The Ramblings of a Guy Called Lee 10.24.09: Dirrell vs. Froch, Compubox Is A Joke

Posted by David M. Lee on 10.24.2009

I return with a special edition of my former column, where I explain why the judges' decision in the Carl Froch/Andre Dirrell fight was perfectly fair and why Compubox is a complete waste of time.

Let The Judges Judge!

It's starting to become a regular occurrence in boxing that fans cry "robbery" whenever a decision doesn't go the way they see it, regardless of how close the contest actually was. Malignaggi v Diaz is perhaps the most notable example this year and just last weekend we had more accusations of foul play when WBC super-middleweight champion Carl Froch narrowly out-pointed Andre Dirrell in the opening night of the Super Six tournament. Let's get something straight right now, anybody who calls this decision a blatant robbery hasn't got the first clue about boxing and should be watching a different sport.

I scored it 114-113 for Froch, but I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who scored it for Dirrell, even by a considerable margin. It was that type of fight. Lots of the rounds were close and not much was happening in them, but these type of rounds were always likely to go Froch's way and Dirrell should have known that. Now, I don't believe in the nonsense that a challenger must "take the title" from the champion. It's utter bunkum. If a challenger wins the round, he wins the round. There is no bonus points for title-holders. However, I do believe that in close, quiet rounds where nothing of note happens (and there were plenty of those during the fight), judges usually give the benefit of the doubt to the champion, especially if he's the one forcing the action.


Andre Dirrell: Too much style, not enough substance

And that is the reason why Dirrell is not in possession of the WBC belt as we speak. For all his natural athletic abilities, the American was largely WAY too negative against Froch. His defense, based on exceptional reflexes, was a joy to behold, but you need to mix up your defense with a bit of offense now and again. This is where Dirrell was generally falling short. His frequent holding, which cost him a point in the tenth, made for an untidy, scrappy contest. Froch was hardly blameless either. The Briton should have been warned repeatedly for punching behind the head and was lucky not to have been deducted a point for that ludicrous judo throw in the fifth.

But Dirrell didn't help his cause by constantly crying to the referee, looking for help. You're on your own in that ring son, there's no one in there who's going to help you. Yes, the referee should have been more wise to Froch's rough house tactics, but if the referee is too weak to deal with a boxer's dirty tricks, then it's up to the opponent to deal with. If somebody is trying to rough you up in the ring, then you must rough them back and show them you won't be bullied. That's how FIGHTERS do their business. Not by telling tales to the headmaster. Remember when Hatton tried his rough house tactics against Mayweather? Did Floyd constantly cry to the ref? No, he gave Hatton a taste of his own medicine (a few forearms here and there) and in the end it was HATTON who was crying about Mayweather's dirty tactics. Stand up to the bully and they will crumble.

Unfortunately, Dirrell took the easy way out and started whining to the referee to help him. That doesn't give out a good impression to the judges either. Usually when you see a boxer complain it means that they're in trouble. I don't mean to come down so hard on Dirrell. He displayed some eye catching skills and his hand speed was dazzling. When he opened up in rounds ten and eleven, he looked a class above Froch. So how come we didn't see more of it? Prior to the tournament, I said that Dirrell was the most naturally talented boxer of the bunch, but that he was also the most inexperienced, which would ultimately cost him. Saturday night certainly did nothing to alter my opinion.

Something To Think About.

During my absence from 411, I remember listening to 3 More Rounds and I heard 411 Boxing editor Ramon Aranda criticizing Gale Van Hoy's explanation as to why she came up with the ridiculous 118-110 scorecard in favour of Juan Diaz in his fight against Paulie Malignaggi. Hoy said "there was not enough power in those (Malignaggi) jabs", to which Ramon responded by saying that a jab is not a power punch. Now I found that a really odd statement. Are we to believe that there is no power in Kelly Pavlik's jab? That Sonny Liston's piston like jab was nothing more than a range finder? I'm sure Nigel Benn thought the jab was a "power punch" when he was knocked out by one in his fight with Michael Watson. A jab, when thrown properly, is the most potent weapon in a boxer's arsenal.

So what is all this "a jab is not a power punch" nonsense? Then it came to me. Compubox! Or as I like to call it, Compuhoax. One of the biggest con-jobs in boxing history. It literally terrifies me that many well respected journalists actually put faith in this gibberish. You see, under this "brilliant" and "innovative" system, a jab is not classed as a power punch. But everything else seemingly is. So, say the aforementioned Kelly Pavlik defended his title against powder puff puncher Cory Spinks. If Spinks lands more straight lefts from his southpaw stance than Kelly's straight rights, but the Youngstown native out-jabbed Spinks, are we to believe that Spinks landed more "power punches", even though Pavlik's jab is probably three times more powerful than Spinks' straight left? And there lies the fallacy with this "power punch" balderdash.

The system simply cannot measure the quality of a blow, therefore it cannot determine how powerful it was. In other words, Compubox collects the quantity of blows, not the QUALITY of them. So, why is there so much credence given to this damn thing? This isn't amateur boxing (thank GOD!) where "computerised" scoring determines the victor, a system which has all but ruined the sport as a spectacle by the way. And that's another thing that must be noted about Compubox, THERE IS NO COMPUTER! It's just a couple of guys punching a few buttons every time they think they see a punch land. Therefore, it is prone to human error just like anything else. Punch stats should be used as a bit of fun and nothing else. They should NEVER be used as a guide as to who is winning a fight.

Right that's all for now. I'm sure there are many of you who will disagree with my views and that's what the comment box below is for. Just type in why you disagree with me and I'll tell you why you're completely wrong. See ya soon!