Froch-Dirrell scorecards

[Fightwriter]

For those interested, I just received the judges' round by round scores on the Froch-Dirrell fight.

In the consensus scoring (that is, when at least two judges agree on who won the round), Dirrell came out ahead 7-5 in rounds. With the one-point deduction, Dirrell was up 114-113 on the consensus scores.

What cost Andre the fight was mid-rounds passivity. He blew rounds 6, 7 and 8 on the cards. All three judges gave these rounds to Froch. These were the only rounds that Froch won unanimously on the cards.

The only round that Dirrell won unanimously on the cards was the 10th, which became a 9-9 round with the one-point deduction.

So, what we have here is a desperately close fight that could have gone either way. The hometown fighter is always likely to get the decision in a fight such as this.

I like to think I would never be so full of myself as to tell someone that they categorically scored a fight the wrong way.

There were, I feel, two ways of looking at this fight, and, unfortunately for Dirrell and those who played him, two of the judges looked at the fight the "wrong" way.

Those who picked Dirrell to win or backed him (or both, smile) didn't make a bad choice at all. It was a close-run thing.

 

[frank s.]

I can see someone getting turned off by Dirrell's grabbing/holding tactic. He semed desperate in the later rounds and almost afraid at times. He landed some nice shots even then, but he did'nt impress. I had him but I agree with the decision.

 

[gardenweasel]

imo,the first 5 rounds practically moot....nothing really happened.....would be very hard to fault anyone for scoring the fight either way.....and to dirrell`s detriment,he was on his bike...on the defensive for much of the first 5.....

if he had been picking his spots and throwing combos and moving,then i understand the consternation....but,he was flicking a jab(occasionally)...froch wasn`t doing much either...but he was coming forward and trying to engage...a totally subjective decision by anyone scoring...

understand,i`m not saying that those that felt dirrell won were wrong....it was just a very hard fight to score...and you can never underestimate being on home turf...when a guy swings and misses and the crowd roars,theres still some psychological effect...

i hope the rest of the fights are more definitive...wouldn`st be shocked in the ward/kessler fight followed a similar pattern....

 

[Ghost Kid]

Thanks Graham
Surprised the 10th is the only one Andre swept on all 3
Hard to imagine anyone giving Froch the 11th

 

[Fightwriter]

Round 11 scoring

Round 11 scoring

Thanks Graham
Surprised the 10th is the only one Andre swept on all 3
Hard to imagine anyone giving Froch the 11th

I agree Ghost. I thought the 11th was Andre's best round (apart from the 10th, which he obviously won only to have it 9-9 because of the point being deducted), but the Italian judge, Barrovecchio, gave Froch the last two rounds. (The other two judges gave Dirrell the last two rounds.)

If Barrovecchio had seen the last two rounds the same way as his colleagues, we would have been looking at a split decision win for Dirrell, two scores of 114-113 in Dirrell's favour, one of 115-112 in favour of Froch.

Froch backers shouldn't be feeling TOO smug about this one, then, as they got there by the skin of their teeth.

You know, Ghost, I have talked with top judges and boxing commissioners quite a lot over the years (it goes with the territory, smiling) and one thing judges have told me is: "I want a guy to show me he wants to win."

I think that this was where Andre really let himself down: In too many rounds, he flat out didn't show the judges he wanted to win.

 

[punchmaster]

Froch backers shouldn't be feeling TOO smug about this one, then, as they got there by the skin of their teeth.

No, they aren't feeling smug at all but they should feel some content that they took the right factors into consideration 1- Froch had found a way to defeated Pascal & Taylor, a pair of African American fighters with speed which looks even better after Pascal's performance against Diaconu.2- Dirrell had in the past shown an extreme aversion to being hit and fighting negative (Curtis Stevens) and 3, (Location) that style would likely prove difficult to win with in the backyard of a popular and proven fighter.

From what I've read, most ringside media writers, along with Rafael and Iole, had Froch winning. I think Dirrell would have made just about anyone look bad with that negative style. I think Dirrell has Abraham next??? What happens to Dirrell when he feels AA's power, we shall see. Love the Showtime tourney!

 

[Kramden]

For those interested, I just received the judges' round by round scores on the Froch-Dirrell fight.

In the consensus scoring (that is, when at least two judges agree on who won the round), Dirrell came out ahead 7-5 in rounds. With the one-point deduction, Dirrell was up 114-113 on the consensus scores.

What cost Andre the fight was mid-rounds passivity. He blew rounds 6, 7 and 8 on the cards. All three judges gave these rounds to Froch. These were the only rounds that Froch won unanimously on the cards.

The only round that Dirrell won unanimously on the cards was the 10th, which became a 9-9 round with the one-point deduction.

So, what we have here is a desperately close fight that could have gone either way. The hometown fighter is always likely to get the decision in a fight such as this.

I like to think I would never be so full of myself as to tell someone that they categorically scored a fight the wrong way.

There were, I feel, two ways of looking at this fight, and, unfortunately for Dirrell and those who played him, two of the judges looked at the fight the "wrong" way.

Those who picked Dirrell to win or backed him (or both, smile) didn't make a bad choice at all. It was a close-run thing.

Thanks for the info Graham. So if they used that experimental system they tried with Viv Harris vs. Ivan Robinson in 2000 Dirrell would have won. LOL.

You're so right about the middle rounds - Dirrell fought scared and really blew the rounds. As it was the fight was very close. I thought Dirrell edged it but it was no robbery. It's disappointing for Dirrell backers but the decision, under the circumstances, was reasonable. And as a whole, no one took complete command of the fight.

The thing that annoys me is the lack of confidence Dirrell displayed. I really think he had a guy in front of him he really could have dominated but he didn't. Perhaps it was a lack of seasoning. It seemed like he finally woke up a bit late in the match and realized he could dominate in a tit for tat fight but he turned the switch on a bit too late. And I don't think his corner did a good job and didn't tell him the truth enough during the fight.

 

[Fightwriter]

Thanks for the info Graham. So if they used that experimental system they tried with Viv Harris vs. Ivan Robinson in 2000 Dirrell would have won. LOL.

You're so right about the middle rounds - Dirrell fought scared and really blew the rounds. As it was the fight was very close. I thought Dirrell edged it but it was no robbery. It's disappointing for Dirrell backers but the decision, under the circumstances, was reasonable. And as a whole, no one took complete command of the fight.

The thing that annoys me is the lack of confidence Dirrell displayed. I really think he had a guy in front of him he really could have dominated but he didn't. Perhaps it was a lack of seasoning. It seemed like he finally woke up a bit late in the match and realized he could dominate in a tit for tat fight but he turned the switch on a bit too late. And I don't think his corner did a good job and didn't tell him the truth enough during the fight.

Yes, you are right! If the NJ consensus scoring experiment had taken hold, Dirrell would have been the winner. I think what disappointed those who picked/backed Dirrell was that the caution he showed against Curtis Stevens again manifested itself in this fight. It was Dirrell's fight to be taken, and he didn't take it, although, as I mentioned in my fight review, some credit has to be given to Froch for making Dirrell apprehensive.

It is difficult to be sure how fighters will perform on the big stage.

Years ago in Britain, there were those who saw John Conteh as showing too much of an aversion to getting hit (as Punchmaster put it re. Dirrell).

Conteh had all the tools but he froze in the European amateur championships in Madrid when he hardly threw a punch and lost to a limited guy from Austria, and in his first pro defeat he was very reluctant to engage and blew a highly winnable fight to a Philadelphian named Eddie Duncan. In his first world title fight, though, against Jorge Ahumada, a tough customer from Argentina, Conteh put it all together and impressively outboxed and outfought his opponent. Of course, Conteh was boxing on home ground in London whereas Dirrell was in the lion's den in Nottingham, but that same punch-shy trait was glimpsed early in Conteh's career.

While Conteh overcame his uncertainties, I'm not so sure with Dirrell. When he meets Abraham I fear a repeat of what happened in Nottingham, with Andre trying to steal it off the back foot and not getting away with it. This tournament is the best thing to happen in boxing in years, IMO.

 

[Kramden]

Abraham isn't as forward moving as Froch but I think he's much more dangerous. Hit's harder, is stronger and has a better chin. Abraham is a guy i don't think Dirrell can mow down in spite of his speed. Yet, he may be able to play keep away a tad better against Abraham than Froch. Interesting fight.