Carl Froch vs George Groves

T-K-O

Am I reading this right... now Groves is playing the business game?

blade1

T-K-O wrote: »

Am I reading this right... now Groves is playing the business game?

All depends.
Don't think he is disputing the money but some of the after fight conditions.
Why not?

T-K-O

blade1 wrote: »

All depends.
Don't think he is disputing the money but some of the after fight conditions.
Why not?

Urgh.. pot and kettle. Either he wants to beat the warrior up or he doesn't. What happened to the confidence..


You see, all of these guys are just the same.

blade1

T-K-O wrote: »

Urgh.. pot and kettle. Either he wants to beat the warrior up or he doesn't. What happened to the confidence..


You see, all of these guys are just the same.

And that's what he wants to do.

He shouldn't just agree to everything they want without looking out for himself.

Johner

IBF say 'improper stoppage' behind their order for rematch between Carl Froch and George Groves. Fight ordered to take place within 90 days.

walshb

MD1990 wrote: »

maybe u do
but the IBF disagree
immediate rematch to take place withing 90 days from today
right decision because if that was alleged a fair stoppage we would be robbed of alot of classice fights

I'd be disgusted if I was a referee and this is how the "authorities" were supporting me. Where do you draw the line? This is a very dangerous precedent. What now? Referees allowing boxers to take more punishment so that the referee isn't castigated for an "early" stoppage?

I have no issue with disagreeing with calls, but this is way out of line. Doesn't surprise me. It's pro boxing. Full of corrupt and bent people.

A referee's decision and decision making is crucial to the safety of boxers, and here we have an organisation going against that. Foster made a call in the best interests of George, and the IBF are pissing on him. Disgraceful.

MD1990

walshb wrote: »

I'd be disgusted if I was a referee and this is how the "authorities" were supporting me. Where do you draw the line? This is a very dangerous precedent. What now? Referees allowing boxers to take more punishment so that the referee isn't castigated for an "early" stoppage?

I have no issue with disagreeing with calls, but this is way out of line. Doesn't surprise me. It's pro boxing. Full of corrupt and bent people.

A referee's decision and decision making is crucial to the safety of boxers, and here we have an organisation going against that. Foster made a call in the best interests of George, and the IBF are pissing on him. Disgraceful.

no
he made a call of the best interest of Matchroom & Car Froch.
Fighters know the dangers of stepping into the ring & Groves wasn't even knocked down.Why didn't he stop it after Froch was nearly knocked out & after the fight he couldn't even remember the knockdown?

Kev M

I see the rematch going the same way only with Froch being more cautious in the early rounds, for obvious reasons. I would expect him to KO Groves again.

Froch is taking alot of stick from the 'fans', which is crazy because he just pulled off a gruelling brutal comeback against a dangerous capable opponent. It's a shame that if you lose a fight or in this case even come close to losing that so many idiots are immediately going to call you ****. He's always in good fights, he always puts on a show, he's good for boxing. Groves went in with a good gameplan, but he's not half the fighter Froch is, when it's all said and done and you look back at both their careers this will be obvious.

doublejj

ko again.. yes froch was coming strong and got knockdown,but thats boxing...he got a hiding off j taylor for 11 but sparked him it works both ways..

efb

I'll be shouting for groves but I can see Froch walk away from IBF Title

efb

walshb wrote: »

I'd be disgusted if I was a referee and this is how the "authorities" were supporting me. Where do you draw the line? This is a very dangerous precedent. What now? Referees allowing boxers to take more punishment so that the referee isn't castigated for an "early" stoppage?

I have no issue with disagreeing with calls, but this is way out of line. Doesn't surprise me. It's pro boxing. Full of corrupt and bent people.

A referee's decision and decision making is crucial to the safety of boxers, and here we have an organisation going against that. Foster made a call in the best interests of George, and the IBF are pissing on him. Disgraceful.

Ref's arnt infallible and shouldn't be treated as such

walshb

efb wrote: »

Ref's arnt infallible and shouldn't be treated as such

Who said they were? That is not the issue. It's a very subjective issue.

Foster made a split second call. Yes, it was "controversial," but not everyone agrees that it was a real bad call. Now we are subjected to an organization who is point blank slating an official who made that call. Where do we draw the line?

Foster had no idea how that bout was going to go. We have people claiming that he was on a fix. That's madness. Just because they thought he was early in stopping the fight. Look at Groves. He was hurt, groggy and was taking consecutive heavy shots. Foster steps in because at that time he thought George had taken enough, and he gets hung out to dry by those who should be supporting him? Scandalous.

I could understand the IBF if Foster stopped the fight after Froch landed a stiff jab. I too would agree in that case, but not for what happened on November 23rd. It was a very tough and physical fight.

Those same IBF crew and the fans would be calling for Foster's head had he let it go an extra few seconds, and possibly allowing Froch to unload more heavy artillery on a hurt fighter, resulting in real danger. This is the whole point. It's life and death and split second calls that can result in life and death. It's a disgrace that the IBF are castigating Howard Foster here.

Boxing referee's are not infallible. They can make bad calls, late calls, maybe early calls etc, but they are humans charged with protecting men in an extremely serious and dangerous sport. To be so against Foster here is sickening. Like I said, it wasn't like he stopped a fresh faced and super fit and competitive Groves. Groves was hurt, reeling and taking clean shots. Just before Foster jumped in, Groves was heading south.

Could he have let it go a few seconds more? To the baying mob? Absolutely yes. To the real boxing fan who respects the tough decisions referees have to make. Also, yes. But I believe that he made the right call for him at that time. For that he should not be hung!

I just hope that this doesn't result in referees now being afraid to step in "early," resulting in possible injury, and worse still, death!

efb

walshb wrote: »

Who said they were? That is not the issue. It's a very subjective issue.

Foster made a split second call. Yes, it was "controversial," but not everyone agrees that it was a real bad call. Now we are subjected to an organization who is point blank slating an official who made that call. Where do we draw the line?

Foster had no idea how that bout was going to go. We have people claiming that he was on a fix. That's madness. Just because they thought he was early in stopping the fight. Look at Groves. He was hurt, groggy and was taking consecutive heavy shots. Foster steps in because at that time he thought George had taken enough, and he gets hung out to dry by those who should be supporting him? Scandalous.

I could understand the IBF if Foster stopped the fight after Froch landed a stiff jab. I too would agree in that case, but not for what happened on November 23rd. It was a very tough and physical fight.

Those same IBF crew and the fans would be calling for Foster's head had he let it go an extra few seconds, and possibly allowing Froch to unload more heavy artillery on a hurt fighter, resulting in real danger. This is the whole point. It's life and death and split second calls that can result in life and death. It's a disgrace that the IBF are castigating Howard Foster here.

Boxing referee's are not infallible. They can make bad calls, late calls, maybe early calls etc, but they are humans charged with protecting men in an extremely serious and dangerous sport. To be so against Foster here is sickening. Like I said, it wasn't like he stopped a fresh faced and super fit and competitive Groves. Groves was hurt, reeling and taking clean shots. Just before Foster jumped in, Groves was heading south.

Could he have let it go a few seconds more? To the baying mob? Absolutely yes. To the real boxing fan who respects the tough decisions referees have to make. Also, yes. But I believe that he made the right call for him at that time. For that he should not be hung!

I just hope that this doesn't result in referees now being afraid to step in "early," resulting in possible injury, and worse still, death!

I have seen refs not step in when they should and step in far to early, this was the latter.

Groves wasn't in trouble and no hyperbole will convince me otherwise.

Rematches have been ordered before this is nothing new

nacho libre

walshb wrote: »

Who said they were? That is not the issue. It's a very subjective issue.

Foster made a split second call. Yes, it was "controversial," but not everyone agrees that it was a real bad call. Now we are subjected to an organization who is point blank slating an official who made that call. Where do we draw the line?


!

It was a premature stoppage. however the ref, as you rightly point out, should not be undermined in public like this it set a dangerous precedent, whereby a ref next time out might let a fight go too far as he is afraid of being admonished for stopping a fight too early. personally i'd rather take heat for stopping a fight early, than for letting a fight go on too long, which results in a fighter's health being badly damaged- mcclellan being a prime example

efb

nacho libre wrote: »

It was a premature stoppage. however the ref, as you rightly point out, should not be undermined in public like this it set a dangerous precedent, whereby a ref next time out might let a fight go too far as he is afraid of being admonished for stopping a fight too early. personally i'd rather take heat for stopping a fight early, than for letting a fight go on too long, which results in a fighter's health being badly damaged- mcclellan being a prime example

A lot of changes have been brought in since then

walshb

nacho libre wrote: »

It was a premature stoppage. however the ref, as you rightly point out, should not be undermined in public like this it set a dangerous precedent, whereby a ref next time out might let a fight go too far as he is afraid of being admonished for stopping a fight too early. personally i'd rather take heat for stopping a fight early, than for letting a fight go on too long, which results in a fighter's health being badly damaged- mcclellan being a prime example

This was my whole point. Though, in your view it was premature. Not everyone agrees. And for the IBF to come out with this and hang that man is disgraceful.

The man made a split second call during a very gruelling fight. A gruelling and tough exchange where one man was landing heavier shots on a fighter who was looking groggy.

walshb

efb wrote: »

Groves wasn't in trouble and no hyperbole will convince me otherwise.

I disagree. You can't know for certain and nor can I. The fighter won't admit it. Of course he won't. His body language IMO said he was hurt and in trouble. I will take the referee's view, who was right there in the ring and close, over an armchair viewer.

efb

walshb wrote: »

I disagree. You can't know for certain and nor can I. The fighter won't admit it. Of course he won't. His body language IMO said he was hurt and in trouble. I will take the referee's view, who was right there in the ring and close, over an armchair viewer.

And I will take the IBF's decision which overrode the refs

walshb

efb wrote: »

And I will take the IBF's decision which overrode the refs

Yes, armchair fans! Many probably of the same mentality as the baying mob!

And their decision overrode nothing. The official result is a win for Froch. All they have done is bring their organization into disrepute.

efb

walshb wrote: »

Yes, armchair fans! Many probably of the same mentality as the baying mob!

And their decision overrode nothing. The official result is a win for Froch. All they have done is bring their organization into disrepute.

They said the ref's decisions was incorrect and ordered a rematch

walshb

efb wrote: »

They said the ref's decisions was incorrect and ordered a rematch

Yes, and in doing so they have brought the organization into disrepute. They cannot know if the call was incorrect. They weren't in the ring taking the clean shots to the head. It wasn't them whose lives was on the line. Disgusting shower!

efb

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and in doing so they have brought the organization into disrepute. They cannot know if the call was incorrect. They weren't in the ring taking the clean shots to the head. It wasn't them whose lives was on the line. Disgusting shower!

There was a medical done after a fight, I'm sure all this was taken into account.

Ref's are to call the doctor if they suspect serious injury

walshb

efb wrote: »

There was a medical done after a fight, I'm sure all this was taken into account.

Ref's are to call the doctor if they suspect serious injury

Not sure what a medical has to do with anything? What has "Ref's are to call the doctor if they suspect serious injury" got to do with Foster deciding to stop a fight where he thought one man was taking too much punishment?

A referee does NOT have to approach a doctor to ask him/her if a fighter is taking too many shots. That is the point. Nothing else! The referee makes this call. Foster stopped the fight based on this, not on whether or not George was medically unfit or medically in danger.

efb

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what a medical has to do with anything? What has "Ref's are to call the doctor if they suspect serious injury" got to do with Foster deciding to stop a fight where he thought one man was taking too much punishment?

A referee does NOT have to approach a doctor to ask him/her if a fighter is taking too many shots. That is the point. Nothing else! The referee makes this call. Foster stopped the fight based on this, not on whether or not George was medically unfit or medically in danger.

You were talking about his life being in danger! And Ct scans after fight would reveal how much punishment his brain was subjected to

efb

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and in doing so they have brought the organization into disrepute. They cannot know if the call was incorrect. They weren't in the ring taking the clean shots to the head. It wasn't them whose lives was on the line. Disgusting shower!

I

Life on the line??? Hyperbole much???

walshb

efb wrote: »

I

Life on the line??? Hyperbole much???

Not sure where you are going. Simple: A referee does NOT need to consult a doctor if the referee believes that a fighter is taking too much. Foster thought Groves was taking too much. End of. The doctor has nothing to do with this.

A referee can consult a doctor about an injury to a fighter. That's not what happened on November 23rd. On November 23rd the referee stopped the fight for one reason. Groves was in the referee's opinion taking too much and was in danger of taking one too many.

efb

walshb wrote: »

Not sure where you are going. Simple: A referee does NOT need to consult a doctor if the referee believes that a fighter is taking too much. Foster thought Groves was taking too much. End of. The doctor has nothing to do with this.

And the refs decision was ruled incorrect by the sanctioning body. You kept referring to the health of the boxer.

Should a ref not be overruled?

efb

I'm a little bit more than "an armchair fan" also

walshb

efb wrote: »

I'm a little bit more than "an armchair fan" also

I am an armchair fan in the sense that I watched it from the armchair. Howard Foster watched it inside the ring and was studying it in far greater deatail than I was.

walshb

efb wrote: »

And the refs decision was ruled incorrect by the sanctioning body. You kept referring to the health of the boxer.

Should a ref not be overruled?

I don't keep referring to the health of the boxer. Of course, the health is paramount.

Foster made the call at that split second based on what he saw in the ring. To many he was too early, to many he was a little too early, but to others he got it right. It's not an exact science. And for a world body to come out against him for this is absolutely wrong.

The health issue was paramount to Foster's decision I would imagine. It has to be. His job is to protect the boxer. He did that to the best of his capability. To castigate him the way the IBF have done for that is bang out of order.

I have seen many cases of fights being stopped even earlier than the Groves-Froch fight.