DeGale on Defeat

[n1ebf]

Think he was honest and truthful in the interview, people just seem to dislike him now and can't get over that build up

i read 3 or 4 interviews with Degale before Smith fight and that was Boxing News (or Monthly, not sure )...one was in the Times or Independent something like that. Point is they were all pretty in depth interviews and I took a real liking to the lad.

Listening to the way he beasts himself in the gym and the (polite) confidence and thought out comments he was making I predicted he would beat Smith and sure enough he turned up and did the job....He went to Smith's back garden and a hostile crowd and just like he said they would be , the angles , the speed were too much for Smith...it was a consumate display.....I had the girlfriend all clued up on the fight the lot and we really enjoyed it (from Paul too!)...

2 minutes after the fight he was doing that ridiculous thing where he cocks his head up at the sky with a glove in the air like he's talking to God and I cringed a bit....

A few short months later and he's laughing at immaculately turned out George Groves' tie and holding his nose saying he has bad breath.....then his promoter and trainer get stuck into Groves too etc...then he gets beat...then he won't shake hands.......


Sorry to bang on but I can't recall a fighter go from such a strong position, and maybe not popular with everybody but he was becoming popular with me and he would have got more and more fans........and he ruins it inside of 6 short months

You couldn't make it up.

[ScottDetonator]

Groves won the fight fair and square. It was becoming unwatchable before the fight the stuff he was coming out with, can you imagine how much BS DeGale would've continued to spout if he had got the decision over George? Reminds me of a certain Mr Harrison.

NorthEast is bang on the money there as well, before the Groves fight was announced I was beginning to come round to James but since then it's really gone belly up for him. In this age of PPV, he's certainly not winning over the paying public and that could be his major downfall. I don't deny he's talented but he's got to accept the defeat and move on. If you don't win the fight convincingly in the eyes of the judges and know you could've done more, you need to put that right with hard work next time. You can't expect to get everything your own way in boxing, in fact, the reverse is often true. DeGale needs to take a reality check, knuckle down and improve his attitude. I think he's come down to earth with one hell of a bump and a few fights outside of the UK, possibly the US, might be a great idea.

[gobbles]

Some people rub others up the wrong way.

It is worth pointing out that Groves started with the "James DeFail" insults long before not only all the Ginger and Ugly Kid stuff, but long before DeGale turned pro.

In fact it was when Groves signed with Hayemaker, right after DeGale won the gold medal in Beijing, and Groves is calling him DeFail and David Haye was slagging him off too, saying that even before he had turned pro, that he would never make it. Of course, no one on here would dare criticise either Groves or Haye for that.

I wonder other sports treats its OLympic gold medallists so badly.

[NazNaci1]

Woah there, hold your horses.

Degale has decided to take the route of the loudmouth, braggat. He has said numerous times that it doesnt matter if ppl boo him as long as they watch him (ie pay).

Can't have it both ways, considering he cant even carry that role off at all.

Free advice, just be yourself, by all accounts he is a decent, down to earth guy. Try that, and ppl will still watch and maybe those boo's will turn to even more cheers.

Trying to emulate Mayweather is not working because Degale comes across so fake with it.

Same with Jimmy Mac. Just try to be yourselves, Brits like humble guys more than wannabe arrogant tools.

[n1ebf]

Brits like humble guys more than wannabe arrogant tools.

Exactly, hit the nail on the head there pal. Look no further than one of my all time favourite fighters who was the embodiment of what you describe above, and that's Chris Eubank

[yiddo14]

It's not just Brits. Everyone the world over generallynprefers the humble, down to earth guy.

[Crease]

No class.
Groves won the fight, end of story..

I agree on that regard 100%
Even after the fight DeGale showed no courtesy or sportsmanship toward George Groves at all. (And I'm talking about after the 12 round bell)
He wouldn't shake hands with Groves or hug him or touch gloves. And these gestures are common place in today's boxing whether fighters like each other or night, it's a gesture of respect for going the distance.

Then after the announcement, he just complained and through the proverbial "toys out of the pram" and went into a child-like fit and saying he was robbed, that it was all "bullshite"...

DeGale has to learn (and it's gonna be a hard lesson fro him) that he has to take responsibility to the defeat. He can't keep passing the buck around all of the time. Not everyone is as easily convinced that he's going to be a future world champion, as Johnny Nelson.

If DeGale was a little more humble then people might get behind him; sadly not.
.

I blame McDonnell. I don't rate him as a great trainer (the way that some on here do) but he's been overcomplimentary of DeGale and giving him false hope of being better than what he actually is.

Get a new trainer James, and please get your head out of the clouds.

[Gray-Fox]

It's easier to be humble when you're on top of the world and winning (as James was in numerous interviews prior to the fight). Especially if you're someone like Degale who's itching to be liked.

However, the real test of a man is how he takes defeat, and Degale failed

In the words of Napoleon:

“Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.”

[JamesH]

Some interesting posts..

Groves won the fight, but for me he got the decision rather than winning the fight. While I have no problem with Groves getting it, it's folly to deny that it could have gone either way.

I agree with camcas, I think De Gale has done himself no favours in the build up and it's going to be difficult for people to forget that. The holding the nose thing was embarrassing for De Gale rather than Groves. They will forget though, in time.

Gobbles you're quite right, although I feel its falling on deaf ears here. Groves may have started the insults, he may have been calling out De Gale even before he'd had a pro fight himself, his team got involved more than they should have, but hey ho it's against De Gale so it's going to be quite acceptable to most.

Bengulnaci1, good post and you're obviously correct, 'Brits like humble guys more than wannabe arrogant tools'. However, Brits love nothing more than a winner, who's been crashed down to earth, and comes again. How much support did Harrison have against Haye? More than you would have thought following the abuse he'd taken in the years previous.

Crease, it would be a lot easier for the winner to make the peace than the loser, but Groves didn't go out of his way to do it either. I'm not saying he should have, I just think neither of them were interested in it so I don't see why De Gale (as the loser) is the one who should be doing all the making up, or touching of gloves or any of the rest of it. He was gutted and didn't take the loss well but it doesn't make him a bad person. In the same way that Groves isn't bad for not admitting the fight was close, instead claiming it was 'easy'. I agree about McDonnell but I haven't seen many on here say he's a great trainer, capable of getting them into shape certainly, but a great trainer? Not in my opinion.


As for quotes, I prefer "Show me a good loser and I'll show you an idiot.”

I have no connection with De Gale other than seeing him fight in the amateurs a few times. I saw a bout he had for England against Hungary and thought he was very average. A couple of years later, a year or so before the Olympics, England took on America and De Gales opponent was trying to intimidate pre-fight, 'I'm gonna knock you out in your home town" and comments like that. De Gale was quiet, but smirked back at his team, but never traded verbals with the American. I thought he looked worried. He then went on to spank the yank with a performance I didn't think he was capable of, becoming in my eyes the most improved member of what was a fine England team. That's when I decided there was more to him than met the eye, and that I wouldn't write him off prematurely again.

[JamesH]

Bengulnaci1, good post and you're obviously correct, 'Brits like humble guys more than wannabe arrogant tools'. However, Brits love nothing more than a winner, who's been crashed down to earth, and comes again. How much support did Harrison have against Haye? More than you would have thought following the abuse he'd taken in the years previous.

I think that's more to do with a lot of Brits like an underdog.

Very true, but they still supported Audley, a man less popular than chlamydia. I just think its not beyond the realms of possibility that sometime, someday, a large section of the DeGale hating crew will get behind him, depending on the opponent of course.

[earsjohn]

Bengulnaci1, good post and you're obviously correct, 'Brits like humble guys more than wannabe arrogant tools'. However, Brits love nothing more than a winner, who's been crashed down to earth, and comes again. How much support did Harrison have against Haye? More than you would have thought following the abuse he'd taken in the years previous.

I think that's more to do with a lot of Brits like an underdog.

Have to disagree a bit. There's so many instances across British sport in which the loveable loser has been more popular than the arrogant winner.

Mansell or Hill in F1, Murray or Henman in Tennis, Faldo or Lyle in Golf, Lewis or Bruno. In each of these examples the former was clearly the more accomplised, technically better, more successful, yet in each case the latter was the popular favourite with the public. And it has nothing to do with them being an underdog, we Brits simply do not like our successful sports stars to be driven, focused and intent on winning. If Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods or Rafa Nadal were British, you know there is no way they would have been idolosed like they are in their own countries.

[stujones]

Bengulnaci1, good post and you're obviously correct, 'Brits like humble guys more than wannabe arrogant tools'. However, Brits love nothing more than a winner, who's been crashed down to earth, and comes again. How much support did Harrison have against Haye? More than you would have thought following the abuse he'd taken in the years previous.

I think that's more to do with a lot of Brits like an underdog.

Have to disagree a bit. There's so many instances across British sport in which the loveable loser has been more popular than the arrogant winner.

Mansell or Hill in F1, Murray or Henman in Tennis, Faldo or Lyle in Golf, Lewis or Bruno. In each of these examples the former was clearly the more accomplised, technically better, more successful, yet in each case the latter was the popular favourite with the public. And it has nothing to do with them being an underdog, we Brits simply do not like our successful sports stars to be driven, focused and intent on winning. If Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods or Rafa Nadal were British, you know there is no way they would have been idolosed like they are in their own countries.

Hill did have his father's story, Murray is Scot where as Henman is a middle class English lad, Lewis speaks with an American accent and I aint certain about who was the more popular between Faldo and Lyle. Tony Jacklin was more popular than either, but he also had more talent than either (until he burnt out).

[grannyman]

My opinion has always been that the Olympians have been thrown into the limelight far too quickly. I've often told friends that the problem with Khan, Harrison and Degale is that they were televised and heading shows far too early in their careers. All of our favourite fighters of the past had to learn their trade in the ring before they had to worry about learning the PR side of the job, where as these guys were selling shows before their record was anything to write home about. I honestly thought Groves would win this fight months ago, and I'm glad he did because because I've often preached that Degale needs to lose before he can really progress. Khan is all the proof you need of this (although certain members of his family haven't helped him with the punters over here).

I don't like Degale's attitude, however I read a few interviews a year or two ago and he seemed like a nice polite guy. I think if he'd been kept away from televised fights for 10 or 12 fights, we'd have seen a much better fighter and person. I think alot of this farce is down to the promotor, so maybe the complaints should be sent in a different direction.

[apophenic]

My opinion has always been that the Olympians have been thrown into the limelight far too quickly. I've often told friends that the problem with Khan, Harrison and Degale is that they were televised and heading shows far too early in their careers. All of our favourite fighters of the past had to learn their trade in the ring before they had to worry about learning the PR side of the job, where as these guys were selling shows before their record was anything to write home about. I honestly thought Groves would win this fight months ago, and I'm glad he did because because I've often preached that Degale needs to lose before he can really progress. Khan is all the proof you need of this (although certain members of his family haven't helped him with the punters over here).

I don't like Degale's attitude, however I read a few interviews a year or two ago and he seemed like a nice polite guy. I think if he'd been kept away from televised fights for 10 or 12 fights, we'd have seen a much better fighter and person. I think alot of this farce is down to the promotor, so maybe the complaints should be sent in a different direction.

all fine and dandy but all of em got a nice fat paycheck from their promoters so to earn the money they have to deliver....if they didnt want to be in the limelight early on they shouldbnt have gone for the big money deasl.

[JamesH]

all fine and dandy but all of em got a nice fat paycheck from their promoters so to earn the money they have to deliver....if they didnt want to be in the limelight early on they shouldbnt have gone for the big money deasl.

1) They didn't all go for the biggest deal they were offered.
2) If you're offered a significant amount of money as opposed to a small amount of money, you generally take it.
3) They (in most cases) went with proven established experienced promoters.
4) Boxing is a business.

[Counter-puncher]

My opinion has always been that the Olympians have been thrown into the limelight far too quickly. I've often told friends that the problem with Khan, Harrison and Degale is that they were televised and heading shows far too early in their careers. All of our favourite fighters of the past had to learn their trade in the ring before they had to worry about learning the PR side of the job, .

possibly, although it's an approach that worked fine for Sugar Ray Leonard, who was on national TV from his first fight.

[Counter-puncher]

all fine and dandy but all of em got a nice fat paycheck from their promoters so to earn the money they have to deliver....if they didnt want to be in the limelight early on they shouldbnt have gone for the big money deasl.

right, cos people turn down big money deals all the time, don't they?

'no, please don't offer me that fat paycheck, I don't feel I am ready for it yet and certain sections of the boxing public wouldn't like it, they'd say I hadn't earned it, and I'd hate to be criticised by strangers on boxing forums for being paid too much, too soon.

I'd much rather you gave me half the money, thanks anyway Mr W as that is what I am worth at the moment'

[dookus]

Observations on the interview:

a) Half this interview is about a loss he's getting over. Uh huh. At some point you'd expect him to take the interview somewhere else if that was really the case.
b) He holds on to a lot of beliefs about the fight that are dubious at best and downright illogical at worst. There is no rule that the close rounds go to the champion, or that the champion should be given extra credit for 'making the fight'; see Haye-Valuev or numerous other examples of close fights that went the challenger's way. At best it's part of popular boxing lore, which in practice doesn't mean much of anything; and in any case, both fighters were champions. There's no prerogative for the judges to recognise the British belt as any higher than the Commonwealth, and besides no obligation to score the bout differently even if they did.
c) He also doesn't seem to realise that Groves didn't exactly cheat his way to victory by imposing a gameplan on him that he didn't like. That's part of the mental side to boxing. He got out-thought. The solution is to learn the game better, not complain that "if I'd have done that [boxed on his back-foot], there wouldn't have been a fight". Firstly, it's your job to win, James, not entertain, not against someone who has a good chance of beating you. Secondly, there are ways to make someone come to you without going on to the backfoot. How about using that jab? How about getting in and out yourself? Feinting?

d) He hasn't thought a bit about McDonnell's role in that loss. Oh, so McDonnell told you after the sixth you needed to do more? Great. How about a set of tactics? It was obvious what Groves was doing by the second round, and it took McDonnell 4 more rounds to tell you just to throw more punches?

[JamesH]

'no, please don't offer me that fat paycheck, I don't feel I am ready for it yet and certain sections of the boxing public wouldn't like it, they'd say I hadn't earned it, and I'd hate to be criticised by strangers on boxing forums for being paid too much, too soon.

quality

[subsy]

Damn I could write an essay on his this interview.

Bottom line: Good questions, shit, self indulgent, deluded responses.

[Datsue]

Observations on the interview:

a) Half this interview is about a loss he's getting over. Uh huh. At some point you'd expect him to take the interview somewhere else if that was really the case.
b) He holds on to a lot of beliefs about the fight that are dubious at best and downright illogical at worst. There is no rule that the close rounds go to the champion, or that the champion should be given extra credit for 'making the fight'; see Haye-Valuev or numerous other examples of close fights that went the challenger's way. At best it's part of popular boxing lore, which in practice doesn't mean much of anything; and in any case, both fighters were champions. There's no prerogative for the judges to recognise the British belt as any higher than the Commonwealth, and besides no obligation to score the bout differently even if they did.
c) He also doesn't seem to realise that Groves didn't exactly cheat his way to victory by imposing a gameplan on him that he didn't like. That's part of the mental side to boxing. He got out-thought. The solution is to learn the game better, not complain that "if I'd have done that [boxed on his back-foot], there wouldn't have been a fight". Firstly, it's your job to win, James, not entertain, not against someone who has a good chance of beating you. Secondly, there are ways to make someone come to you without going on to the backfoot. How about using that jab? How about getting in and out yourself? Feinting?

d) He hasn't thought a bit about McDonnell's role in that loss. Oh, so McDonnell told you after the sixth you needed to do more? Great. How about a set of tactics? It was obvious what Groves was doing by the second round, and it took McDonnell 4 more rounds to tell you just to throw more punches?

Brilliant post, & I'd add to b) that the lad seems to think that he should have won the close rounds by virtue of... Well, being James DeGale. This is the most worrying thing of all, really, the sense of entitlement (ha!). I know, I know, he's an Olympic Gold Medallist. So? All that means is that the guy's been spoiled a bit, & turning round & acting spoiled is hardly the way to redress that, is it?

The usual contrarians & weaselly fvckwits (yo gobbles!) sticking up for how he comes across either have no observational skills or are tripping over their own agendas. Which shouldn't surprise anyone round here, really.

JamesH seems to like him. Good. But even JamesH can see how much hand-waving you're having to do here, right? The bloke's acting the twat, after telling anyone who'll listen that his opponent wasn't in his league. This bloke beat him. It all looks like he cannot deal with being on the same level as Groves, & is having difficulty adjusting to the reality of that. This doesn't make him a bad person, natch, but it does seem to be driving him a bit crazy.

On the other hand, I sometimes wish all this personal psychological stuff wasn't played out in public. Fvck knows I'd be in the shite if my every foible & poor reaction to massive external stress was publicised, reported on, & then picked apart on a message board, & my every off-the-cuff verbal gaffe preserved for some kind of pixellated posterity. I might even come across as some sort of weirdo or summink.

[JamesH]

Observations on the interview:

a) Half this interview is about a loss he's getting over. Uh huh. At some point you'd expect him to take the interview somewhere else if that was really the case.
b) He holds on to a lot of beliefs about the fight that are dubious at best and downright illogical at worst. There is no rule that the close rounds go to the champion, or that the champion should be given extra credit for 'making the fight'; see Haye-Valuev or numerous other examples of close fights that went the challenger's way. At best it's part of popular boxing lore, which in practice doesn't mean much of anything; and in any case, both fighters were champions. There's no prerogative for the judges to recognise the British belt as any higher than the Commonwealth, and besides no obligation to score the bout differently even if they did.
c) He also doesn't seem to realise that Groves didn't exactly cheat his way to victory by imposing a gameplan on him that he didn't like. That's part of the mental side to boxing. He got out-thought. The solution is to learn the game better, not complain that "if I'd have done that [boxed on his back-foot], there wouldn't have been a fight". Firstly, it's your job to win, James, not entertain, not against someone who has a good chance of beating you. Secondly, there are ways to make someone come to you without going on to the backfoot. How about using that jab? How about getting in and out yourself? Feinting?

d) He hasn't thought a bit about McDonnell's role in that loss. Oh, so McDonnell told you after the sixth you needed to do more? Great. How about a set of tactics? It was obvious what Groves was doing by the second round, and it took McDonnell 4 more rounds to tell you just to throw more punches?

Brilliant post, & I'd add to b) that the lad seems to think that he should have won the close rounds by virtue of... Well, being James DeGale. This is the most worrying thing of all, really, the sense of entitlement (ha!). I know, I know, he's an Olympic Gold Medallist. So? All that means is that the guy's been spoiled a bit, & turning round & acting spoiled is hardly the way to redress that, is it?

The usual contrarians & weaselly fvckwits (yo gobbles!) sticking up for how he comes across either have no observational skills or are tripping over their own agendas. Which shouldn't surprise anyone round here, really.

JamesH seems to like him. Good. But even JamesH can see how much hand-waving you're having to do here, right? The bloke's acting the twat, after telling anyone who'll listen that his opponent wasn't in his league. This bloke beat him. It all looks like he cannot deal with being on the same level as Groves, & is having difficulty adjusting to the reality of that. This doesn't make him a bad person, natch, but it does seem to be driving him a bit crazy.

On the other hand, I sometimes wish all this personal psychological stuff wasn't played out in public. Fvck knows I'd be in the shite if my every foible & poor reaction to massive external stress was publicised, reported on, & then picked apart on a message board, & my every off-the-cuff verbal gaffe preserved for some kind of pixellated posterity. I might even come across as some sort of weirdo or summink.

I understand your post. I think it's well balanced which I don't think can be applied to every post in the thread. Perhaps that's why I appear over defensive on De Gale, an urge to redress an imbalance. I'm not blinded to his faults and neither is he the boxer right at the top of my list - I just don't think his faults are as prevalent as most of the forum do. It's harsh to dismiss those who perceive an interview differently to you as 'contrarians & weaselly fvckwits', but all the same I hope I wasn't in the list :)

I admit it; I like De Gale as a fighter. It doesn't mean I can't see when he's acting the chuddy, like he did with the holding nose thing - so childish, so cringe worthy, and that was just one of many nonsensical things he did in the build up.

Other than the sense of entitlement, a gold medal in this country also brings with it a deluge of critics who pounce on any comment or reaction to try and denigrate the man as if he were some kind of serial killer. It winds me up as I can't understand the 'build them up to knock them down' culture, nor the concept of kicking a man when he's down. Of course, he does himself no favours.

Does he say delusional things? Yes sometimes, without a doubt. Is he currently at the level he had thought he was? Nope, nobody is that good. If he was chocolate, would he eat himself? In one bite. But the fact is (as you point out) he's not a bad bloke and imo the majority of posts are well OTT.

Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head for me, and it's probably even more on the money when you consider his age and background. That's not to say that there aren't other lads of the same demographic more mature, more polite, more likeable, and less likely to irritate the gonads out of people. Most of them probably don't box as well as De Gale though, we all have our flaws and unfortunately he wears his like a bandana on his head. Have you always acted the gentleman when you have lost something? If so, all credit to you, but I and most of the people I know haven't always been that perfect (of course, I am now ).

Let him lick his wounds, however he chooses do that, and let him come back and try and prove everyone wrong. That's a big part of what the sport is about, it's a great chance for him to earn some respect (back) and he should grasp it with both hands. I just don't think we need to hammer him for every little comment he makes in the meantime. He's young, maybe he'll learn, and maybe he won't. Either way, I think we all need to live and let live and stop busting his balls so much, that's all.

[Datsue]

I understand your post. I think it's well balanced which I don't think can be applied to every post in the thread. Perhaps that's why I appear over defensive on De Gale, an urge to redress an imbalance. I'm not blinded to his faults and neither is he the boxer right at the top of my list - I just don't think his faults are as prevalent as most of the forum do. It's harsh to dismiss those who perceive an interview differently to you as 'contrarians & weaselly fvckwits', but all the same I hope I wasn't in the list :)

I admit it; I like De Gale as a fighter. It doesn't mean I can't see when he's acting the chuddy, like he did with the holding nose thing - so childish, so cringe worthy, and that was just one of many nonsensical things he did in the build up.

Other than the sense of entitlement, a gold medal in this country also brings with it a deluge of critics who pounce on any comment or reaction to try and denigrate the man as if he were some kind of serial killer. It winds me up as I can't understand the 'build them up to knock them down' culture, nor the concept of kicking a man when he's down. Of course, he does himself no favours.

Does he say delusional things? Yes sometimes, without a doubt. Is he currently at the level he had thought he was? Nope, nobody is that good. If he was chocolate, would he eat himself? In one bite. But the fact is (as you point out) he's not a bad bloke and imo the majority of posts are well OTT.

Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head for me, and it's probably even more on the money when you consider his age and background. That's not to say that there aren't other lads of the same demographic more mature, more polite, more likeable, and less likely to irritate the gonads out of people. Most of them probably don't box as well as De Gale though, we all have our flaws and unfortunately he wears his like a bandana on his head. Have you always acted the gentleman when you have lost something? If so, all credit to you, but I and most of the people I know haven't always been that perfect (of course, I am now ).

Let him lick his wounds, however he chooses do that, and let him come back and try and prove everyone wrong. That's a big part of what the sport is about, it's a great chance for him to earn some respect (back) and he should grasp it with both hands. I just don't think we need to hammer him for every little comment he makes in the meantime. He's young, maybe he'll learn, and maybe he won't. Either way, I think we all need to live and let live and stop busting his balls so much, that's all.

Cheers mate!

& I can totally see where you're coming from. Apologies for the invective, I am very harsh & deeply unkind; but it was mostly aimed at another gentleman of this parish, so apologies if anyone else got caught in the net. & I totally agree with your last paragraph & indeed the gist of your entire thrust.

Nice to talk to you...

[JamesH]

Cheers Datsue, likewise.

By the way, you're harsh, unkind, AND AMUSING

[dookus]

I'd like to add that I like DeGale a hell of a lot as a fighter; he's fluid, strong, has decent power, throws excellent combinations and against Groves showed a good chin (he took plenty of solid head and body shots without ever seeming hurt or much affected) as well as pretty good reactions and instincts. In short, he's a very good prospect.

What he needs is to learn the art of winning as a pro, which is a whole lot more complicated than winning as an amateur. He talks about Groves backpedalling away and nicking the fight, as if winning on a technicality; but much more than that, the judges saw Groves pulling DeGale into his fight, controlling the action from the backfoot, not letting DeGale impose his fight plan (such as it was) and landing more when it mattered. That counts for more than going forward, looking stronger and winning some of the exchanges more emphatically, even in the pro game.

Most of all, he needs a coach with a mental game. McDonnell doesn't have it. He lost his composure at the press conference and got sucked into all the pre-fight rubbish; he had no answer for Groves' fight plan but to throw more punches, which Groves did an excellent job of negating by starting to throw more combinations getting in and out. DeGale is not a guy who's in danger of turning up unfit or indeed anything less than a great physical specimin, but as that fight proved, he is most definitely in danger of getting outthought, and the worst part is that he doesn't seem to realise that. To some extent, that's the coach's job. McDonnell doesn't have it in him. Again, I refer to his bone-headed strategy with Danny Williams against Vitali Klitschko: spotting that Vitali was pretty knackered after 6 rounds with Lewis does not mean that sending a chap with a less-than-concrete chin after him in straight lines is going to wear him out too. (Not that I think anything would've saved poor Danny from a kicking that night; but he did a lot better trying to stand off and get under and around the jab in later rounds, alas too late to make any impact on the fight. It wasn't McDonnell that gave him the idea.)


I do believe, in spite of the fact that I like Groves more and regard him as the smarter fighter, DeGale is the one with the real potential at world level. When it got up close and neither fighter had time to think, it was DeGale winning the exchanges, putting together the better combinations and bossing the fight. But Groves didn't let that happen very much, because he had a plan. DeGale might not have the brains to adapt on his own, but a coach who understands strategy would be able to tell him what to do.