Froch Groves Scorecard

[whicker]

Did anyone catch how the fight was being scored?

[jameswilson]

Sky had Froch way up. The scoring from the RBR threads here is all over the place. In short almost all of the rounds were really tough to score.

[gazza8]

I had Groves 1 round up

[crusader]

It seems most people had it 4-3 one way or the other.

Disgraceful card from Watt.

[whicker]

I ask because apparantly Groves was up on all cards??? I just wondered if anyone had heard anything official.

[jameswilson]

I'v got a friend whos on twitter who had Groves 69-65 up going into the 8th. Just shows how close the majority of the rounds were in my opinion.

[crusader]

I ask because apparantly Groves was up on all cards??? I just wondered if anyone had heard anything official.

Someone said over at the CS that Froch was up on 2 and Groves on the other.

[chrisbonnie]

i think i had Froch up by 1 at the end. But when its so close its very hard to make a defining argument for either man.

I did think Froch was more comfortable though. He seemed to dictate more of the fight, and i just think thats what turned it his way in the end.

That and a brilliant right hand. Excellent punch.

[MPG]

I had Groves 1 up,Jim Watt's an ass.

[Grilling Machine]

I always pay more attention to the flow of fights, but I had Groves winning 2 or 3, Froch winning 1, and the rest drawn. I think there are fair arguments for Groves by as many as 3, and Froch by as many as 2.

I think Froch appealed more to American tastes by holding his ground and showing a bit more aggression. Froch's jab was longer and more effective. But I think Groves landed the crisper shots in most rounds, albeit few of them hurtful to Froch.

[thepocketrocket]

Groves pretty far up, but always a sense of impending doom...

[Tanzio]

I had Groves 1 up,Jim Watt's an ass.

I had it the same going into 8, but Froch was clearly coming on and not as cautious about being caught.

[Ian1973]

I had it 68 - 66 Groves.

Acouple of close rounds admittedly but someone please explain to me how Jim Watt had Froch 5 rounds up???????????

[Grilling Machine]

Jim's a one-note watcher. If he doesn't see what he'd recommend, he discounts.

What was seen as negativity in his day is now regarded as circumspect or tactical.

[Tanzio]

I had it 68 - 66 Groves.

Acouple of close rounds admittedly but someone please explain to me how Jim Watt had Froch 5 rounds up???????????

Clearly judging the ring girls, not the fight.

[vargas]

Had it 4-3 to Groves albeit in a pub with no sound on the tele :x Wouldn't really argue if someone had it 5-2 Froch to be honest. Really close fight to score.

[Ian1973]

Jim's a one-note watcher. If he doesn't see what he'd recommend, he discounts.

What was seen as negativity in his day is now regarded as circumspect or tactical.

Jim Watt seems to think "claiming the centre of the ring" and "looking the boss" scores you points. Landed punches scores you points. A boxer can concede the centre and still win by landing scoring shots. I don't think Watt understands this.

[whicker]

According to bbc groves was winning on 1 card and Froch on the other 2.

[Emmseegee]

Ive only watched the fight once whilst live and had Froch 4-3 up going into the 8th. Cant remember exactly what rounds I scored for each fighter but think I had:
Groves 1,6 & 7
Froch 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Out of all they rounds im sure there was only one round each that I was 100% certain about and think that might have been the 5th for Froch and the 7th for Groves but once again im not 100% sure what rounds they were of the top of my head.

The commentary was completely over rating froch's work for most of the fight and I believe if i watched it back with no sound that id probably have Groves ahead due to the cleaner, more accurate nature of his work!

I think Groves plan was to box smart the first half of the fight then start loading up in the second half and was probably delighted with how it was going until.........

[thepocketrocket]

Jim's a one-note watcher. If he doesn't see what he'd recommend, he discounts.

What was seen as negativity in his day is now regarded as circumspect or tactical.

Jim Watt seems to think "claiming the centre of the ring" and "looking the boss" scores you points. Landed punches scores you points. A boxer can concede the centre and still win by landing scoring shots. I don't think Watt understands this.

Watt is a moron! I don't even think he is up Matchroom's ass, he is just clueless!

[Tanzio]

Ive only watched the fight once whilst live and had Froch 4-3 up going into the 8th. Cant remember exactly what rounds I scored for each fighter but think I had:
Groves 1,6 & 7
Froch 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Out of all they rounds im sure there was only one round each that I was 100% certain about and think that might have been the 5th for Froch and the 7th for Groves but once again im not 100% sure what rounds they were of the top of my head.

The commentary was completely over rating froch's work for most of the fight and I believe if i watched it back with no sound that id probably have Groves ahead due to the cleaner, more accurate nature of his work!

I think Groves plan was to box smart the first half of the fight then start loading up in the second half and was probably delighted with how it was going until.........

I had it 4-3 Groves going into 8, but I could see it anywhere from 5-2 Groves to 4-3 Froch.

1. Groves
2. Froch
3. Groves
4. Groves
5. Froch
6. Froch
7. Groves
8. Sleep tight.

[crusader]

The commentary was completely over rating froch's work for most of the fight and I believe if i watched it back with no sound that id probably have Groves ahead due to the cleaner, more accurate nature of his work!

I wonder. I can usually see what people are getting at when they score differently than I do, but I just can't understand how Froch could fairly be ahead after 4 rounds. I thought Groves clearly took at least 3 of the first 4, arguably all 4.

And Watt was saying Froch was controlling things with the jab? Well-off the truth imo; he did his best in the middle parts where he started rushing Groves more. When it came down to just jabbing Groves had the edge.

[Emmseegee]

wouldnt argue with that either, sometimes its hard not to be biased to what you wanna see in a fight such as accuracy, hard work, tidy defence or as Jim Watt would say Showing who the man is in there tonight. lol

Only one round was 100% certain and it was the 8th.....

[crusader]

Froch showed he was the man when he knocked Groves out.

Moving forward and throwing wild flurries(which Froch didn't really start doing consistently until the 5th) that cause the crowd to explode even when very little connects is not showing who the man is, especially when an opponent is generally hitting you more often and cleanly. Watt's talk of Froch controlling Groves with the jab is also nonsense.

[Tanzio]

Froch showed he was the man when he knocked Groves out.

Moving forward and throwing wild flurries(which Froch didn't really start doing consistently until the 5th) that cause the crowd to explode even when very little connects is not showing who the man is, especially when an opponent is generally hitting you more often and cleanly. Watt's talk of Froch controlling Groves with the jab is also nonsense.

True, but Froch was well in control of the action although he was behind by a point on my scorecard going into the 8th. IMO, froch knew, as a result of the late rounds of the first fight, that he could hurt Groves. Froch took everything Groves had to offer in the first fight and was about to punish him into submission. Froch knew from those late rounds that he could drown Groves mid to late.