crusader wrote:Great KO, but hardly a brilliant performance all-round.
Yeah, I think the KO should be praised as a brilliant shot (because it was!), but this was no Calzaghe-Lacy Indian summer.
Tactically, it was very sound from both men, but I think it's fair to say it didn't fire the imagination re: possible future opponents as strongly as it might have. I do think it was the greatest shot that Carl's thrown in years, but the fight itself - at least from a US point of view - was self-contained; subdued, even. Not a personal criticism, because I enjoyed it.
Last edited by Grilling Machine on 31 May 2014, 18:32, edited 3 times in total.
stujones wrote:Do you think Sky will ever admit that it was a bit of a dull contest.
I didn't think it was dull, I found it fascinating. I guess so many people will expecting early fireworks and when that didn't happen it all seemed like a bit of an anti-climax.
I agree actually, but it isn't one that I'm going to watch again and again on DVD.
I actually found Calzaghe vs Hopkins fascinating live also... cagey.
Has anyone been to a fight and seen both boxers booed into the ring as Groves and Froch were? Wembley must have been full of at best casual fans. Great reception for Frank Bruno but none for Eubank and Watson, both British boxing legends. The atmosphere was wierd throughout the night, and the Sky commentary was bloody terrible.
I was thinking earlier today that Grove's over confidence could be his undoing. It was almost role reversal from the first fight. In that fight Froch overlooked Groves to a large extent and totally under-estimated him. This time around i felt from the pre fight build up that it was Groves who was totally under-estimating Froch. It was obvious that the fight would be different to the first time out, particularly in relation to Froch. I do think that styles make fights and in many respects Groves is all wrong for Froch. He ha fast hands, good movement etc etc, just like Dirrel et al. However, Carl is experienced enough to adapt in a fight and make changes to counter what is happenning if he happens to be behind. No one could see that punch coming, least of all Groves, but it was an excellent shot.
Groves does seem to have a good basis to work from, but he lacks a lot of intricate detail that makes a huge difference at world level. In many respects, Groves could do what he did in the first fight because Carl's approach fell into Groves hands, literally. Plus, Froch was semi concussed from the first round and didn't start making any real adjustments untill the 6th or 7th rounds of that fight. Groves in this respect had things his own way a little to easily, which is why he thought the blueprint for this fight would be the same. Froch in this fight had experience of what Groves could do and fought in a more cagey style, meaning Groves had to do more to draw Froch out. Groves also seems to suffer from stamina issues which is why he often drops his game plan and trades which is not his game. Froch under-estimated Groves in the first fight and nearly paid for it. Groves under-estimated Froch in this second fight and did pay for it.
Froch isn't a one punch hitter at world level and both men did really well financially out of the bout. Groves is too fragile, de gale is a tricky custom er and who know what Froch and ward will do?
Who cares who was winning until the end. You lot sound like my 8 year old when we play pool and when he pots one he does a little dance and I remind him it is not about who is winning but at the end who WON!
12 round fight, object of exercise is to win more rounds than the other man or find a way to stop him completing the 12 rounds.
tobyh5 wrote:Who cares who was winning until the end. You lot sound like my 8 year old when we play pool and when he pots one he does a little dance and I remind him it is not about who is winning but at the end who WON!
12 round fight, object of exercise is to win more rounds than the other man or find a way to stop him completing the 12 rounds.
Grilling Machine wrote:Watt's criticising Groves, when Groves did everything right for me until that one shot.
I thought Groves fought a very sensible fight and was clearly in front. He was showing signs of dominating more the longer the fight went on. How the Sky team had Froch ahead on points I'll never know. Yes he poked the jab but it hardly landed for the most part.
One brilliant shot from Froch, I doubt he's ever thrown a better punch than that. Fair result, no argument but the commentators were talking absolute bllx.
danconnollyeire wrote:Fair play Carl. If he was never ever interviewed, he'd probably be my all time favourite fighter haha. Groves seemed less switched on this time, a bit more nervous, a he was dodging those right hands all day long last fight
He looked like he was starting to take control of the fight till Froch landed that shot. What a shot by the way, didn't think that would ever happen.
True. In the first fight though, for 7 rounds at least, he made Froch look like a mug. Although he will always be a much better boxer technically, they didn't seem the world apart like that did the first fight. Could be due to froch improving
Or could be due to Froch getting caught in the first round last time and never fully recovering, yet winning the fight. When Groves got caught the same way, he could not recover. That is the only difference.
tobyh5 wrote:Who cares who was winning until the end. You lot sound like my 8 year old when we play pool and when he pots one he does a little dance and I remind him it is not about who is winning but at the end who WON!
12 round fight, object of exercise is to win more rounds than the other man or find a way to stop him completing the 12 rounds.
