B*llocksBLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
Spud wrote:B*llocksBLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
Also I didnt realise you were a spokesman for the public.
Time and time again ****s like you write your posts as if you have the entire publics backing - voice your own opinion and keep to it instead of thinking you have some sort of right to speak on peoples behalf.
Visit the many forums and gauge their reactions.Spud wrote:B*llocksBLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
Also I didnt realise you were a spokesman for the public.
Time and time again ****s like you write your posts as if you have the entire publics backing - voice your own opinion and keep to it instead of thinking you have some sort of right to speak on peoples behalf.
DDThanks!jtourettes wrote:Spud wrote:B*llocksBLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
Also I didnt realise you were a spokesman for the public.
Time and time again ****s like you write your posts as if you have the entire publics backing - voice your own opinion and keep to it instead of thinking you have some sort of right to speak on peoples behalf.
You say bollocks but it's true. The fight was shite and no one was that bothered apart from a few hardcore boxing fans on forums.
There is a massive demand for the Froch - Groves rematch.
DDjamesmcdonnell wrote:I've now rewatched this several times, at first I thought the ref jumped in way too early, but with repeated watchings, I can totally see why he made the decision he did.
I also understand why groves feels hard done by, especially after dropping Froch in the first round, and bossing most of the first 6 rounds - but, his legs sagged badly after the third shot in the series that Carl landed, and he did look in trouble. Foster did what he felt was right, not even the biggest groves fan is surely going to suggest Foster is bent - he's one of the very best referees.
When Froch went down, he was getting up pretty much as soon as he dropped, and after a quick wobble on the ropes had clearly recovered, and in fact, he looked fine about 10 second later, even taking a couple more big shots.
After that, despite being stopped in his tracks by several big shots in the remainder of the fight, Froch never looked hurt, and his eyes were clear, Froch, as he usually does, seemed to be getting stronger, whilst Groves seemed to be slowing down, and the first serious assault from Froch, who hadn't really landed any really good flush head shots, had Groves looking disorganised, and disoriented. Now maybe he wasn't, but because he didn't go down, Foster had a duty of care to protect the fighter from punishment.
I cannot believe how quickly people have turned on Froch, after all the bravery he has shown in the ring, after all the hard fights he has had - how many soft touches has Carl had in his career, almost none.
I'd like to see a rematch to put it beyond doubt, and I do hope it happens, but if it doesn't and Carl moves on, I for one will easily forgive him.
Groves will come again, he's young, talented and proved he can hang at world Class, in many ways this result has probably done him a favour. Carl is one of the most ruthless finishers I've ever seen, we can never know for sure, but with so long left in the round, I think Froch would have flattened Groves. As it is, Groves now has a the moral victory, despite a genuine loss.
People need to cut Carl just a little bit of slack here, the guy has taken on all comers, and this and the Dirrell fight, are really the only controversial wins on his record.
For me that would be a bit like seeing Kovalev vs Steiglitz or Bika - no thanks. Chavez was outclassed by an aging Martinez.Rogers21 wrote:i actually wouldnt mind seeing Froch Vs Chaves jnr
Im the type of person who said i used to be a fan of him and now im not. Simple as that. If you dont agree with that then in your own words 'get over it'.johnswan1 wrote: As for his comments outside of the ring - he speaks his mind and says it how he sees it. Can't fault him for that. If you don't agree with what he says, get over it! So effing what!
What sort of people would say "I used to be a fan but not any more"? It's not like he's been hanging out with Ian Watkins all along, give the guy a break. It's all becoming far too soap opera for my liking.
So 'the public' should decide who deserves a rematch and who doesn't? Should 'the public' do all match making?BLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
come on , the degale vs groves fight was close but not exciting so it's obvious there wasn't a massive call for a rematch and the froch vs groves fight was a brilliant fight that ended in a way that left 95% of people watching wanting more ,so it makes sense that the public want a rematch . maybe match maker would do better to listen to the public more then we would have less one sided fights and more groves vs froch style fightskeithmoonhangover wrote:So 'the public' should decide who deserves a rematch and who doesn't? Should 'the public' do all match making?BLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
I think Malik Scott deserves a rematch with Delboy. He was ahead and it was a controversial stoppage. If I stamp my feet, do you think he'll get one?stevedoc wrote:come on , the degale vs groves fight was close but not exciting so it's obvious there wasn't a massive call for a rematch and the froch vs groves fight was a brilliant fight that ended in a way that left 95% of people watching wanting more ,so it makes sense that the public want a rematch . maybe match maker would do better to listen to the public more then we would have less one sided fights and more groves vs froch style fightskeithmoonhangover wrote:So 'the public' should decide who deserves a rematch and who doesn't? Should 'the public' do all match making?BLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
Dead Mouse wrote:No, because he mistimed the count and it was his own fault.keithmoonhangover wrote:
I think Malik Scott deserves a rematch with Delboy. He was ahead and it was a controversial stoppage. If I stamp my feet, do you think he'll get one?
It was a controversial stoppage, because some people think he was clearly up between nine and 'you're out'. You disagree, I know.Dead Mouse wrote:No, because he mistimed the count and it was his own fault.keithmoonhangover wrote:
I think Malik Scott deserves a rematch with Delboy. He was ahead and it was a controversial stoppage. If I stamp my feet, do you think he'll get one?
It is open to interpretation, because Scott was up before 'you're out' and IMO (and Scott's) was ready to continue.Dead Mouse wrote:It was a totally different scenario. Groves’s was open to interpretation, Scott’s wasn’t.
I agree mate. When I speak to casual/sports fans and they bring up bad stoppages, bad decisions etc. I always seem to be defending boxing. I really wish it wasn't like that.stevedoc wrote:@kiethmoon ...i agree about scott i thought he looked good in that fight before the end .... lets be honest there have been some shocking hometown decisions lately like the malik scott stopage or the groves stoppage and it just seems that boxing is getting more money driven now and the guy with the promoter gets the nod no matter what ...
not the referees job to worry about public reaction...thank christMightyWarrior wrote:Groves was hurt, and I can understand why the ref rushed in, but the ref did balls it up with his off key timing - no doubt about it: just look at the reaction from fans and press worldwide - and those who say otherwise are in the minority for good reason.
Carl is a great champ, so can do what he wants, but he's leaving unfinished business - Groves would be a massive threat in a rematch, we now know he's got the punch to hurt Carl like no one else at supermiddle, and Rob Mac is advising him to take the easier route to retirement.
( and why does GG not deserve a rematch, but Carl does v Ward, who already outclassed him once ? ) JCC would be a much easier fight for him - no one's mentioning Adonis Stevenson either, with good reason.
It's a shame for the fans though, and they'll be debating this one for years now, if there's no part 2. Groves was in big trouble, but who's to say he wouldn't have landed another get out of jail bomb ? Maybe not, but why not ? it would have been great to find out.
i think it's getting worse as well mate ,if you look back at some unpopular decisions over the years like the hagler vs leonard fight or holmes vs spinks they were much closer than say the 3rd mannypac vs JMM fight which i think marquez won without much doubt .keithmoonhangover wrote:I agree mate. When I speak to casual/sports fans and they bring up bad stoppages, bad decisions etc. I always seem to be defending boxing. I really wish it wasn't like that.stevedoc wrote:@kiethmoon ...i agree about scott i thought he looked good in that fight before the end .... lets be honest there have been some shocking hometown decisions lately like the malik scott stopage or the groves stoppage and it just seems that boxing is getting more money driven now and the guy with the promoter gets the nod no matter what ...
The BBBofC said he must be in a position to defend himself, by ten. When the ref waves his arms at ten, Scott is up and in a position to defend himself.Dead Mouse wrote:It isn’t. The rules clearly state that you have to be up and ready to defend yourself or be counted out in the act of rising. Scott wasn’t and he was. It was perfectly legitimate and he’s hardly fallen over himself trying to secure the rematch.keithmoonhangover wrote:It is open to interpretation, because Scott was up before 'you're out' and IMO (and Scott's) was ready to continue.Dead Mouse wrote:It was a totally different scenario. Groves’s was open to interpretation, Scott’s wasn’t.
The two scenarios are totally different. People are just linking them because they’re recent events that happened in the same sport.
As I said before, the only blow Scott was in a position to deliver at that point was one that would have seen him done for indecent behaviour, and assault.
Leonard-Hagler was close mate. I have Leonard by two rounds, but that's another story.stevedoc wrote:i think it's getting worse as well mate ,if you look back at some unpopular decisions over the years like the hagler vs leonard fight or holmes vs spinks they were much closer than say the 3rd mannypac vs JMM fight which i think marquez won without much doubt .keithmoonhangover wrote:I agree mate. When I speak to casual/sports fans and they bring up bad stoppages, bad decisions etc. I always seem to be defending boxing. I really wish it wasn't like that.stevedoc wrote:@kiethmoon ...i agree about scott i thought he looked good in that fight before the end .... lets be honest there have been some shocking hometown decisions lately like the malik scott stopage or the groves stoppage and it just seems that boxing is getting more money driven now and the guy with the promoter gets the nod no matter what ...
now fans aren't even surprised by a strange ending to a fight.
Yes, a large amount of people were crying out for a DeGale rematch. Only difference is that a lot of people were glad to see DeGail beat (being the villain) where as they want to see Groves beat FrochSpud wrote:B*llocksBLASTER100 wrote:The public were not asking for a Degale rematch. But they are asking for a Froch rematch.
That's the difference!
Also I didnt realise you were a spokesman for the public.
Time and time again ****s like you write your posts as if you have the entire publics backing - voice your own opinion and keep to it instead of thinking you have some sort of right to speak on peoples behalf.