Naandrew wrote:Maybe Liam Smith could be low in the list but people are putting way too much value in these belts now.
What is his best win ?.?? John Thompson who was iced in a couple of rounds no too long before? I think Williams win over Corcoran can be considered better. Just because you are holding one of these belts doesn't make you world class it's actually beating good fighters.
He has his chance to prove how good he is in a few weeks and I want him to win as I can't stand Canelo.
Amir Khan's best 10 results:BigDoofus wrote:Khan held a world title between the ages of 22-24. He'll turn 30 soon - it's delusional to suggest he's building an ATG record.
BitPlayer wrote:People complain when fighters cherry pick, but lets look at this thread, people saying peple that have fought no one should be ranked higher than people with solid wins and losses to top opponents. Fighters will always take on mostly easy opponents while they get more credit for it, give some respect to the people that go up against the best.
As well people need to stop hyping someone for being undefeated at anything above area level. Most people are undefeated, having never stepped into a boxing ring, it's all about who you beat.
Groves second best result in his career is a defeated to Carl Froch?Horse wrote:George Groves' top 10 results:Stuarty30 wrote:Groves is too high. You're giving him a higher ranking because he's beaten your hero Murray who was also too high.
James DeGale
Carl Froch I - (Lost)
Martin Murray
Carl Froch II - (Lost)
Badou Jack - (Lost)
Glen Johnson
Paul Smith
Christopher Rebrasse
Francisco Sierra
Kenny Anderson
Groves has a very solid record and I think that he deserves a high ranking.
Maybe Liam Smith could be low in the list but people are putting way too much value in these belts now.
What is his best win ?.?? John Thompson who was iced in a couple of rounds no too long before? I think Williams win over Corcoran can be considered better. Just because you are holding one of these belts doesn't make you world class it's actually beating good fighters.
He has his chance to prove how good he is in a few weeks and I want him to win as I can't stand Canelo.
People complain when fighters cherry pick, but lets look at this thread, people saying peple that have fought no one should be ranked higher than people with solid wins and losses to top opponents. Fighters will always take on mostly easy opponents while they get more credit for it, give some respect to the people that go up against the best.
As well people need to stop hyping someone for being undefeated at anything above area level. Most people are undefeated, having never stepped into a boxing ring, it's all about who you beat
Groves was cheated, not defeated.cocka09 wrote:Groves second best result in his career is a defeated to Carl Froch?
As he proved in the rematchHorse wrote:Groves was cheated, not defeated.cocka09 wrote:Groves second best result in his career is a defeated to Carl Froch?
I'd agree Groves performance in both Froch fights (especially the first) were impressive but he still lost. He's been found wanting at world level and his best actual win was over five years ago. His career as a whole is not as impressive as some of the guys below him IMO.crusader wrote:Obviously the loss itself isn't a good result, but how Groves performed prior to losing was impressive.
Froch was a P4P top ten quality fighter at the time, known for being very durable, yet Groves put him on his ass and was handily beating him for much of the bout. It shows he was able to step up and be competitive at a level that many of the other guys on Horse's list haven't even come near, and I consider it a more impressive showing than Liam Smith grinding down Thompson, Joshua whacking around Breazeale, Burns stopping that Italian, and so on.
Maybe Liam Smith could be low in the list but people are putting way too much value in these belts now.
What is his best win ?.?? John Thompson who was iced in a couple of rounds no too long before? I think Williams win over Corcoran can be considered better. Just because you are holding one of these belts doesn't make you world class it's actually beating good fighters.
He has his chance to prove how good he is in a few weeks and I want him to win as I can't stand Canelo.
People complain when fighters cherry pick, but lets look at this thread, people saying peple that have fought no one should be ranked higher than people with solid wins and losses to top opponents. Fighters will always take on mostly easy opponents while they get more credit for it, give some respect to the people that go up against the best.
As well people need to stop hyping someone for being undefeated at anything above area level. Most people are undefeated, having never stepped into a boxing ring, it's all about who you beat
He was not cheated, the referee made the call he felt was right, utter balls.Horse wrote:Groves was cheated, not defeated.cocka09 wrote:Groves second best result in his career is a defeated to Carl Froch?
jamesmcdonnell wrote:He was not cheated, the referee made the call he felt was right, utter balls.Horse wrote:Groves was cheated, not defeated.cocka09 wrote:Groves second best result in his career is a defeated to Carl Froch?
Froch was decked heavily in the 1st round, but his eyes were clear, and he looked well aware of what was going on both in the immediate afterm ath, and despite being under heavy fire subsequently, never looked close to being stopped. Groves reaction was quite different, he looked disoriented and limp.
.
the floppy body language had started in Groves at least a round beforehandYes, he did with hindsight appear to be wilting physically.Counter-puncher wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:He was not cheated, the referee made the call he felt was right, utter balls.Horse wrote:Groves was cheated, not defeated.
Froch was decked heavily in the 1st round, but his eyes were clear, and he looked well aware of what was going on both in the immediate afterm ath, and despite being under heavy fire subsequently, never looked close to being stopped. Groves reaction was quite different, he looked disoriented and limp.
.
The stoppage in the first fight was awful.jamesmcdonnell wrote:He was not cheated, the referee made the call he felt was right, utter balls.
Froch was decked heavily in the 1st round, but his eyes were clear, and he looked well aware of what was going on both in the immediate afterm ath, and despite being under heavy fire subsequently, never looked close to being stopped. Groves reaction was quite different, he looked disoriented and limp.
The referee has the toughest job in boxing, his primary function is the protection of the fighters over all other concerns. Howard Foster Jr is beyond reproach in my personal opinion.
You could argue that he should have given Groves more time, however, the referee is acting to prevent a fighter being badly hurt, and he believed that Groves was disoriented and in danger of taking serious punishment. We will never know for sure, but Groves did live to fight another day, and got his arse kicked badly in the rematch, - as I knew he would. When you've hit a man with your best shots and had him down in the first 30 seconds of a fight, and you can't get him out of there, you're at a serious psychological disadvantage in the rematch.
I'd say getting knocked spark out is getting your arse kicked.Horse wrote:The stoppage in the first fight was awful.jamesmcdonnell wrote:He was not cheated, the referee made the call he felt was right, utter balls.
Froch was decked heavily in the 1st round, but his eyes were clear, and he looked well aware of what was going on both in the immediate afterm ath, and despite being under heavy fire subsequently, never looked close to being stopped. Groves reaction was quite different, he looked disoriented and limp.
The referee has the toughest job in boxing, his primary function is the protection of the fighters over all other concerns. Howard Foster Jr is beyond reproach in my personal opinion.
You could argue that he should have given Groves more time, however, the referee is acting to prevent a fighter being badly hurt, and he believed that Groves was disoriented and in danger of taking serious punishment. We will never know for sure, but Groves did live to fight another day, and got his arse kicked badly in the rematch, - as I knew he would. When you've hit a man with your best shots and had him down in the first 30 seconds of a fight, and you can't get him out of there, you're at a serious psychological disadvantage in the rematch.
The rematch was very close and Groves was arguably winning. He hardly got his arse kicked badly.
Groves is always flopping around.Counter-puncher wrote:
Well, he should stop sulking then. How's a referee meant to interpret it?Horse wrote:Groves is always flopping around.Counter-puncher wrote:
When things aren't going completely his way he tends to sulk, it doesn't mean that he's about to get knocked out.
No an arse kicking is a one sided beating or early knockout.jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'd say getting knocked spark out is getting your arse kicked.
So we can never criticize any refereeing decision then?jamesmcdonnell wrote:It's so easy to criticise referees from the safety of a computer screen, but they are making split second life or death decisions, a limp disoriented fighter can be critically injuried with a single flush shot, especially from a known finisher like Froch, we're all experts until we have to make the decisions. It's a fine line, and one I'm glad I don't have to tread.
against Froch, it did.Horse wrote:
When things aren't going completely his way he tends to sulk, it doesn't mean that he's about to get knocked out.
I didn't say that - I just don't think this is one of those cases, it's not like Groves wasn't hurt is it? There are plenty of results of bloody ridiculous refereeing decisions.Horse wrote:No an arse kicking is a one sided beating or early knockout.jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'd say getting knocked spark out is getting your arse kicked.
Getting a come from behind one punch knockout in the 8th round is not kicking someone's ass.
So we can never criticize any refereeing decision then?jamesmcdonnell wrote:It's so easy to criticise referees from the safety of a computer screen, but they are making split second life or death decisions, a limp disoriented fighter can be critically injuried with a single flush shot, especially from a known finisher like Froch, we're all experts until we have to make the decisions. It's a fine line, and one I'm glad I don't have to tread.
What nonsense.
I've just watched the 9th round of their first fight again and the stoppage is still terrible.jamesmcdonnell wrote:I didn't say that - I just don't think this is one of those cases, it's not like Groves wasn't hurt is it? There are plenty of results of bloody ridiculous refereeing decisions.
I can admit that maybe Groves would have rallied from being hurt, but that the referee acted in good faith, based on what he could see in front of him I'm sorry,
It was a good punch, but it was also a lucky punch.jamesmcdonnell wrote:but I think that getting knocked spark out with one punch is getting your arse kicked - you say 'getting' - like Froch got a gift, it was a punch that he threw, it wasn't like an anvil landed on Groves head from above is it?
Froch didn't stop him, Foster did.Counter-puncher wrote:against Froch, it did.
he wasn't just 'sulking', he was tired, and he knew it, and his body language got floppy and ragged. his floppy body language was the precursor to him getting stopped IMO
Ok, fine, you disagree with Foster's decision, but I don't think anyone here would suggest that Foster is either an incompetent or bent referee.Horse wrote:I've just watched the 9th round of their first fight again and the stoppage is still terrible.jamesmcdonnell wrote:I didn't say that - I just don't think this is one of those cases, it's not like Groves wasn't hurt is it? There are plenty of results of bloody ridiculous refereeing decisions.
I can admit that maybe Groves would have rallied from being hurt, but that the referee acted in good faith, based on what he could see in front of him I'm sorry,
Groves was covering up and firing back, Froch's attacks weren't even that good.
It was a good punch, but it was also a lucky punch.jamesmcdonnell wrote:but I think that getting knocked spark out with one punch is getting your arse kicked - you say 'getting' - like Froch got a gift, it was a punch that he threw, it wasn't like an anvil landed on Groves head from above is it?
It was an even fight and then one punch from nowhere ended it. There was no arse kicking.
I'd suggest that he was incompetent on the night.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ok, fine, you disagree with Foster's decision, but I don't think anyone here would suggest that Foster is either an incompetent or bent referee.
We will have to agree to disagree, everyone has off nights, however I didn't think his decision was a bad one.Horse wrote:I'd suggest that he was incompetent on the night.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ok, fine, you disagree with Foster's decision, but I don't think anyone here would suggest that Foster is either an incompetent or bent referee.
A foolish conclusion.cocka09 wrote:Horse, I have come to the conclusion that you are at least 98% sausage.