Carl Froch vs George Groves

TheNap · 13-03-2014 01:13PM

Groves annoyed me in the 1st fight . Had the fight wrapped up but then refused to fight with any brains whatsoever .

I think the occasion will get them him again , he will get too excited and not think about his defence half way through the fight , Froch will stop him in the 7/8/9 round

Lucy and Harry · 13-03-2014 01:18PM

I will watch this live stream. I hope Farl Crotch wins

walshb · 13-03-2014 01:22PM

TheNap wrote: »

Groves annoyed me in the 1st fight . Had the fight wrapped up but then refused to fight with any brains whatsoever .

I think the occasion will get them him again , he will get too excited and not think about his defence half way through the fight , Froch will stop him in the 7/8/9 round

I don't think he had anything wrapped up. He was winning and staying ahead, but it's 12 rds, not7/8 or 9 rds. Froch was coming on strong and seemed to have absorbed the best that Groves had. Froch was landing more consistently in the last few rds and both men were tiring. The fight was definitely in the balance regardless of the scores.

Lucy and Harry · 13-03-2014 01:29PM

I wonder though if a ref now lets a fight go on and does not step in will a person end up dead.I hope if Groves gets into trouble the ref lets him get smashed.His crying on twitter and sky tv is shame full he should accept defeat.He was not fighting back.He looked out of it.What if he gets brain damaged next time and the ref is afraid to stop it in case he gets called bias or a cheat.Yes people wanted to see the knock out.Yes it could have gone on but we have had serious brain damaged people in sport.A ref has to judge it.

walshb · 13-03-2014 01:39PM

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

I wonder though if a ref now lets a fight go on and does not step in will a person end up dead.I hope if Groves gets into trouble the ref lets him get smashed.His crying on twitter and sky tv is shame full he should accept defeat.He was not fighting back.He looked out of it.What if he gets brain damaged next time and the ref is afraid to stop it in case he gets called bias or a cheat.Yes people wanted to see the knock out.Yes it could have gone on but we have had serious brain damaged people in sport.A ref has to judge it.

I agree. Refs have very difficult decisions to make. Foster may have been a fraction early, but it's fractions that can result in life and death.

willmunny1990 · 13-03-2014 05:04PM

walshb wrote: »

I agree. Refs have very difficult decisions to make. Foster may have been a fraction early, but it's fractions that can result in life and death.

A bit dramatic IMO. I watched it several times over at this stage and Groves wasn't that badly hurt at all and was no where near the life and death line.

Fosters decision was wrong and it robbed Groves and everyone else of a conclusive finish, it was the first bit of trouble he was in all night and all of a sudden Foster decides to jump in and wrestle Groves away and stop it for some obscure reason.

willmunny1990 · 13-03-2014 05:10PM

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

I wonder though if a ref now lets a fight go on and does not step in will a person end up dead.I hope if Groves gets into trouble the ref lets him get smashed.His crying on twitter and sky tv is shame full he should accept defeat.He was not fighting back.He looked out of it.What if he gets brain damaged next time and the ref is afraid to stop it in case he gets called bias or a cheat.Yes people wanted to see the knock out.Yes it could have gone on but we have had serious brain damaged people in sport.A ref has to judge it.

Overly dramatic.

People ending up dead or brain damaged is very rare and its ridiculous to use that as an excuse for Foster. Groves was no where near that badly hurt.

Ive seen armatures take more punishment that Groves in that fight.

gene_tunney · 13-03-2014 05:24PM

Stoppage was premature but Groves would have been stopped later anyway

el flaco · 13-03-2014 05:33PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Overly dramatic.

People ending up dead or brain damaged is very rare and its ridiculous to use that as an excuse for Foster. Groves was no where near that badly hurt.

Ive seen armatures take more punishment that Groves in that fight.

While death and brain damage are quite rare there is also the possibility of longer-term health implications.
Many people view the fact that a fighter has walked away as a sign that everything is OK, but sometimes cumulative effects aren't felt for several years - such as 'CTE' in NFL players. Unfortunately this is much harder to quantify. You can possibly trace brain damage or death back to a particular barrage of punches in a specific fight but it's practically impossible to link a condition that develops several years later to a specific incident. Had the referee not stepped in and Groves took several big shots who's to say that those shots wouldn't have led to health issues down the road?
It is impossible to applaud or admonish a referee in such situations because we never truly know how it has helped or hindered a boxers later life.

There is of course an inherent risk in boxing and the boxers know this, but with a rise in expectation of much higher levels of health and safety it is (to me at least) completely understandable that referees might err on the side of caution. It is easier to be responsible for your own demise than for someone elses.

Lucy and Harry · 13-03-2014 05:38PM

Michael Watson was the fight that brought these rules in to protect boxers.Without rules you would have damaged fighters.

walshb · 13-03-2014 05:43PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

A bit dramatic IMO. I watched it several times over at this stage and Groves wasn't that badly hurt at all and was no where near the life and death line.
.

There is no life or death line. You don't have to be smashed to pieces in the ring to suffer a serious head injury. Foster made the best call he thought. In his expert view he must have felt that George was in serious trouble.

He stepped in. Maybe that was a little early, but he cannot know that leaving it a little longer will be fine and ok. Nobody can know what would have happened had he not jumped in. Froch could have delivered some more heavy blows. That is why referees have to makes these kinds of calls. It's not an exact science.

walshb · 13-03-2014 05:44PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

stop it for some obscure reason.

What obscure reason? What's wrong with it being stopped because the referee thought that George was in real danger? What's obscure about that?

fsfg · 13-03-2014 06:35PM

walshb wrote: »

I agree. Refs have very difficult decisions to make. Foster may have been a fraction early, but it's fractions that can result in life and death.

He was not early, he was just wrong to stop it.

fsfg · 13-03-2014 06:37PM

walshb wrote: »

There is no life or death line. You don't have to be smashed to pieces in the ring to suffer a serious head injury. Foster made the best call he thought. In his expert view he must have felt that George was in serious trouble.

He stepped in. Maybe that was a little early, but he cannot know that leaving it a little longer will be fine and ok. Nobody can know what would have happened had he not jumped in. Froch could have delivered some more heavy blows. That is why referees have to makes these kinds of calls. It's not an exact science.

Best not to allow boxing then, everyone is a punch away from trouble. The ref should stop a fight if a boxer can't defend himself

walshb · 13-03-2014 07:02PM

fsfg wrote: »

Best not to allow boxing then, everyone is a punch away from trouble. The ref should stop a fight if a boxer can't defend himself

Far too simplistic a solution. Some people do want it banned for your reason. Foster stopped the fight. He must have thought that George was hurt, and was going to get more hurt from not being able to defend himself. So, he most likely did stop it for the self defence example you have given.

Halloween Jack · 13-03-2014 07:03PM

For my money it was a bad stoppage, I thought groves had covered up from taking the worst of the onslaught, he did take a fairly big right hand toward the end but I his legs weren't gone and I don't think he looked too bad.

It's not something you can have a real go at the ref for though, those guys safety is in his hands and I'm sure he sleeps fine knowing both got out unharmed.

I do find it bizarre though that we have stoppages like this to protect fighters but people keep passing toney/jones/Holyfield to fight, surely those guys even getting in the ring anymore presents a real danger to their health

gene_tunney · 13-03-2014 07:38PM

el flaco wrote: »

While death and brain damage are quite rare there is also the possibility of longer-term health implications.
Many people view the fact that a fighter has walked away as a sign that everything is OK, but sometimes cumulative effects aren't felt for several years - such as 'CTE' in NFL players. Unfortunately this is much harder to quantify. You can possibly trace brain damage or death back to a particular barrage of punches in a specific fight but it's practically impossible to link a condition that develops several years later to a specific incident. Had the referee not stepped in and Groves took several big shots who's to say that those shots wouldn't have led to health issues down the road?
It is impossible to applaud or admonish a referee in such situations because we never truly know how it has helped or hindered a boxers later life.

There is of course an inherent risk in boxing and the boxers know this, but with a rise in expectation of much higher levels of health and safety it is (to me at least) completely understandable that referees might err on the side of caution. It is easier to be responsible for your own demise than for someone elses.

"Brain damage" occurs every time you get punched in the head. The goal of boxing is to punch each other in the head. The objective for referees is to stop a fight when the punishment becomes overwhelming. This was not the case in the Froch fight, and your long-winded pseudoscientific diatribe sidestepped this. Yes, caution must be exercised, but a fight is still a fight, and at the top level of the sport you do not stop a fight without undue reason. You do not stop a fight in anticipation of a fighter receiving punishment, you stop it when he has already been hurt and is giving nothing or very little back, and the context of the fight has to be considered.

el flaco · 14-03-2014 12:33AM

gene_tunney wrote: »

"Brain damage" occurs every time you get punched in the head. The goal of boxing is to punch each other in the head. The objective for referees is to stop a fight when the punishment becomes overwhelming. This was not the case in the Froch fight, and your long-winded pseudoscientific diatribe sidestepped this. Yes, caution must be exercised, but a fight is still a fight, and at the top level of the sport you do not stop a fight without undue reason. You do not stop a fight in anticipation of a fighter receiving punishment, you stop it when he has already been hurt and is giving nothing or very little back, and the context of the fight has to be considered.

Ok it may have been pseudoscientific but saying all punches to the head cause brain damage is hardly true. While brain injuries are a result of head injuries, head injuries don't necessarily result in brain injuries.
concussions are being increasingly linked to brain conditions in later life. A boxer can take punches to the head and not necessarily be concussed.

Agreed you don't stop a fight in anticipation of serious punishment but there are strong signs when the tide has turned and probably won't stop and I still think foster prevented what would have been more serious punishment. Even though there is disagreement I'm 100% of the belief that Groves had hit the wall and was very likely about to be beaten anyway. For me this had become the context of the fight and for this reason I completely understand why foster stepped in. Was it an optimal stoppage? Probably not. Was there some logic to it? Yes.
If groves carried on and he waited til his head was being rocked around would that have been better? For some people, yes. For others, no. Personally I'm glad it didn't come to that.
Froch got knocked down early and was allowed to continue, mainly I believe, because he wasn't tired. I don't think there was necessarily a bias because had groves been knocked down in the first I'm sure the ref would have allowed him to continue.

As walshb said, calling stoppages is not an exact science and I just wish people would stop judging the referees performance as though it was definitively good or bad.

willmunny1990 · 14-03-2014 11:02AM

walshb wrote: »

What obscure reason? What's wrong with it being stopped because the referee thought that George was in real danger? What's obscure about that?

Why not stop Froch then? Froch was getting pounded with hard clean shots for the majority of the fight and Foster had no problem allowing him take it...first bit of trouble Groves got into and Foster wades in like a mad man.

And Groves was defending himself, his hands were up, he was on his feet and moving and all of a sudden forster jumps in and wrestles him away WWE style.

laughable really.

walshb · 14-03-2014 05:46PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Why not stop Froch then? Froch was getting pounded with hard clean shots for the majority of the fight and Foster had no problem allowing him take it...first bit of trouble Groves got into and Foster wades in like a mad man.

And Groves was defending himself, his hands were up, he was on his feet and moving and all of a sudden forster jumps in and wrestles him away WWE style.

laughable really.

Froch's final attack(s) on Groves seemed to me to be a little more one sided. Groves was looking shaky, hurt and wobbled. Whilst Froch (earlier on) was receiving some damaging attacks from Groves, Froch was also landing and returning fire in a more controlled and poised and comfortable manner. And, Foster knew this and Foster saw this. No reason for him to jump in to save Froch. It was Groves that was the one in worse shape in rd 9. That is why Foster stopped the fight.

el flaco · 10-04-2014 06:32PM

The capacity has been bumped up to 80,000 now. No news on ticket dates yet.

T-K-O · 10-04-2014 06:35PM

But why..

el flaco · 10-04-2014 10:22PM

pac_man wrote: »

Demand obviously.

And lots of money.

DeGale is fighting Brandon Gonzales on the undercard now after signing with Matchroom. Winner gets a shot at Froch/Groves.

Vaguely remember Gonzales fighting and drawing with Oosthuizen on the Golovkin v Macklin undercard. My over-riding memory of that fight was how bad Oosthuizen was.

Reasonable enough fight for the undercard. It can't be any worse than the 1st PPV card anyway.

T-K-O · 10-04-2014 11:44PM

pac_man wrote: »

Demand obviously.

My bad, I was referring to the never ending stoppage debate.

coronaextra · 12-04-2014 04:19PM

Lads is there going to be extra tickets available for this? if so, where would the best webpage to be keeping an eye on? have to get tickets for this.

el flaco · 14-04-2014 08:43AM

coronaextra wrote: »

Lads is there going to be extra tickets available for this? if so, where would the best webpage to be keeping an eye on? have to get tickets for this.

Eddie Hearn's twitter is probably the best bet.

coronaextra · 15-04-2014 07:14AM

el flaco wrote: »

Eddie Hearn's twitter is probably the best bet.

Thanks for that, will keep an eye on it. Really want to go to this, however, I have my doubts that much of the 20'000 extra tickets will be released out to the general public.

Going to try and give myself a chance of getting some if possible!

efb · 15-04-2014 10:28PM

Extra ticket allocation
Hi,

We are delighted to announce that a further allocation of tickets will shortly be available for the fight of the century - Froch vs Groves 2 - at Wembley Stadium connected by EE on May 31, live on Sky Sports Box Office in association with Betway.

We will send you a further email in due course confirming details of when and how these will be available.

Thanks for your continued support,
Eddie Hearn

Keep up with all the big fight build-up by following
@MatchroomBoxing on Twitter.

Join the conversation using #FrochGroves2

Joeseph Balls · 15-04-2014 10:34PM

fight of the century

heh heh

efb · 15-04-2014 11:00PM

It's only 12 1/3 years in why not...

Carl Froch vs George Groves

Comments