I've haven't started a thread in a while but I am a little baffled as to how some boxing fans and "boxing writers" in newspapers have the fight so close. I was shocked at Marcus McDonnell's card of 115-113. For me he was totally outclassed and I only gave him two rounds. To my eye he was outboxed, hurt multiple times and looked novice-like at times the way he was swinging wild punches from way out west without feinting, bobbing and weaving or jabbing his way in. If this was the Groves that fought Froch, he would have been KO'ed in my opinion.
I enjoy watching Eubank Jr - his fights since losing to Saunders have been great to watch and made you think he might be able to hack it at a higher level. But I call it like I see it. Am I missing something? Be interested to hear the concensus here. Don't forget to vote
the ppl who argue it was close sound to me like there going into it trying to find reasons to score rounds for eubank rather then being impartial . you shouldnt look at a fight like 'well lets see what i can give fighter x credit for'
eubank was too much lunging and missing wild shots to make it close, considering how much sharper groves was. groves landing more and landing better pretty much throughout.
118-110 Groves. There were a few close-ish rounds so I could see 116-112 at a push, but I preferred Groves’ work pretty much throughout.
As I said on one of the other threads, I suspect those who scored it for Eubank are either a) on the wind-up; b) being deliberately contrary so they can pretend to be boxing gurus who see beyond the average observer; c) know eff all about how to score boxing.
ya and some ppl who are saying it was very close i can tell from other posts on other fights that they score in a way that is biased by how they predicted the fight would go. a few posters in particular i have in mind who went strong eubank i could tell were never gonna say groves won by anything clear or comfortable at all.
this is not simply from this fight but from there reactions to other fights too where they made very confident predictions.
anyone ever seen a prediction on a fight from someone who was an actual judge for it? there is deffo good reason imo why they shouldnt make a public predicition. not saying everyone who predicts strongly cant score fair but i think theres deffo a subset whose biased by what they declare will happen. especially with the ppl who are prone to super confident picking.
10 rounds to 2 for Groves and that’s only because I felt like CEJ deserved the benefit of the doubt in the final round, he threw a lot but didn’t land much and Groves moved excellently even when hemmed in a corner in borderline matrix fashion
A lot of people picked Christopher to win. Pre-fight odds prove that. Most of them will have tried to find reasons to give the rounds to him; it’s basic human psychology stuff. Judges and journalists are not exempt.
George won wide when the fight is watched dispassionately.
You describe it exactly how I saw it and gave junior 2 rounds and maybe a share of 1 .
Why none of the knock-downs were scored is beyond me .
Despite junior's really brave effort he came up well short to me .
A bloke I work with had it to Eubank , dunno what he was watching .
I can see why the ref thought they were slips, at first glance it looked like it was because he was off balance, it was only on the replay it was clear he'd been hurt by a punch. 2 knockdowns should have been scored.
Didn't keep an actual card but it felt like a 9-3 type of fight to me.
The press workout from fight week illustrated the difference really. One guy came out throwing flashy but pointless punches at a compliant pad man, whilst the other was actually doing constructive work that he'd be using in the fight. Now it was possible that Eubank was keeping his work hidden, but from all the footage we saw prior we've never saw him do anything constructive or relevant to an actual fight.
Then at the final press conference when Eubank kept calling Groves slow....I thought he's in for a shock, Groves isn't a flashy combination puncher, but his jab and single shot bombs are pretty rapid. I don't know where Eubank got the idea that Groves was slow from, but he was way off with that line of thought!
Regarding the fight itself....It was pretty straight forward for Groves. His tactics worked and Eubank's plan didn't work and he was unable to do anything about it. I don't know what he thought he was going to be able to do in there, but he was pretty much clueless and lost from the get go.
Jnr showed heart and resolve to keep going despite the cut and the writing being on the wall. He also showed a genuinely solid chin because he got hit cleanly with plenty of right hands and he took them well. But his lack of a plan, versatility, and technical boxing skills doesn't bode well for his future. He absolutely needs to ditch his old man and old Ronnie Davies and get a proper coach......and be prepared to actually listen and try and learn. Who he selects is critical because at 28 he hasn't got time to f*ck about. He needs to really apply himself.
Groves looked as good as ever. He'll always be vulnerable, but he's got one of the best jabs in the business. He's powerful and has developed a shrewd boxing brain and he's got a good young coach who his style gels well with. They've also noticeably improved Groves stamina issues with some success. I hope the shoulder injury isn't as serious as it appeared and won't hinder his progress going forward.
I have to hold my hands up and admit I scored it for Eubank 115-114. Groves controlled the distance, blocked or slipped most of Eubank's punches, tied him up inside, and remained composed throughout, BUT I didn't see him land many punches.
Maybe my eyesight's worse than I thought but you call it as you see it. I thought Eubank had the better of those rounds when he forced Groves to engage.
Scored it 8-4 for Groves. This was from the back row of the upper tier and not watched it back since. Couple of those 4 for Eubank were close, and could easily go the other way if I ever get round to watching it again.
I scored it 117-112. It would have been more had the knockdowns counted. There was one of the mid rounds that i thought was even. Think it was around round 5.
I went big on Eubank, and really wanted him to win, but I genuinely couldn't give him more than three rounds. Agree with the guy who said Groves didn't land much, but Eubank still less. Groves didn't look anything special, but Eubank was so short on ideas and footwork that Groves barely had to try most of the fight.
Can’t see how Eubank won that. Most rounds weren’t hard to score. Eubank missed consistently with Groves tying him up and landing jabs or sneaky shots when JR fell in.
I only saw the last few rounds live on a ropey stream at my sons house (we didn't trust ITV box office) so I watched the full fight on youtube the next day. It was an excellent video in HD with Russian commentary so I was spared any bias and I thought Groves won very clearly. I didn't score it round by round as I watched but it felt like somewhere between a 116-112 and a 118-110 to me. The only point I felt that Groves struggled was on the inside during the last round and it was clear he'd injured his left hand or arm.
I did predict Groves to win so maybe I was slightly biased but a young lad I work with follows Eubank on twitter and instagram etc and all week before he was full of it telling me that GG had no chance whatsoever, he'd fallen for the gimmicky videos y'see. However he was very sheepish on Monday morning, he acknowledged that I'd called the fight pretty much spot on and he agreed that Eubank was well beaten.
Thanks for all who voted. I can sleep easy knowing the whole world hasn't gone mad and at least 85% of boxrec are sane
I suppose when it comes to boxing writers ini major newspapers, they have an agenda to con the public essentially. "Look at this it's a good fight!" "Look at this it's a close fight!" You get told these things enough you will believe it - especially if you are Joe Public who only watches boxing on occassion.
