Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Carl Froch vs George Groves

1…3031333536…56

Comments

  • #962
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    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.


    Care to cite some?

    I'm sure the IBF took a lot of evidence to reach their conclusion, not just rewatch the fight on tv


  • #963
    T-K-O
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,309 ✭✭✭T-K-O


    blade1 wrote: »
    And that's what he wants to do.

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

    And when Carl does the same thing he's running scared...

    Yawn.


  • #964
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Care to cite some?

    I'm sure the IBF took a lot of evidence to reach their conclusion, not just rewatch the fight on tv

    I thought McCallum-Jackson was an earlier stoppage. Rd 2. Jackson covering up well, albeit hurt. Not a bad call, but I would consider Foster's call better. I wouldn't slate the referee in the Jackson fight.


  • #965
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Care to cite some?

    I'm sure the IBF took a lot of evidence to reach their conclusion, not just rewatch the fight on tv

    What evidence do you think is pertinent here?

    "George, were you hurt?" George: "No."

    Really, apart from watching the fight there is no other evidence to be gleaned.


  • #966
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    What evidence do you think is pertinent here?

    "George, were you hurt?" George: "No."

    Really, apart from watching the fight there is no other evidence to be gleaned.

    CT scan medicals..


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    CT scan medicals..

    What has this to do with it?

    Like I said, a referee doesn't need a medical examination in order to stop a fight. This is fairly straightforward.

    I am sure there have been 1000s of justified stoppages throughout history where the fighter was not brain damaged or injured on examination. That doesn't mean the stoppages should be deemed unfair.

    Ok, George says he wasn't hurt, AND we did a CT scan/detailed medical and he isn't brain damaged or injured. That then translates to Foster making a terrible call? Ludicrous.

    BTW, George was badly marked up. Not that this necessarily means much. I am just saying. And I am sure George being marked up was not in Foster's thinking when he stopped the fight. He stopped it because George was taking too much shots.


  • #968
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    What has this to do with it?

    Like I said, a referee doesn't need a medical examination in order to stop a fight. This is fairly straightforward.

    I am sure there have been 1000s of justified stoppages throughout history where the fighter was not brain damaged or injured on examination. That doesn't mean the stoppages should be deemed unfair.

    Ok, George says he wasn't hurt, AND we did a CT scan and he isn't brain damaged. That then translates to Foster making a terrible call? Ludicrous.

    So if he's not hurt how can you justify the stoppage???


  • #969
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    How many unreturned punches was there?


  • #970
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    So if he's not hurt how can you justify the stoppage???

    Again, I am not following? A referee does NOT need to ask a doctor or the fighter if he is hurt. They don't have to get confirmation. And, do you think a fighter is going to say YES I am hurt. Please stop this? The referee makes split second calls on what he sees and assesses.

    Can I ask, how many times have you seen a referee stop a bout and go to a doctor and ask the doctor if the fighter is "hurt," or has the fighter taken too much? They do not. The ask a doctor to check an injury. That's pretty much it.


  • #971
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    Again, I am not following? A referee does NOT need to ask a doctor or the fighter if he is hurt. They don't have to get confirmation. And, do you think a fighter is going to say YES I am hurt. Please stop this? The referee makes split second calls on what he sees and assesses.

    Can I ask, how many times have you seen a referee stop a bout and go to a doctor and ask the doctor if the fighter is "hurt,2 or has the fighter taken too much? They do not. The ask a doctor to check an injury. That's pretty much it.

    Why are you justifying the stoppage then? If I wasn't hurt if want to fight on, the rules say I'm allowed to


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    How many unreturned punches was there?

    When I first watched it on a poor feed I thought George was healthy and firing back. I also didn't see Foch landing clean shots. I re-watched it on a clear feed and I saw George wobbly, groggy and heading south. I also saw clean and hard shots landed by Carl. 3-4 clean head shots I recall. George heading south and then Foster steps in. To call that a terrible stoppage is off the mark IMO. George slumped to his knees as well after the referee waved it off.


  • #973
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Why are you justifying the stoppage then? If I wasn't hurt if want to fight on, the rules say I'm allowed to

    What?

    Most if not all fighters will respond with "I am ok to fight on." Isn't that why we have referees, to protect fighters from themselves. I am surprised you don't see this.

    Joe Frazier wanted to come out for rd 15 vs. Ali. The rules allow this? Meldrick Taylor wanted to continue vs. Chavez. The rules allow this? If this is the case, scrap the referee and allow fights to the death.


  • #974
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    What?

    Most if not all fighters will respond with "I am ok to fight on." Isn't that why we have referees, to protect fighters from themselves. I am surprised you don't see this.

    Protect them? But if they are not injured then they don't need it yet. The call was early


  • #975
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    What?

    Most if not all fighters will respond with "I am ok to fight on." Isn't that why we have referees, to protect fighters from themselves. I am surprised you don't see this.

    Joe Frazier wanted to come out for rd 15 vs. Ali. The rules allow this? Meldrick Taylor wanted to continue vs. Chavez. The rules allow this? If this is the case, scrap the referee and allow fights to the death.

    Again I said if they went hurt. You love the hyberbole


  • #976
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Again I said if they went hurt. You love the hyberbole

    Who decides if a fighter is hurt? The fighter will always say they are ok and fit to continue. You surely can agree with that?

    Now, this is when a referee/corner and doctor can play a part. The referee being the main man. He sees a man taking clean shots and looking groggy, he can't decide/think: "I must allow this to keep going until the man taking the shots tells me that he is hurt." That's bonkers mentality. His primary job is to protect the boxer.


  • #977
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Protect them? But if they are not injured then they don't need it yet. The call was early

    Not injured? You keep bringing in injures and medicals. Not sure why. A fighter does not need to have an injury for a fight to be stopped.


  • #978
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    Who decides if a fighter is hurt? The figher will always say they are ok and fit to continue. You surely can agree with that?

    Now, this is when a referee/corner and doctor can play a part. The referee being the main man. He sees a man taking clean shots and looking groggy, he can't decide/think: "I must allow this to keep going until the man taking the shots tells me that he is hurt.2 That's bonkers mentality. His primary job is to protect the boxer.


    Yes but they can refer them to the doctor. The ref's decision in this situation was INCORRECT


  • #979
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    Not injured? You keep bringing in injures and medicals. Not sure why. A fighter does not need to have an injury for a fight to be stopped.

    So stop a fight without just cause then?


  • #980
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    So stop a fight without just cause then?

    What?

    Fosters just cause was that he thought Groves was taking too much. Simple as that. Nothing complicated there.

    Nothing at all to do with doctors/medicals/boxer saying he's ok etc etc. You keep bringing up scenarios that have nothing to do with Foster's decision.


  • #981
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Can I ask you: Do you agree that a referee should have the right to stop a fight when he thinks that a fighter has taken too much, or that a fighter is in real danger of being hurt?


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    Can I ask you: Do you agree that a referee should have the right to stop a fight when he thinks that a fighter has taken too much, or that a fighter is in real danger of being hurt?

    Yes but he can be wrong, as was the case here.

    Stepping into the ring puts you in real danger of being hurt.


  • #983
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Yes but he can be wrong, as was the case here.

    Stepping into the ring puts you in real danger of being hurt.

    Ok, we're getting somewhere now. He has that right.

    Thing is that it's split seconds. Referees can't stop the fight to get medical scans etc. They can't and should NOT allow fights to continue just because the fighter "says he's ok." They have to act in split seconds. Foster acted in that way. To many he acted early. To many he only acted a little early, and to others he was correct.

    Stepping into the ring does put you in danger, hence why we need referees. Now we have an organization castigating a referee for a stoppage. It's wrong, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Had the stoppage been form an innocuous jab I would agree. That was not the case in the Groves-Froch fight.


  • #984
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    Ok, we're getting somewhere now. He has that right.

    Thing is that it's split seconds. Referees can't stop the fight to get medical scans etc. They can't and should NOT allow fights to continue just because the fighter "says he's ok." They have to act in split seconds. Foster acted in that way. To many he acted early. To many he only acted a little early, and to others he was correct.

    Stepping into the ring does put you in danger, hence why we need referees. Now we have an organization castigating a referee for a stoppage. It's wrong, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Had the stoppage been form an innocuous jab I would agree. That was not the case in the Groves-Froch fight.

    You don't make split second decision you make it on a series of observations


  • #985
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    You don't make split second decision you make it on a series of observations

    Series of observations? So, how does this work? Ok, Foster made his observations and he thought that George had taken enough.

    Are you saying referees never have to make split second decisions? A boxer gets caught with a rapid fire combo and is out on his feet and the opponent is ready to deliver more head shots. Is that observations or split second decision making? Or split second observations? Semantics!

    Nit picking here!


  • #986
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Series of observations that's how I did it. If hr gets KO'ed start counting otherwise it's a series


  • #987
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    Series of observations that's how I did it. If hr gets KO'ed start counting otherwise it's a series

    That's fine. Serious of observations was what Foster made then. Those observations led him to believe that George had taken enough, hence why he stepped in.

    BTW, are you saying that referees do not have to ever make split second calls/decisions?

    Would you call my example a split second decsion/call? Boxer gets caught with rapid fire combo and is "out on his feet" and about to be hit again. The referee in this case, does he/she have to make a split second decision/call?


  • #988
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    The combo didn't land in a split second.


  • #989
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    efb wrote: »
    The combo didn't land in a split second.

    Ok, we'll leave it there. Semantics.

    I'll meet you half way. Referees have to be prepared to make quick decisions and calls when inside the ring.


  • #990
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    walshb wrote: »
    Ok, we'll leave it there. Semantics.

    I'll meet you half way. Referees have to be prepared to make quick decisions and calls when inside the ring.

    Yes and sometimes they are incorrect. Not infallible. As was the case here. Incorrect decision corrected!


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,665 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BTW, I wonder would any fighter ever have been able to land two very hurtful blows in under 1 second?


Advertisement