Carl Froch vs George Groves

Johner · 26-11-2013 04:50PM

walshb wrote: »

I also doubt very much that at the time of the stoppage that the referee was thinking about Groves being chinny. The referee made the call at that exact moment of time based on what he was seeing in Groves.

Don't agree with this, do you think if Froch has have been in Groves position the fight would have been stopped? Would it fuck.

Johner · 26-11-2013 04:52PM

walshb wrote: »

Eh, and what is arrogant about that? He most likely was going the get a free hit/hits? And tes, he shouldn't be allowed, nor should any boxer. If anything that was Carl showing a bloody caring side to such a brutal scenario.

Should the fight have been stopped in the 6th? Groves had plenty of free hits in that round and pretty much teed off on him for the whole round? It was a bull**** stoppage, the whole world knows it, the ref got it wrong.

walshb · 26-11-2013 04:53PM

DuckHook wrote: »

Froch was talking out his arse, he was lucky and the ref rescued him. He still couldnt let the interview go by without more lectures about the pre fight hype by groves which clearly had him rattled.

It was a breath of fresh air to hear glenn mcrory speak unedited for a change and call it what it was.

By calling the referee despicable? A man who is charged with the absolute safety or other mens lives? Jesus, McCrory of all people should know and respect that. He could have been a wee bit more subtle. "I disagree with the call, but I do understand the tough decisions a referee has to make." Nick Halling got it right. Had Groves taken one or two more heavy shots and been badly hurt the mob would have been against the referee.

walshb · 26-11-2013 04:54PM

Johner wrote: »

Don't agree with this, do you think if Froch has have been in Groves position the fight would have been stopped? Would it fuck.

Why ask a question that just cannot be answered?

walshb · 26-11-2013 04:57PM

Johner wrote: »

Should the fight have been stopped in the 6th? Groves had plenty of free hits in that round and pretty much teed off on him for the whole round? It was a bull**** stoppage, the whole world knows it, the ref got it wrong.

I was just going to post that the 6th rd was a rd that took a lot out of George. Froch finished the round every bit as strong. Froch was engaging in all the exchanges, albeit coming out second best in most of them, but he was upright, sturdy and finishing strong.

I think that the call was a fraction early on the part of the referee, but some here are way OTT in their criticism. George did look ragged, had taken 2-3 flush shots and was heading south. I didn't see this when I first watched it on a poor youtube video.

Edit: I would back Groves in a rematch!

darced · 26-11-2013 05:01PM

This post has been deleted.

Johner · 26-11-2013 05:03PM

walshb wrote: »

Why ask a question that just cannot be answered?

It can't be, but do you honestly think Froch would have been stopped by the ref in the same way Groves was? Couldn't see it myself.

darced · 26-11-2013 05:06PM

This post has been deleted.

walshb · 26-11-2013 05:06PM

Johner wrote: »

It can't be, but do you honestly think Froch would have been stopped by the ref in the same way Groves was? Couldn't see it myself.

As much chance IF Froch was in the same state/position. Remember how close the referee is to the action. He saw and heard them shots land clean. He watched Groves slump forward with hands down. He wasn't allowing Froch to then tee off. The referee must have felt that at that time that Froch could well land some serious leather on an almost defenceless opponent.

yourdeadwright · 26-11-2013 05:12PM

In my opinion round 6 was the round that swung the fight in Froch's favour, Groves started the round brillaint and cracked Froch with severally really good shots but i think the fact Froch hung in broke Groves heart a bit, If you watch closely at the end of the round Froch caught Groves with a big straight right aginst the ropes and it hurt him Jim Watt was to busy talking nonsense to mention it, I think Froch realised it aswell as he shoulder Groves walking back to his corner at the bell to show he was getting on top, Really bad stoppage but i think Froch had him and they both knew it ,

Johner · 26-11-2013 05:15PM

walshb wrote: »

As much chance IF Froch was in the same state/position. Remember how close the referee is to the action. He saw and heard them shots land clean. He watched Groves slump forward with hands down. He wasn't allowing Froch to then tee off. The referee must have felt that at that time that Froch could well land some serious leather on an almost defenceless opponent.

But Groves wasn't even given a chance, anything could have happened after, Froch could have knocked him out or Groves might have weathered the storm but the ref didn't give it a chance. I understand the point about the safety of the boxers but the stoppage was just too early. The ref got it wrong and even his unorthodox way of grabbing Groves to stop it didn't seem right. Froch should have been deducted a point also in one of the earlier rounds.

yourdeadwright · 26-11-2013 05:15PM

I think anyone really intrested should always watch the fight back with the sound off, I do it with all fights and you notice way more,
Also no one seems to have noticed Groves left arm went completey limp just as the ref went to grab him , i think he was out on his feet

yourdeadwright · 26-11-2013 05:29PM

Can i just say that on the Froch should have been deducted a piont, There again is people listing to Jim Watt instead of watching whats going on, he talks nonsens, He was calling that for the two punches Froch hit Groves with after the bell, he only throw them because clear as day as the ref told them to break only seconds before Groves hit him twice with good shots on the back of the head, hence why the ref spoke to them both , They both where at fault, Everyone good see that except Sky commentator but because he say's otherwise then people think its right,

gene_tunney · 26-11-2013 05:44PM

It's often wise to listen to what Jim "Arrrrrum Punches" Watt has to say, and then assume the opposite is true. Clueless.

walshb · 26-11-2013 05:45PM

Johner wrote: »

even his unorthodox way of grabbing Groves to stop it didn't seem right. .

I think that's nit picking. The referee decided that that was it, and grabbed him at that time in that position. Nothing odd there.

As for the dirty tactics. I hadn't seen the fight but was reading that Froch was very dirty. That was OTT too. Both had their dirty moments, but it wasn't as bad as the posts led me to believe.

nacho libre · 26-11-2013 05:51PM

walshb wrote: »

He was hardly going to say that the referee got it wrong and that George was robbed of the chance to continue. Froch was bang on when he said that it wasn't fair or right to be asking the boxers if the referee made the right call. Bang on.
s.

I don't see why if you're capable of being honest with yourself. If he genuninely believed the stoppage was correct, then fair enough, but i suspect he knows deep down if he was stopped in the same situation, because the ref's deemed him unfit to continue, he would not be talking about respecting the job the referee had to do.

He was far from bang on in his conduct after the fight. He refused to shake Groves hand, when it was offered and started getting mouthy towards him, until Fitzpatrick had a word with mc cracken about his antics.. He was annoyed about childish behaviour and unsportmanlike conduct from Groves, yet he was guilty of the same thing immediately after the fight.
He should have been a bit humble in victory.
That's the issue for some people, not that it Carl's fault the ref' stopped it.

nacho libre · 26-11-2013 05:54PM

walshb wrote: »

Eh, and what is arrogant about that? He most likely was going the get a free hit/hits? And yes, he shouldn't be allowed, nor should any boxer. If anything that was Carl showing a bloody caring side to such a brutal scenario.

if that really was his concern, he wouldn't have done some of the things during the fight, that if the fight had taken place elsewhere, he'd have been deducted points for. i'm not saying groves was an angel in there by the way, but Carl was doing most of the fouling.

walshb · 26-11-2013 05:58PM

nacho libre wrote: »

I don't see why if you're capable of being with yourself. If he genuninely believed the stoppage was correct, then fair enough, but i suspect he knows deep down if he was stopped in the same situation, because the ref's deemed him unfit to continue, he would not be talking about respecting the job the referee had to do.
t.

Yet you expect him to answer fairly ten minutes after a brutal fight without even having the chance to look back on it? They're not robots. They're human beings with feelings and emotions. Maybe he did feel himself that George was hurt and in trouble. Froch had to feel his shots making clean contact on a tired opponent who was then slumping and heading south. So why is it hard to believe that Froch thinks the right call was made?

As for after the fight, again, he's raw, adrenalin pumping and George is coming over trying to be all pals? I doubt any man would be ready to kiss and cuddle considering that the opponent had been quite disrespectful and disparaging. Froch was man enough to admit that in the interview, and man enough to somewhat make up and give George a fair bit of respect. He spoke very honestly and fairly. Both men embraced and spoke honestly yet respectfully in the interview.

nacho libre · 26-11-2013 06:01PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

He was calling that for the two punches Froch hit Groves with after the bell, he only throw them because clear as day as the ref told them to break only seconds before Groves hit him twice with good shots on the back of the head, hence why the ref spoke to them both , ,

Yes. The shots Carl threw when the ref asked them to break were valid shots.
Though, you can't hit people around the back of the head or elbow them in the face.

nacho libre · 26-11-2013 06:07PM

walshb wrote: »

Yet you expect him to answer fairly ten minutes after a brutal fight without even having the chance to look back on it? They're not robots. They're human beings with feelings and emotions. Maybe he did feel himself that George was hurt and in trouble. Froch had to feel his shots making clean contact on a tired opponent who was then slumping and heading south. So why is it hard to believe that Froch thinks the right call was made?

As for after the fight, again, he's raw, adrenalin pumping and George is coming over trying to be all pals? I doubt any man would be ready to kiss and cuddle considering that the opponent had been quite disrespectful and disparaging. Froch was man enough to admit that in the interview, and man enough to somewhat make up and give George a fair bit of respect. He spoke very honestly and fairly. Both men embraced and spoke honestly yet respectfully in the interview.

well, fair enough, maybe he did believe it was a genuine stoppage at the time, we'll never know

Groves had just lost and was being gracious in defeat. It's not that much to expect the winner to do the same, especially when he lectured about the importance of being respectful before the fight. I don't agree with what Groves said during the build up, but the time for settling scores was over, they had knocked lumps out of each other during the fight, forget it and move on.

yourdeadwright · 26-11-2013 06:14PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Yes. The shots Carl threw when the ref asked them to break were valid shots.
Though, you can't hit people around the back of the head or elbow them in the face.

My point is they where both at it and as bad as eachother and in my opinion neither deserved a point taken off, But Jim Watt only ever noticed when Froch fouled,

blade1 · 26-11-2013 06:15PM

For a ref that was supposedly so worried about Groves' welfare, why didn't he pull Froch when he had Groves held by the back of head and he punched him I think, 4 or 5 times?

MD1990 · 26-11-2013 07:40PM

http://boxingnewsonline.net/latest/feature/carl-froch-i-don-t-need-to-fight-george-groves-again-part-one

such a deluded fool tbh

walshb · 26-11-2013 08:46PM

I am fed up reading about comparisons between rd 1s knockdown and rds 9s stoppage. It's ridiculous to compare the scenarios. Not even going to explain why.

walshb · 26-11-2013 08:49PM

MD1990 wrote: »

http://boxingnewsonline.net/latest/feature/carl-froch-i-don-t-need-to-fight-george-groves-again-part-one

such a deluded fool tbh

Care to say why, show examples maybe? I'd like a little more to analyse, if you're up for it?

DuckHook · 26-11-2013 09:42PM

walshb wrote: »

I am fed up reading about comparisons between rd 1s knockdown and rds 9s stoppage. It's ridiculous to compare the scenarios. Not even going to explain why.

Wh is it ridiculous?

walshb · 26-11-2013 09:58PM

DuckHook wrote: »

Wh is it ridiculous?

Read my post. Or read what Froch said in the article.

vision267 · 26-11-2013 10:41PM

kryogen wrote: »

Watch it again then?

He wobbled off the ropes when he got up alright, but he was able to stand straight and clearly had his faculties when the ref checked him.

People getting angry at Froch for what actually took place in the ring is mind boggling, he did his job, Groves did his, the ref made an error. The rest is speculation.

The real anger should actually be directed at the two judges who had that fight scored so close. That was a joke

Well said

fsfg · 26-11-2013 11:40PM

walshb wrote: »

Care to say why, show examples maybe? I'd like a little more to analyse, if you're up for it?

Brilliant after your post right above that!

MD1990 · 27-11-2013 12:25AM

walshb wrote: »

Care to say why, show examples maybe? I'd like a little more to analyse, if you're up for it?

says he doesn't owe Groves a rematch as he was going to knock him seconds before it was stopped
& that Ward should fight him in the UK even though he was beaten badly

Carl Froch vs George Groves

Comments