Eubank Jr - Yildirim, Crolla - Burns, Cyclone Card etc

walshb

Sweet Science wrote: »

I am not as sold as you on Eubanks chin . I think he could be in for a big wake up call if he gets caught flush from Groves.

.

Regarding this fight...

I am not sold on it!

Morrison J

Anyone actually giving Jamie Cox half a chance? I think he's woeful and not much better than British level. Struggled against Lewis Taylor. If the fight goes longer then 6 rounds I'd be let down by Groves.

Sweet Science

I think GG should win easy - there are whispers that Eubank-Groves could be a stadium fight. Cant see that type of interest in it but who knows .

Morrison J

Sweet Science wrote: »

I think GG should win easy - there are whispers that Eubank-Groves could be a stadium fight. Cant see that type of interest in it but who knows .

Massive shame both quarter finals were hidden behind PPV. Can't help the sales of the semi-final.

They ****ed up the seeding for this whole tournament massively too. Should be Eubank fighting Smith to set up a Eubank - Groves final. Massive opportunity lost there.

I'd expect they'll play it safe and have it in the O2.

Burial.

pac_man wrote: »

With all this talk, it would be gas if Cox won.

To be fair, one of the big names is due to get beaten. Only right isn't it? It's been plain sailing pretty much in both tournaments for all the big names...only Groves and Gassiev are left to fight (no offence to Braehmer or Brant). Cox never impressed me at all the few times I've seen him. Should be light work for Groves.

Eyes Down Field

Eubank Vs Groves is a huge fight. Britain loves big domestic fights, I have no doubt that they could do this in Stamford Bridge which is being considered.

HigginsJ

Morrison J wrote: »

But Groves has shown he can do both and against far better opposition. He fought off instinct for the majority of the Froch I and Chudinov fights for example.

A "complete fighter" in my eyes is someone astute both offensively and defensively. I think Groves is probably more solid in both areas tbh.

I can't comment on the Chudinov fight but Froch I was fought on anything but instinct. It was an exceptionally well planned & excetuted fight but the polar opposite of instinct.

walshb

HigginsJ wrote: »

I can't comment on the Chudinov fight but Froch I was fought on anything but instinct. It was an exceptionally well planned & excetuted fight but the polar opposite of instinct.

It absolutely was as you described..

And then when the going got really tough he kind of lost his way, got very raggedy, tired, sloppy and got broken down..

I remember the furore over the stoppage, but on closer and more detailed inspection, Foster got it right.

Hence why for me he is much more a boxer than fighter.

Burial.

pac_man wrote: »

Maybe Rob Brant might be the surprise package?

He's got a good chance of beating Braehmer I feel. I haven't seen a whole lot of Brant but he does look decent, but he is moving up in weight isn't he? Braehmer is near 40 and I always considered him a big LHW, very wide, so I don't know if he'll even make 168 honestly...Braehmer is a tough nut though, and has good power and decent boxing in him...plus he's fighting at home. Who's to know about that injury he had in the Cleverly fight as well.

Saw someone posting a snippet of Groves and Froch and couldn't help but have a look again on YT. But all I could concentrate on was Jim Watt and Halling. That led me to finding this. Sat at the screen for ten minutes howling with laughter. The internet is f*cking brilliant at times.

Morrison J

HigginsJ wrote: »

Morrison J wrote: »

But Groves has shown he can do both and against far better opposition. He fought off instinct for the majority of the Froch I and Chudinov fights for example.

A "complete fighter" in my eyes is someone astute both offensively and defensively. I think Groves is probably more solid in both areas tbh.

I can't comment on the Chudinov fight but Froch I was fought on anything but instinct. It was an exceptionally well planned & excetuted fight but the polar opposite of instinct.

He came out with the gameplan to take the centre of the ring and make things uncomfortable for Froch and take him out of a rhythm. He did that but I think he boxed off instinct more and more as the fight progressed. Turned it into a brawl really and threw the kitchen sink at Froch. There was really nothing measured about it. Round 6 for example he's just throwing big punch after big punch.

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

I remember the furore over the stoppage, but on closer and more detailed inspection, Foster got it right.

Christ.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Christ.

Yes, Christ to the baying mob!

I was one who initially thought he was a bit early. I have watched it back many times and I think he was justified. Groves was pretty much gone, wobbly, hurt and not defending all that well..couple more clean Froch shots could have done untold damage.

Plus, likely the next rd he would have gotten flattened.

Anyway, he moaned and cried his way to a rematch and did eff all in it...

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

Morrison J wrote: »

Christ.

Yes, Christ to the baying mob!

I was one who initially thought he was a bit early. I have watched it back many times and I think he was justified. Groves was pretty much gone, wobbly, hurt and not defending all that well..couple more clean Froch shots could have done untold damage.

Plus, likely the next rd he would have gotten flattened.

Anyway, he moaned and cried his way to a rematch and did eff all in it...

You can't stop a fight if a fighter is "pretty much gone", especially not a fight of that magnitude where the fighter is well up on the cards. He was throwing back when the fight was stopped, Froch wasn't even landing anything properly clean, it was an absolutely horrendous stoppage. One of the worst I've ever seen.

What would've happened 10 seconds later or in the next round is irrelevant, he wasnt given the chance to win or lose fairly.

In the rematch he was ahead on the cards imo before walking into a massive shot. Fair conclusion but he proved he can mix it at a high level at the very least.

walshb

I thought Groves was a huge let down in fight 2..

Went from a tremendously intense and winning attitude in fight 1 to a happy to be in it and competitive in fight 2.

I always felt he could beat Froch in fight 2. I picked him to..

He needed intensity and real managed aggression. He didn’t deliver.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

You can't stop a fight if a fighter is "pretty much gone", especially not a fight of that magnitude where the fighter is well up on the cards.

Can you elaborate a bit here? So, a referee has to what, wait until he is gone? And what is gone? Knocked out completely, getting absolutely pasted with no real return fire or credible defence?

Referees at times have very difficult decisions to call. They have to make the calls at that exact time, with no way to look back on the fight. In the moment, extremely intense, potentially very dangerous...

Foster I felt (at the time, not now) made the call maybe a fraction early, but that was his right, his call, his experienced judgment. No way I would slate him for it.

Foster was watching and ingesting the whole fight. It was a steady progression that got GG to the final position, where he was clearly getting hit hard and clean, wobbly, and looking very vulnerable...Only then did Foster make his honest and fair call. It was his honest and fair call, not the fans.

Being up on the cards should never ever come into a decision from a referee when thinking a fight should be stopped to protect a fighter from possible serious injury or worse. I realize it can come into it, but it should not.

Groves had his chance to show Foster that he was in control, defending well and returning decent fire. I thought he failed in his whole body and its language. He did not show to me that he was defending with substance and thought and control. And obviously he did not show this to Foster.

Part of the reason why for me GG is more boxer than fighter. Did not have the real fighters survival and instinct to weather the storm. That's not a criticism, just my assessment of GG the boxer/fighter.

I think that it was very possible that Froch got to land a few more potentially lethal punches on a "distressed" GG. Foster prevented that, and IMO rightly so.

walshb

Then it's down to silly semantics. For me Foster felt GG was deserving of rescuing. That's good enough for me. I saw him deserving of rescuing too.

Sweet Science

Froch needed rescuing earlier in that fight by your logic . The ref gave him time he recovered and won .

For what its worst though i think GG race was run at that point and he wasnt making to the distance . The ref stopped it early though

walshb

Sweet Science wrote: »

Froch needed rescuing earlier in that fight by your logic . The ref gave him time he recovered and won .

For what its worst though i think GG race was run at that point and he wasnt making to the distance . The ref stopped it early though

The whole Froch being hurt in rd 1 is constantly trotted out. It's garbage. It was rd 1. One single punch. Fighter dropped, got up and showed the referee that he was capable of continuing....

To try and compare that to rd 9 and what happened between rds 1 and 9 for GG to get where he was is ridiculous. And it is not my logic, or any logic for that matter. It's the complete opposite of logic.

Look, I didn't want the fight stopped, was rooting for GG and was mad when it ended. But when I looked back with a cool head I felt that Foster made a fair call.

No issue with anyone arguing that it may have been a little early, but the vitriol bollix posted towards Foster and the ridiculous claims of fix are just garbage.

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

Foster was watching and ingesting the whole fight. It was a steady progression that got GG to the final position, where he was clearly getting hit hard and clean, wobbly, and looking very vulnerable...Only then did Foster make his honest and fair call. It was his honest and fair call, not the fans.

Aye, but he made a complete balls of it. The fans were right in booing the stoppage as they generally are. Completely incompetent refereeing from Foster and not the first or last time he's shown himself to be below par.

Have you ever took the side of general fan consensus and not the ref/judge after a controversial fight?

Took Byrd's side after that hideous Canelo/GGG card, took AIBA's side during the Olympics, taking Foster's side in Froch-Groves I. Mental stuff.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Aye, but he made a complete balls of it. The fans were right in booing the stoppage as they generally are. Completely incompetent refereeing from Foster and not the first or last time he's shown himself to be below par.

Have you ever took the side of general fan consensus and not the ref/judge after a controversial fight?

Took Byrd's side after that hideous Canelo/GGG card, took AIBA's side during the Olympics, taking Foster's side in Froch-Groves I. Mental stuff.

And you always take the side of the baying mob, the how-ya thuggish side of it all.

I am not at all impressed with that side. I respect a lot of the men and women who give so much of their time to the sport for our enjoyment, so pardon me that I am not so quick to slate and ridicule and sully their names just because some fans didn't get what they wanted.

I have seen plenty of errors in the sport, bad calls, and yes, there has been corruption. But to jump on everything as you seem to do just because of some sort of cry or foul is what's wrong with the sport.

And another thing, you are always so quick to take real offence with a differing view on this, as you showed in the Rio thread.

My view on Conlan is firm, honest and IMO correct. I did not see corruption, and I did not condone or understand his outburst. For this you and some others rally took offence. Sad really.

These topics could be very interesting and enjoyable, but when you come out so disagreeing and almost attacking of the opposing view, then they turn silly rather quickly.

Mental stuff?? So, because I think Foster made a fair call, Conlan was out of order for his post fight reactions, that cannot be met with discussion? It has to be called Mental stuff?

I remember asking about MCs fight, had anyone got to watch it back, in a more calm and relaxed setting to judge it. Nobody got back to me.

I felt that he won, but no way was it robbery or as you want us to believe, cheating and corruption, as you called several fights you disagreed with. That is mental stuff. Conspiracy stuff, and slanderous/libelous stuff.

I do recall a lot of MCs shots not landing. Hitting arms and being blocked. I also recall him taking some clean counters. All this is food for thought. As well as it being a unanimous verdict. Watch back the Seoul Games on youtube. They do a great 43 min slot. There you will see more of what you are claiming...

Great video...with some real thuggish behavior that no doubt you'd condone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3YKe16b0SI

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Have you ever took the side of general fan consensus and not the ref/judge after a controversial fight?

Yes, don't you remember the recent fight with SK and Ward. You conveniently not really seeing/thinking much of the clearly blatant low blows to end the fight. IMO Weeks got that wrong.

Now, I am not ready to sully his name with claiming him corrupt or a cheater. I don't operate like that. I am thinking had it suited your argument, and SK was the man you were rooting for, not only would you have clearly seen and recognized the low blows, but you'd be lambasting the referee as a cheat...

I can stand tall and say one thing. I am consistent and honest. I don't say things just to be on side, and I have 0 issue with correcting or changing my views should I believe that I got it wrong.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Took Byrd's side after that hideous Canelo/GGG card,

Been over that one many times. You know my card. It was 8-3-1 for GG if I recall...

Byrd's card was simply way more to Canelo. Everyone knows my views on closely fought rds. I believe, and still do that 9-10 of those rds were very close and could be argued either way, hence Byrd's card cannot be anything but her interpretation of the fight. If she truly felt Canelo was deserving of most rds then she would have been corrupt not to award him them, just so to make it close to please you and others.

I cannot change that view just so I am on the side of calling Byrd a cheat. Many rds close. That is my view on the fight. I won't call that lady a cheat based on her card and on what I saw in the 12 rds.

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

Morrison J wrote: »

Aye, but he made a complete balls of it. The fans were right in booing the stoppage as they generally are. Completely incompetent refereeing from Foster and not the first or last time he's shown himself to be below par.

Have you ever took the side of general fan consensus and not the ref/judge after a controversial fight?

Took Byrd's side after that hideous Canelo/GGG card, took AIBA's side during the Olympics, taking Foster's side in Froch-Groves I. Mental stuff.

And you always take the side of the baying mob, the how-ya thuggish side of it all.

I am not at all impressed with that side. I respect a lot of the men and women who give so much of their time to the sport for our enjoyment, so pardon me that I am not so quick to slate and ridicule and sully their names just because some fans didn't get what they wanted.

I have seen plenty of errors in the sport, bad calls, and yes, there has been corruption. But to jump on everything as you seem to do just because of some sort of cry or foul is what's wrong with the sport.

And another thing, you are always so quick to take real offence with a differing view on this, as you showed in the Rio thread.

My view on Conlan is firm, honest and IMO correct. I did not see corruption, and I did not condone or understand his outburst. For this you and some others rally took offence. Sad really.

These topics could be very interesting and enjoyable, but when you come out so disagreeing and almost attacking of the opposing view, then they turn silly rather quickly.

Mental stuff?? So, because I think Foster made a fair call, Conlan was bang out of order for his post fight reactions, that cannot be met with discussion? It has to be called Mental stuff?

I remember asking about MCs fight, had anyone got to watch it back, in a more calm and relaxed setting to judge it. Nobody got back to me.

I felt that he won, but no way was it robbery or as you want us to believe, cheating and corruption, as you called several fights you disagreed with. That is mental stuff. Conspiracy stuff, and slanderous/libelous stuff.

I do recall a lot of MCs shots not landing. Hitting arms and being blocked. I also recall him taking some clean counters. All this is food for thought. As well as it being a unanimous verdict. Watch back the Seoul Games on youtube. They do a great 43 min slot. There you will see more of what you are claiming...

Great video...with some real thuggish behavior that no doubt you'd condone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3YKe16b0SI

Ah now don't make me out to be the outlier here. 99.9% of boxing fans agree that Byrd's card was inexcusable, there was corruption in Rio (not just Conlan) and that the Froch - Groves stoppage was way too premature. You'd swear I was going out on a limb with these opinions.

I've never taken offence to any of your opinions either. That would mean I take them personally. I just meet some of them with disbelief/frustration.

I care about the credibility of the sport which is in question far too consistently unfortunately. Kill me for it.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Ah now don't make me out to be the outlier here. 99.9% of boxing fans agree that Byrd's card was inexcusable, there was corruption in Rio (not just Conlan) and that the Froch - Groves stoppage was way too premature. You'd swear I was going out on a limb with these opinions.

I've never taken offence to any of your opinions either. That would mean I take them personally. I just meet some of them with disbelief/frustration.

I care about the credibility of the sport which is in question far too consistently unfortunately. Kill me for it.

You are not an outlier. If anything that would be me...

So there was corruption in Rio.....you simply saying it means eff all to me. I disagree with your matter of fact claim on that.

Fair enough on the taking offence. We've had back and forth. All in good spirit, although I think back in Rio we weren't as acquainted, so to speak, as we are now.

My view on Foster, remember, was that I did initially think a bad call. I honestly do not not see that now after watching it with a cooler and more relaxed head.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

I care about the credibility of the sport which is in question far too consistently unfortunately. Kill me for it.

As do I.

However, accusing people and organisations of corruption and cheating (without any solid proof or evidence) anytime a decision or verdict isn't to your liking isn't the way I would go about it. That, for me is doing nothing but damaging the sport.

Something being in question I have no issue with. Question it....but to flat out throw damaging accusations at people and organisations is wrong on many levels.

Odd how I am the only one who operates like this. Maybe it's society today. No bother lashing out and accusing people of things with no evidence or proof, and no regard for their name or their character....