Yeah you are literally the first person I've heard call that a comfortable win for Kessler!DMA1987 wrote:Not really heard many call it comfortable. Until just now actually.MarkMcBurney wrote:It was 'pretty comfortable' in my opinion, and of many others.danamba7 wrote:
It wasn't comfortable at all! It was a war and Kessler didn't stop Froch. Froch has stopped Groves 2 in a row (rightly or wrongly in the 1st). On paper that doesn't grant you the 3rd. The KO in the 2nd was unreal yet people are saying he didn't outbox Groves. If Froch had out-boxed Groves and won on pts then some would argue for a 3rd because he couldn't stop groves fairly... I think it's about as over as a rivalry can be.
I didn't say concussive!
I don't want to see a third fight, we got what we needed from the first 2.
Froch v Groves III?
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Can't believe there'd be much interest in this, thought the second fight provided total closure on the froch groves saga
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Takalani Ndlovu widely beat Steve Molitor in a third fight after losing the first by fairly one-sided stoppage and the second by competitive but clear decsion. Granted each fight was a mandatory IBF (hence the reusing of the same challenger) title bout.lefthook82 wrote:Would be the first time in modern history there has been a trilogy where one fighter has won 2/2 and they go for a trilogy
-
sweetscience
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2816
- Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 09:09
Re: Froch v Groves III?
no thanks george
-
lefthook82
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1837
- Joined: 07 Mar 2008, 04:33
Re: Froch v Groves III?
IBF are reknowned for recycling challengers. I think if mandated Froch might just toss the belt. Nobody could dare excuse him of ducking. He banjo'd him last time outcrusader wrote:Takalani Ndlovu widely beat Steve Molitor in a third fight after losing the first by fairly one-sided stoppage and the second by competitive but clear decsion. Granted each fight was a mandatory IBF (hence the reusing of the same challenger) title bout.lefthook82 wrote:Would be the first time in modern history there has been a trilogy where one fighter has won 2/2 and they go for a trilogy
-
freddydoesdallas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 9436
- Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 13:48
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Can't agree with you on that at all, in fact i've even heard people say they scored it for Froch ever so slightly (not me, don't want to get into that). So i would say it was pretty damn uncomfortable for Kessler who was absolutely ruined after it for a while.MarkMcBurney wrote:It was 'pretty comfortable' in my opinion, and of many others.danamba7 wrote:It wasn't comfortable at all! It was a war and Kessler didn't stop Froch. Froch has stopped Groves 2 in a row (rightly or wrongly in the 1st). On paper that doesn't grant you the 3rd. The KO in the 2nd was unreal yet people are saying he didn't outbox Groves. If Froch had out-boxed Groves and won on pts then some would argue for a 3rd because he couldn't stop groves fairly... I think it's about as over as a rivalry can be.MarkMcBurney wrote:The fact that the first two were decent fights and a third would also likely be a better?
Kessler beat Froch pretty comfortably in Denmark but they did it again?
I didn't say concussive!
-
black panther
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Agreed, it was far from comfortable. Froch hurt Kessler several times and at one point if memory serves looked like he may have been able to score the stoppage.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
It's not a fight I'm particularily interested in. It just seems like George ie begging for the third fight to not only redeem himself but also for the payday. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually ended up struggling with rebrasse somewhat. I also think that if he goes on to fight Anthony Dirrell he'll get knocked out in that one aswell.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Jesus you lot are the reason why boxers pad there record with easy fights these days because if they lose 1 fight now they get hammered, Groves was competitive with the second best guy in the division and now he's mentally weak, finished at the top level, he's going to struggle with rebrasse and get knocked out by everyone else.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
I said I could see him being knocked out by Dirrell. I didnt mean everyone else. George clearly doesnt have the best punch resistance (although not the worst either) and against guys who can punch and who have a decent skillset themselves and are durable, I think he comes off second best.digzee wrote:Jesus you lot are the reason why boxers pad there record with easy fights these days because if they lose 1 fight now they get hammered, Groves was competitive with the second best guy in the division and now he's mentally weak, finished at the top level, he's going to struggle with rebrasse and get knocked out by everyone else.
.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
with the greatest of respect, you can't possibly know that mate. Not unless your name's George Groves, or you're one of his closest colleagues.G0mez wrote:I'm not being a wind-up merchant here, but George Groves is mentally crushed and will never recover.
Everything he does herein , will never heal that open wound.
He might even be damaged goods now. A gruelling fight followed up by a less-gruelling rematch but with a concussive knockout? Not everyone bounces back to their best.
If there are cracks, this bum Rebrasse won't reveal them- but further down the line it could get interesting.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
hmmIan1973 wrote:In a strange way I'd like to see it too. i think it's widely accepted that the first fight was unsatisfactorily stopped to say the least then the second fight was ended by one punch. In both fights I had Groves ahead at the time of the stoppages so I'd like to see fight three, see if Groves has learned from the first two fights.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Comfortable?MarkMcBurney wrote:The fact that the first two were decent fights and a third would also likely be a better?
Kessler beat Froch pretty comfortably in Denmark but they did it again?
He had his face opened up like a tin of beans by the final bell, left the super six tournament - then retired for over a year to recover.
He's devastated. But don't take my word for it because he said so himself. He left the arena and watched the fight again, and again, and again the very same night.magwitch wrote:
with the greatest of respect, you can't possibly know that mate. Not unless your name's George Groves, or you're one of his closest colleagues.
He broke his neck to say everyone was coming to see him, that it was his town - that he held all the cards #AndTheTrue, #Mandated . Then he was knocked out of the park with a right hand.
Now his comeback still has plenty of tickets left in all price bands, it's circa 10k capacity for boxing events and apparently half-sold.
To go from the supposed "biggest fight in British history" with 80,000 in attendance, to being unable to shift tickets just 20 minutes from his front door, only serves to compact his fragile mind.
People have been quick to say because it's on allegedly - but it's on Sky.
The reality has kicked in that he was was cheered on by Anti-Froch fans, not Groves fans. People willed him to be the instrument to bring down Froch and nothing more. Now he's standing on his own two feet, nobody is bothered. If they were then he'd have sold that arena twice over. But it stands he can't fill it once over.
Couldn't back his words up (of which he had plenty), knocked out in front of record live & TV audience and now cannot sell a ticket despite the massive profile it gave him - I'd say that was cause for mental anguish.
Sorry.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
From what I've gleaned from various forums and the statements of boxing media it seems like a significant majority of them think it was a poor stoppage. What proportion marks the start of 'widely' is debatable though.magwitch wrote:hmmIan1973 wrote:In a strange way I'd like to see it too. i think it's widely accepted that the first fight was unsatisfactorily stopped to say the least then the second fight was ended by one punch. In both fights I had Groves ahead at the time of the stoppages so I'd like to see fight three, see if Groves has learned from the first two fights.suspicious of the use of "widely accepted" here. There were a few thousand p*ssheads in the arena who probably hadn't any interest in watching any of the rest of the show, who thought it was unsatisfactorily stopped - none of them being punched in the head at the time. My thoughts are that George Groves put on a great performance but ultimately found himself exhausted, unprotected and under fire. I think it was a professional stoppage and that George's relative lack of experience at the Championship level had quite a bit to do with it.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Would you have said that about George struggling with rebrasse before he lost the rematch? Dirrell isn't anything special and I think George is the bigger puncher of the 2. I'm not having a go I just think a lot of people going over the top on the "Groves is done at world level".lefty wrote:I said I could see him being knocked out by Dirrell. I didnt mean everyone else. George clearly doesnt have the best punch resistance (although not the worst either) and against guys who can punch and who have a decent skillset themselves and are durable, I think he comes off second best.digzee wrote:Jesus you lot are the reason why boxers pad there record with easy fights these days because if they lose 1 fight now they get hammered, Groves was competitive with the second best guy in the division and now he's mentally weak, finished at the top level, he's going to struggle with rebrasse and get knocked out by everyone else.
.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23186
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Froch v Groves III?
If he has sold half the Wembley Arena, that's a reasonable amount.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Not considering his last fight was in front of 78,000 and more than 50% were cheering for Groves. I was surrounded by Groves "fans" behind where the stage was set up. But where are all these "fans" now, as Gomez says, they were never fans, just wanted to see Froch fail (F knows why!)mickey1975 wrote:If he has sold half the Wembley Arena, that's a reasonable amount.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
For me, the second fight already showed that Groves didn't have the heart for it any more. He knew he couldn't ice Froch, and his faith in outboxing him was ebbing as the fight went on, and the rag doll treatment he was getting at the end of the first fight started to loom. I think even without that big shot, it would have been over soon.
-
thepocketrocket
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3283
- Joined: 16 Jan 2003, 06:26
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Some people need to realise that Groves was three rounds up on one card and only one round down on two (and was winning the eighth)
You can't argue with the winner, when you land a shot like that you deserve everything. But a false narrative is being created in relation to the fight. This place is becoming like the current scene
You can't argue with the winner, when you land a shot like that you deserve everything. But a false narrative is being created in relation to the fight. This place is becoming like the current scene
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Whether he was up or down he certainly wasn't out-boxing Carl this time round. And ultimately it wouldn't matter if you won 11 rounds and was winning the 12th, if you can't see the final bell and get put to bed in that fashion, it's over. Taylor was also up, but when most fighters wilt, Carl keeps going.thepocketrocket wrote:Some people need to realise that Groves was three rounds up on one card and only one round down on two (and was winning the eighth)
You can't argue with the winner, when you land a shot like that you deserve everything. But a false narrative is being created in relation to the fight. This place is becoming like the current scene
Re: Froch v Groves III?
I thought he was outboxing him.
-
freddydoesdallas
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 9436
- Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 13:48
Re: Froch v Groves III?
I think you've nailed it on the head with that part. Groves thought he had developed a massive fanbase overnight but they weren't interested in him really. It was the event and the British mentality of supporting the underdog.G0mez wrote:Comfortable?MarkMcBurney wrote:The fact that the first two were decent fights and a third would also likely be a better?
Kessler beat Froch pretty comfortably in Denmark but they did it again?
He had his face opened up like a tin of beans by the final bell, left the super six tournament - then retired for over a year to recover.
He's devastated. But don't take my word for it because he said so himself. He left the arena and watched the fight again, and again, and again the very same night.magwitch wrote:
with the greatest of respect, you can't possibly know that mate. Not unless your name's George Groves, or you're one of his closest colleagues.
He broke his neck to say everyone was coming to see him, that it was his town - that he held all the cards #AndTheTrue, #Mandated . Then he was knocked out of the park with a right hand.
Now his comeback still has plenty of tickets left in all price bands, it's circa 10k capacity for boxing events and apparently half-sold.
To go from the supposed "biggest fight in British history" with 80,000 in attendance, to being unable to shift tickets just 20 minutes from his front door, only serves to compact his fragile mind.
People have been quick to say because it's on allegedly - but it's on Sky.
The reality has kicked in that he was was cheered on by Anti-Froch fans, not Groves fans. People willed him to be the instrument to bring down Froch and nothing more. Now he's standing on his own two feet, nobody is bothered. If they were then he'd have sold that arena twice over. But it stands he can't fill it once over.
Couldn't back his words up (of which he had plenty), knocked out in front of record live & TV audience and now cannot sell a ticket despite the massive profile it gave him - I'd say that was cause for mental anguish.
Sorry.
Groves is always going to be the opponent, never the main attraction.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
Landing a handful of decent shots including one really nice shot whilst getting hit a fair few times yourself (mostly to the body) does not = out-boxing. What Ward did to Froch was out-boxing.crusader wrote:I thought he was outboxing him.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
I thought Groves was having his best part of the fight up until he got stopped. For someone to say his faith in out boxing him was ebbing is just stupid.danamba7 wrote:Landing a handful of decent shots including one really nice shot whilst getting hit a fair few times yourself (mostly to the body) does not = out-boxing. What Ward did to Froch was out-boxing.crusader wrote:I thought he was outboxing him.
Re: Froch v Groves III?
I thought he was generally jabbing well, moving effectively, and punching more accurately while landing more. To me he outboxed Froch in 4-5 rounds and I certainly think your statement is debatable.