pissed up mate

seriously though i did have it a close fight but i would of been suprised if dirrel had won it, The GF picked Dirrel but hes not a genius hes just fast and carl couldnt corner him not that he tried very hard, carl couldnt seem to cut the ring off hopefully ward will be more up for it or maybe dirrel will fancy it against abraham with him being the smaller mand and all

Terry D wrote:he showed nothing that would suggest that he will be able to engage with Kessler or Abraham, so we will get more of the same from Dirrell. Fair enough, but it does not bode well for the Super Six.

Why does Dirrell have to engage with Froch, Kessler & Abraham? Leonard did this in Montreal against Duran and got beat. In the rematch he got on his bike and made Duran look ordinary. Should David Haye stand right in front of Valuev next month and get knocked out or should he do a Dirrell and outbox him?

terry's all touchy because jermain got ktfo again and frochy's getting stick. s'alright Tel, I'm pretty gutted for Jermain too. i am just glad i at least got the predictions right

froch made dirrel (a naive rookie in world title terms) look like a boxing genius.

then end.

Terry D wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:terry's all touchy because jermain got ktfo again and frochy's getting stick. s'alright Tel, I'm pretty gutted for Jermain too. i am just glad i at least got the predictions right

Nah, Taylor is done and there is nothing you can really say about him, other than he needs to retire. I actually went for Taylor over Froch in their fight, so can't be accused of pro-Froch/British bias. I'm just a bit fed up of people making insane copmparisons. Dirrell to Leonard. Froch to Duran. We have Tim Bradley throwing a 1-2 and winning over Witter and Bradley is a future great. Let's not all go mad here, we need a modicum of perspective at times like this.

I went for Froch and Abraham (although my heart pulled for Taylor) so no worries there. You log in and see words like 'Dirrell - boxing genius or naive rookie' and think 'WTF?!' This guy was no Pete Rademacher, he was an Olympian but he had also amassed a decent pro slate and it is a cop out to say he lost due to a lack of experience. He is not that good as boxer, that is why he lost.

i am just really sorry that taylor, seemingly one of the nicest men in boxing and certainly- with his refusal to criticise the ref for the froch stoppage- one of the classiest, has had such a difficult run of late.

i believe he *could* have beaten either one or both of ward or dirrell as 1st/ 1st and 2nd fights of this tourney, before they pitched him in with the type of fighter who was 'obviously' (to the likes of me) his kryptonite.

oh and i agree, genius vs naive is something of an overly simplistic reductive dichotomy.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Terry D wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:terry's all touchy because jermain got ktfo again and frochy's getting stick. s'alright Tel, I'm pretty gutted for Jermain too. i am just glad i at least got the predictions right

Nah, Taylor is done and there is nothing you can really say about him, other than he needs to retire. I actually went for Taylor over Froch in their fight, so can't be accused of pro-Froch/British bias. I'm just a bit fed up of people making insane copmparisons. Dirrell to Leonard. Froch to Duran. We have Tim Bradley throwing a 1-2 and winning over Witter and Bradley is a future great. Let's not all go mad here, we need a modicum of perspective at times like this.

I went for Froch and Abraham (although my heart pulled for Taylor) so no worries there. You log in and see words like 'Dirrell - boxing genius or naive rookie' and think 'WTF?!' This guy was no Pete Rademacher, he was an Olympian but he had also amassed a decent pro slate and it is a cop out to say he lost due to a lack of experience. He is not that good as boxer, that is why he lost.

i am just really sorry that taylor, seemingly one of the nicest men in boxing and certainly- with his refusal to criticise the ref for the froch stoppage- one of the classiest, has had such a difficult run of late.

i believe he *could* have beaten either one or both of ward or dirrell as 1st/ 1st and 2nd fights of this tourney, before they pitched him in with the type of fighter who was 'obviously' (to the likes of me) his kryptonite.

oh and i agree, genius vs naive is something of an overly simplistic reductive dichotomy.

I just call it as I see it. Many people on here are stating that Dirrell boxed a masterclass, my question was simply was he really that good or just not able to capitalise on what could have been.

My assesment is that he just was not able to turn the advantages that he obviously had, into a dominant winning performance. Ergo, at this leve,l he was naive to the point of costing himself the title.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Terry D wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:terry's all touchy because jermain got ktfo again and frochy's getting stick. s'alright Tel, I'm pretty gutted for Jermain too. i am just glad i at least got the predictions right

Nah, Taylor is done and there is nothing you can really say about him, other than he needs to retire. I actually went for Taylor over Froch in their fight, so can't be accused of pro-Froch/British bias. I'm just a bit fed up of people making insane copmparisons. Dirrell to Leonard. Froch to Duran. We have Tim Bradley throwing a 1-2 and winning over Witter and Bradley is a future great. Let's not all go mad here, we need a modicum of perspective at times like this.

I went for Froch and Abraham (although my heart pulled for Taylor) so no worries there. You log in and see words like 'Dirrell - boxing genius or naive rookie' and think 'WTF?!' This guy was no Pete Rademacher, he was an Olympian but he had also amassed a decent pro slate and it is a cop out to say he lost due to a lack of experience. He is not that good as boxer, that is why he lost.

i am just really sorry that taylor, seemingly one of the nicest men in boxing and certainly- with his refusal to criticise the ref for the froch stoppage- one of the classiest, has had such a difficult run of late.

i believe he *could* have beaten either one or both of ward or dirrell as 1st/ 1st and 2nd fights of this tourney, before they pitched him in with the type of fighter who was 'obviously' (to the likes of me) his kryptonite.

oh and i agree, genius vs naive is something of an overly simplistic reductive dichotomy.

How on earth could the ref have let that continue, he was completely helpless, wincing and with his eyes closed, do you want him to get killed in there?

He was too negative all night.

lowersmiths wrote:dirrell fought completely the wrong fight, he boxed scared and was possibly overwhelmed by the occassion or concerned about his fitness due to making weight.

Exactly.

Adamj1987 wrote:seriously though i did have it a close fight but i would of been suprised if dirrel had won it, The GF picked Dirrel but hes not a genius hes just fast and carl couldnt corner him not that he tried very hard, carl couldnt seem to cut the ring off hopefully ward will be more up for it or maybe dirrel will fancy it against abraham with him being the smaller mand and all

Your GF is a he?