Carl Froch vs George Groves

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 10:39PM

T-K-O wrote: »

I did, for the sake of the argument, he beat no one.

Froch is a limited boxer. Kessler past his best. Abraham was a limited MW. Dawson was weight drained.

Remember we are NOT comparing records!

So you can't pick one thing wrong with ward. U said you could. Sorry for pulling u up on it again but you can't or wont answer

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 10:43PM

walshb wrote: »

What does this mean?

That means you have fairly changed your opinion from the morning after the fight . Seen as u watched it on the internet. After you seen 95% of people thinking it was a crazy decision. Walshb has decided to argue as usual for the sake of it.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 10:45PM

Later

willmunny1990 · 29-11-2013 10:52PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

Later

Bye.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 10:56PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Bye.

I'm up at 6 this nonsense needs to end :-)

T-K-O · 29-11-2013 11:07PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

So you can't pick one thing wrong with ward. U said you could. Sorry for pulling u up on it again but you can't or wont answer

I'll bite.

Not Ward HIS record. You're confused.

Anyway

I just rubbished every 'decent' fighter on Wards record. If you have a counter to that, Im all ears.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 11:14PM

T-K-O wrote: »

I'll bite.

Not Ward HIS record. You're confused.

Anyway

I just rubbished every 'decent' fighter on Wards record. If you have a counter to that, Im all ears.

Yes but by rubishing them you have rubished Froch more. But you SaY Froch is not overrated etc etc .

T-K-O · 29-11-2013 11:18PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

Yes but by rubishing them you have rubished Froch more. But you SaY Froch is not overrated etc etc .

Just a little reminder, We are discussing Ward and his record.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 11:24PM

You admitted Froch wAs outboxed . You know he wAs beaten. You know he had been lucky. So please explain . When ward has been outboxed. When he has been beaten . If you can't do that you can't pick a hole in his record so less of the word twisting.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 11:26PM

T-K-O wrote: »

I'll bite.

Not Ward HIS record. You're confused.

Anyway

I just rubbished every 'decent' fighter on Wards record. If you have a counter to that, Im all ears.

You have just rubbished every decent fighter on wards record so are you rubbishing Froch ??????

T-K-O · 29-11-2013 11:31PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

You admitted Froch wAs outboxed . You know he wAs beaten. You know he had been lucky. So please explain . When ward has been outboxed. When he has been beaten . If you can't do that you can't pick a hole in his record so less of the word twisting.

Now thats just special. We are discussing records. Undefeated fighters can also have padded records. In fact most guys have padded records to a certain point in their career. Take Joshua for example? You think his 3-0 is a solid record

I made the point that anyone's record can be picked apart. I just did it with Ward. Now for you to counter that argument, you need to make a case for Kessler, Abraham, Dawson etc.

T-K-O · 29-11-2013 11:33PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

Groves . Dirrell. Sorry 2 dodgy decisions . He lost to kessler and ward schooled him. And he wAs lucky v lucky against Taylor. And wAs terrible against Johnson. He beat a mw in Abraham and a crap intetested fighter in Bute.

Newsflash. This is you attacking Carls CV.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 11:40PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Now thats just special. We are discussing records. Undefeated fighters can also have padded records. In fact most guys have padded records to a certain point in their career. Take Joshua for example? You think his 3-0 is a solid record

I made the point that anyone's record can be picked apart. I just did it with Ward. Now for you to counter that argument, you need to make a case for Kessler, Abraham, Dawson etc.

I know what your saying but you seem to miss the point that ward has not lost 2 rounds in a row He has not been beaten. He beat kessler to a pulp before kessler beat Froch .he beat Froch v v easy and prob overrated Froch it would be a 10-2 fight the next time. What ward has done can not be argued with . He has won every fight easy. And has proved himself to be on a different level . Jones would of beaten him. Calzaghe might of. In the last 20 yrs. ThAts the level wards at.

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 11:44PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Newsflash. This is you attacking Carls CV.

They fought them in different ways . Froch and ward can't be compared.ward is levels ahead of Froch

T-K-O · 29-11-2013 11:45PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

I know what your saying but you seem to miss the point that ward has not lost 2 rounds in a row He has not been beaten. He beat kessler to a pulp before kessler beat Froch .he beat Froch v v easy and prob overrated Froch it would be a 10-2 fight the next time. What ward has done can not be argued with . He has won every fight easy. And has proved himself to be on a different level . Jones would of beaten him. Calzaghe might of. In the last 20 yrs. ThAts the level wards at.

I'm not going to bother with that.

For the sake of the argument, Ward has not beat anyone other than limited brawlers, over the hill fighters and tomato cans.

T-K-O · 29-11-2013 11:46PM

supersean1999 wrote: »

They fought them in different ways . Froch and ward can't be compared

Praise the lord... I think.

Im not comparing them at all. We are (at least I am) discussing two completely separate boxing records

supersean1999 · 29-11-2013 11:59PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Praise the lord... I think.

Im not comparing them at all. We are (at least I am) discussing two completely separate boxing records

Im in bad service here sometimes I think I'm replying to posts iv sent. But to make it clear. A boxing record needs to be studied if you study frochs record he is a man Thats been beaten twice been out boxed on 3 different occasions getting a ko once a tko once and lucky points once. Ward has not lost 2 rounds in a row twice. So when I question a record I look at the way it wAs achieved. Wards has been achieved v easy .

T-K-O · 30-11-2013 12:02AM

supersean1999 wrote: »

Im in bad service here sometimes I think I'm replying to posts iv sent. But to make it clear. A boxing record needs to be studied if you study frochs record he is a man Thats been beaten twice been out boxed on 3 different occasions getting a ko once a tko once and lucky points once. Ward has not lost 2 rounds in a row twice. So when I question a record I look at the way it wAs achieved. Wards has been achieved v easy .

So has Anthony Joshua's

supersean1999 · 30-11-2013 12:10AM

T-K-O wrote: »

So has Anthony Joshua's

He is a 3 fight novice who got lucky twice on the way to a gold medal the cuban beat him in the last 8. Cant rem his name the uncle was a legend. . I'm in a groves Froch thread. Ward is in the same weight. So Thats ok. Bringing a 3 fight veteran into it is weird :-). I suppose while your at it. You will pick at mayweather too

n

supersean1999 · 30-11-2013 12:12AM

Tko go to bed. You need to read à bit more

T-K-O · 30-11-2013 12:17AM

supersean1999 wrote: »

He is a 3 fight novice who got lucky twice on the way to a gold medal the cuban beat him in the last 8. Cant rem his name the uncle was a legend. . I'm in a groves Froch thread. Ward is in the same weight. So Thats ok. Bringing a 3 fight veteran into it is weird :-). I suppose while your at it. You will pick at mayweather too n

So there you go, you just picked apart Joshua, others think he's very good. That's the point.

Floyd, I'm not going to confuse the situation further, however some people do pick at his record.

T-K-O · 30-11-2013 12:18AM

supersean1999 wrote: »

Tko go to bed. You need to read à bit more

Says the guys who can't look further than jones/Calzaghe in 20 years

supersean1999 · 30-11-2013 12:38AM

T-K-O wrote: »

So there you go, you just picked apart Joshua, others think he's very good. That's the point.

Floyd, I'm not going to confuse the situation further, however some people do pick at his record.

Oh god do you want to have à written review after 3 fights . I thought we were talking about world champions at smw. . But you Mr know it all said every fighters records can be picked apart or whatever. But you have made a brutal attempt at ward. And you can only make à clown of your self by having à go à mayweather. And Yes only Jones and Calzaghe imo Would of beaten ward in the last 20 yrs. I raté him highly.Then again when carl Froch is a world champion maybe ward has had no real comp :-)

T-K-O · 30-11-2013 12:45AM

No we were talking about records and how opinions can differ.

walshb · 30-11-2013 10:08AM

supersean1999 wrote: »

That means you have fairly changed your opinion from the morning after the fight . Seen as u watched it on the internet. After you seen 95% of people thinking it was a crazy decision. Walshb has decided to argue as usual for the sake of it.

Nothing to do with arguing as usual. Why is a civilised debate an argument? I am open enough to admit that when I first saw it I thought the stoppage was a good bit early. My post also did say that the video quality was not the best. I then got to see it clearly, and since then I have swayed. What's the big deal there? I still think the referee was a little early, but I a am not as firm with that feeling as I was when I first watched it on a standard youtube feed.

MD1990 · 30-11-2013 10:35AM

walshb wrote: »

Nothing to do with arguing as usual. Why is a civilised debate an argument? I am open enough to admit that when I first saw it I thought the stoppage was a good bit early. My post also did say that the video quality was not the best. I then got to see it clearly, and since then I have swayed. What's the big deal there? I still think the referee was a little early, but I a am not as firm with that feeling as I was when I first watched it on a standard youtube feed.

can u imagine the uproar if this happened in the US?
they would be calling for a no contest & immediate rematch
if there were more calls like Foster's decision last saturday we could be robbed of classic fights.I see there using the safety of the fighter as a get out card.But Groves team demended before the fight for Foster to give Groves a chance before the fight if he was hurt.Training hard for 12 weeks & then the fight to be stopped the first time u got hurt after Froch was hurt 5 or 6 times would be very hard to take.

supersean1999 · 30-11-2013 12:26PM

walshb wrote: »

Nothing to do with arguing as usual. Why is a civilised debate an argument? I am open enough to admit that when I first saw it I thought the stoppage was a good bit early. My post also did say that the video quality was not the best. I then got to see it clearly, and since then I have swayed. What's the big deal there? I still think the referee was a little early, but I a am not as firm with that feeling as I was when I first watched it on a standard youtube feed.

Your right debate not argue. B-)

walshb · 30-11-2013 02:04PM

MD1990 wrote: »

can u imagine the uproar if this happened in the US?
they would be calling for a no contest & immediate rematch
if there were more calls like Foster's decision last saturday we could be robbed of classic fights.I see there using the safety of the fighter as a get out card.But Groves team demended before the fight for Foster to give Groves a chance before the fight if he was hurt.Training hard for 12 weeks & then the fight to be stopped the first time u got hurt after Froch was hurt 5 or 6 times would be very hard to take.

I see your point, but when you analyse it closer, Froch was hurt right at rd 1 whilst very fresh. He got dropped, got back up and acknowledged to the referee that he was ready. The other times he was "hurt" was rd 6, but again, he was sturdy, upright and firing back cleanly. He wasn't wobbling, reeling or heading south.

The 9th rd in my eyes was a bit different. George did look ragged and was taking clean and hard shots whilst looking ragged, moving/leaning backwards, head to the ground and swinging. Finally he sways forwards with head and body going south. That for me was when the referee felt that he was not capable of defending himself, and that Froch posed too serious a risk to Groves.

When I first watched it on a very average youtube feed I couldn't really see the shots that Froch was landing as Groves was backing up to the ropes. I have since seen it a lot clearer, and IMO I can't really fault the referee's decision too much. I would have liked an extra couple of seconds, but sometimes that is all it takes for real danger.

I have a feeling that when many watch it back now and later they may not feel as outraged. When you're in the moment, adrenalin pumping, high as a kite and loving the ding dong action of a fight, a sudden stoppage can kill you and have you seething.

fsfg · 30-11-2013 02:44PM

walshb wrote: »

I see your point, but when you analyse it closer, Froch was hurt right at rd 1 whilst very fresh. He got dropped, got back up and acknowledged to the referee that he was ready. The other times he was "hurt" was rd 6, but again, he was sturdy, upright and firing back cleanly. He wasn't wobbling, reeling or heading south.

The 9th rd in my eyes was a bit different. George did look ragged and was taking clean and hard shots whilst looking ragged, moving/leaning backwards, head to the ground and swinging. Finally he sways forwards with head and body going south. That for me was when the referee felt that he was not capable of defending himself, and that Froch posed too serious a risk to Groves.

When I first watched it on a very average youtube feed I couldn't really see the shots that Froch was landing as Groves was backing up to the ropes. I hae since seen it a lot clearer, and IMO I can't really fault the referee's decision too much. I would have liked an extra couple of seconds, but sometimes that is all it takes for real danger.

I have a feeling that when many watch it back now and later they may not feel as outraged. When you're in the moment, adrenalin pumping, high as a kite and loving the ding dong action of a fight, a sudden stoppage can kill you and have you seething.

I have watched it plenty of times and it was outrageous. Groves dominated the fight and bullied Froch for most of it. He got hit but you can't tell if he was bad because the ref grabbed him in a headlock. He had every right to be allowed continue. He was 10 x worse in the Anderson fight and came back to win.

walshb · 30-11-2013 02:49PM

fsfg wrote: »

I have watched it plenty of times and it was outrageous. Groves dominated the fight and bullied Froch for most of it. He got hit but you can't tell if he was bad because the ref grabbed him in a headlock. He had every right to be allowed continue. He was 10 x worse in the Anderson fight and came back to win.

That's fair enough. Like I have been saying, there is no "right or wrong" here. That's what a lot of the posts seem to be about. One camp claiming they're right and the other camp claiming they're right. Both camps claiming to know what would have or could have happened had this occurred or this not occurred. It's all speculation.

Carl Froch vs George Groves

Comments