Page 5 of 5
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 10:12
by Roars Like Me
I suppose saying 'I blame Geroge Groves' isn't appropriate right now
D
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 10:42
by lillywhite14
Just watched it. Groves fought superbly, over the first half of the fight. Froch took some huge shots and how he remained upright I don't know.
Jim Watt was horrendous! Really cringeworthy. That's the most biased I have ever heard him.
The stoppage was premature, Groves should have been given the chance to continue.
I read on this forum a comment where someone said Groves was done a favour by the ref as he is now seen as 'the man robbed of victory as opposed to the young lion who was being dragged in to waters too deep for him'.
Element of truth in that.
The fallout has been pathetic.
Rematch should happen. Get the feeling though that Groves' best chance to beat Froch went in the first three rounds Saturday night.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 10:50
by keithmoonhangover
lillywhite14 wrote:Jim Watt was horrendous! Really cringeworthy. That's the most biased I have ever heard him.
He was bloody awful mate. I wish SKY would get someone who wasn't so blatantly biased. I also can't stand the way he keeps repeating the same thing over and over.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 11:31
by JC
Evander wrote:British Boxing is a joke, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I agree, let's all give ourselves dead arms.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 11:38
by youngrell
keithmoonhangover wrote:lillywhite14 wrote:Jim Watt was horrendous! Really cringeworthy. That's the most biased I have ever heard him.
He was bloody awful mate. I wish SKY would get someone who wasn't so blatantly biased. I also can't stand the way he keeps repeating the same thing over and over.
At one point he sounded as if he was ejaculating at the same time as saying 'ahhh look at that jab'. He got waaaay too excited on Saturday, and I can't really blame him as it certainly had me on the edge of my seat.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 11:43
by Counter-puncher
TheCobra wrote:Groves was saved prematurely. The fight should have been left to continue and I foresaw a Jermain taylor type ending. Difference being Taylor got given EVERY chance in a world title fight to take a shedload of beats, go down, get back up, take a load more beats then get saved. That's how boxing should be in my opinion.
These men don't go through hell in training to be stopped before they are ready, let them go out on their shield and let's stop all this preamture ref stoppages, cos it's something that has crept into British boxing in the last few years anyway. If we were all so worried about fighters being damaged then why do we pay so much to watch these men beat lumps out of each other?
It's a mans game, a mans sport and Groves should have been left to go out on his shield - which I think he would have and then Froch would have been being celebrated today for pulling another comeback out of the bag .
the paradox of this is, whilst i agree with your post, Taylor- already slightly damaged goods from the Pavlik KO- was clearly never the same again after taking that beating from Froch in the 12th. not that the ref could/should have stopped it any earlier in that fight (from memory i don't think he could)
just, well, boxing's a fvckin dangerous sport.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 15:00
by palooka
The referee gave Froch every opportunity to recover and jumped in at the first opportunity to stop Groves; if it had been Groves dropped as heavy as Froch in the first round he'd have called it off; the ref was 'fairer' the Froch than to Groves and the punches he allowed Froch to take through the bout will have shortened his career and were heavy enough to do damage.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 18:58
by THEBUTCH
And to be clear if it was the other way around.... it would have been an injustice if Froch had been stopped like that. The ref made a complete bugger of it.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 25 Nov 2013, 19:07
by TheCobra
Counter-puncher wrote:TheCobra wrote:Groves was saved prematurely. The fight should have been left to continue and I foresaw a Jermain taylor type ending. Difference being Taylor got given EVERY chance in a world title fight to take a shedload of beats, go down, get back up, take a load more beats then get saved. That's how boxing should be in my opinion.
These men don't go through hell in training to be stopped before they are ready, let them go out on their shield and let's stop all this preamture ref stoppages, cos it's something that has crept into British boxing in the last few years anyway. If we were all so worried about fighters being damaged then why do we pay so much to watch these men beat lumps out of each other?
It's a mans game, a mans sport and Groves should have been left to go out on his shield - which I think he would have and then Froch would have been being celebrated today for pulling another comeback out of the bag .
the paradox of this is, whilst i agree with your post, Taylor- already slightly damaged goods from the Pavlik KO- was clearly never the same again after taking that beating from Froch in the 12th. not that the ref could/should have stopped it any earlier in that fight (from memory i don't think he could)
just, well, boxing's a fvckin dangerous sport.
I guess it sounds nasty what I said, like I don't care for boxer's welfare. I do, but I think there has to be some point where we let them do what they do, it's fighting, they get hit in the head for a living, it's not like any other sport so certain health and safety rules need to be relaxed if not totally thrown out the window.
Sometimes it would be better for someone to take the beating just so they shut the fu*k up and don't start dancing round the ring as the victor when they just got stopped.
Taylor fight I think should have been stopped after the 12th round knockdown, he looked gone, totally gone and was allowed to take several more heavy shots and had already taken a complete barrage pre-knockdown. No-one wants to see a fighter get hurt but no-one wants to see what we saw on Saturday either.
Re: Groves is better than Froch. That has now been established
Posted: 26 Nov 2013, 06:59
by Counter-puncher
^^ aye- not an easy balance to strike, though, is it? you're looking at a matter of mere seconds either way to either (a) 'rob' the stopped fighter/fans or (b) endanger the fighter's health