BoxRec

Froch was coming on and he may have been planning to pick it up after the early rounds, but from what was visible in the ring (as opposed to what the fighters were thinking) he didn't seem in control during most of the rounds to me.

crusader wrote:Froch was coming on and he may have been planning to pick it up after the early rounds, but from what was visible in the ring (as opposed to what the fighters were thinking) he didn't seem in control during most of the rounds to me.

That's fine. Everyone has an opinion, but Groves had nothing for Froch after the 4th. Froch was just careful enough not to get caught cold, but he was getting bolder and bolder. Groves is fortunate it was a one punch finish because he was in line for a beat down.

Groves won the 7th on your card, so I'd say he still had something after the 4th. I highly doubt Froch let him win the round.

HBO (Neutral broadcaster) has Groves 3 rounds up I think before the stoppage.

crusader wrote:Groves won the 7th on your card, so I'd say he still had something after the 4th. I highly doubt Froch let him win the round.

He was in control. He stuck to his plan, which I thought was a mistake, and he did exactly what would have happened in the first fight, if not for Grove's perfect right hand.

All hail Carl Froch, the best boxing has to offer.

If Groves had nothing for Froch why did you give him that round though? How is he winning rounds with nothing?

crusader wrote:If Groves had nothing for Froch why did you give him that round though? How is he winning rounds with nothing?

Points, which meant absolutely nothing in the end. And froch was well within reach points-wise too. Even when in control you can lose rounds; see FMJ.

Points would also mean nothing in the end if Groves was up 11-0 before being stopped in the 12th, but that wouldn't mean that he had nothing for Froch. I'm not sure why Froch eventually winning means that Groves had nothing for him after the early rounds.

Small point, but I don't agree that Groves had nothing when he was hardly blown away in the 5th or 6th and fought well and won the 7th, even forcing Froch back with a shot at one point.

crusader wrote:Points would also mean nothing in the end if Groves was up 11-0 before being stopped in the 12th, but that wouldn't mean that he had nothing for Froch. I'm not sure why Froch eventually winning means that Groves had nothing for him after the early rounds.

Small point, but I don't agree that Groves had nothing when he was hardly blown away in the 5th or 6th and fought well and won the 7th, even forcing Froch back with a shot at one point.

Whatever, crusadian, that is how I see it. Froch not only KTFO Groves, he won the chess match. Often the loser appears to be in the chess match long after the result is certain.

All hail Carl Froch, the best boxing has to offer.

Tanzio wrote:

crusader wrote:Points would also mean nothing in the end if Groves was up 11-0 before being stopped in the 12th, but that wouldn't mean that he had nothing for Froch. I'm not sure why Froch eventually winning means that Groves had nothing for him after the early rounds.

Small point, but I don't agree that Groves had nothing when he was hardly blown away in the 5th or 6th and fought well and won the 7th, even forcing Froch back with a shot at one point.

Whatever, crusadian, that is how I see it. Froch not only KTFO Groves, he won the chess match. Often the loser appears to be in the chess match long after the result is certain.

All hail Carl Froch, the best boxing has to offer.

Except Andre Ward.

Ian1973 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

crusader wrote:Points would also mean nothing in the end if Groves was up 11-0 before being stopped in the 12th, but that wouldn't mean that he had nothing for Froch. I'm not sure why Froch eventually winning means that Groves had nothing for him after the early rounds.

Small point, but I don't agree that Groves had nothing when he was hardly blown away in the 5th or 6th and fought well and won the 7th, even forcing Froch back with a shot at one point.

Whatever, crusadian, that is how I see it. Froch not only KTFO Groves, he won the chess match. Often the loser appears to be in the chess match long after the result is certain.

All hail Carl Froch, the best boxing has to offer.

Except Andre Ward.

LOL, I am from Oakland my friend. Ward is one of the best boxers of this era but he is nowhere close to the best boxing has to offer, who is the pride of Nottingham, Carl The King of England Froch. All hail the King!

rio wrote:HBO (Neutral broadcaster) has Groves 3 rounds up I think before the stoppage.

HBO had Steve Weisfeld as unofficial scorer he gave first 4 to Groves, 5-7 to Froch, hence 67-66 Groves at end of 7.

It seemed to me though that the commentary crew had it close, due to the difficulty of each round to score - Weisfeld said Groves edged the first 3 by a tiny margin in each.

Mighty Moose wrote:

rio wrote:HBO (Neutral broadcaster) has Groves 3 rounds up I think before the stoppage.

HBO had Steve Weisfeld as unofficial scorer he gave first 4 to Groves, 5-7 to Froch, hence 67-66 Groves at end of 7.

It seemed to me though that the commentary crew had it close, due to the difficulty of each round to score - Weisfeld said Groves edged the first 3 by a tiny margin in each.

HBO weren't at the fight. They did their commentary off TV from New York

i saw the fight in a pub of some German/ Scandinavian oufit. It came two years too early for Groves, that's the top and bottom of it. If it was a choice tonight out of Groves and the Froch &Cordingley show (why the F*ck is she in the ring??) then I'd wish Groves won. Froch is a really tough man but I wish Calzaghe had samcked him about, which he would have done.

n1ebf wrote:i saw the fight in a pub of some German/ Scandinavian oufit. It came two years too early for Groves, that's the top and bottom of it. If it was a choice tonight out of Groves and the Froch &Cordingley show (why the F*ck is she in the ring??) then I'd wish Groves won. Froch is a really tough man but I wish Calzaghe had samcked him about, which he would have done.

Calzaghe would've beaten Froch the way Andre Ward did, maybe more widely. Calzaghe's speed would've destroyed Froch, he'd have landed about eight punches to Froch's one. It would be like the Jeff Lacy fight. Style wise Calzaghe would've been an absolute nightmare for Froch.

Ian1973 wrote: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.

I'm sure I've read a convo about this quite recently on here.

Emmseegee wrote: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...

That was definitely Froch's round, and I'd say it was the only clear round of the fight.

my pal pointed out to me at one point that Froch was 6 rounds to 1 up! I thought how the heck can he be 6-1 up when hardly a punch has been thrown/ landed?! I think Froch didn't dare do nowt in the first round and I think Groves was equally nervous in case he gassed like last time. Groves had the speed and needed to do more and have more authority! Top and bottom of it it came too early for him and the best man won.

People follow the commentary...they are told that is what they are watching and score accordingly. Only the more knowledgable fan really disagrees.

Best sometimes to watch without commentary

Jim Watt's commentating and scoring of the fight was infuriating. I suppose it didn't help that I really wanted Groves to win, and it was close and arguably difficult to score.

But Watt seemed to regularly fail to acknowledge Groves' work and then went completely over the top about Froch's. Im sure i heard Paulie Mallinagi interrupt on occasions to try and give some balance to Watt's interpretation of the fight and explain just how well Groves was doing.

But after all, most of us know that Watt picks a fighter to back in the 1st round and then lauds them during the fight regardless of what usually happens in the exchanges.

Watt seemed to do the opposite of the first fight, he seems to lurch one way or another and can't seem to be objective in a fight and call what is actually happening.

I noticed the same thing as first fight but in opposite, some of Groves work was just being completely ignored by Watt. Strange commentator.

I had it 4-3 for Froch by the way, Groves was picking some nice stuff on the counter at times, but Froch looked the boss this time, much better on his jab and looked the puncher in there this time from the word go. Groves looked scared.

Tanzio wrote:

MPG wrote: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.

Me too. I thought froch was levelling it up in the 8th before the ko so I would of had it level after the 8th.

I had it 4-3 Froch at stoppage but close and cagey for the most part,couldnt argue either way

Does anyone know what the official scorecards were prior to stoppage?

Not confirmed yet but I hear the cards were 65-68 67-66 67-66.

Waiting on official confirmation.

From my seat in the stadium, I had Groves up by a couple at the time of the knockout - I split one of the later rounds (6 or 7, can't remember exactly). That Jim Watt scorecard is mystifying and I've literally not seen anyone else who was scoring the fight that way. I suppose this is the man that thought Valuev had beaten Haye despite barely being able to touch him all night so we shouldn't be surprised.