BoxRec

mickey1975 wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

Finch wrote:
There is no need because the venue sold out in 10 minutes due to the international celebrity megastar that is Carl Froch? He said so himself so it must be true.

Well Groves didn't sell out the fight did he. There is no debating who the star between the two is.

Groves had at least 12,000 behind him at the DeGale fight. It could be argued Fielding, Quigg, Cardle, Smith and co have sold it out judging by the thousands they are currently selling on Twitter.

mickey1975 wrote:Of course it could. Al fighters have been selling them all week. I got some for friends via Scott Cardle. No booking fees either. Go on Rocky Fieldings website now and take your pick...,

DMA1987 wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Of course it could. Al fighters have been selling them all week. I got some for friends via Scott Cardle. No booking fees either. Go on Rocky Fieldings website now and take your pick...,

I know the undercard fighters have got tickets, as it should be. But, did you buy the tickets because Scott Cardle was fighting? Or because Froch and Groves were fighting? So who really sold the fight? They will probably be doing more numbers than they ever have.

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

stujones wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

Barrera did dominate Naz, not in a complete shut out no - but Naz never dominated a round and Barrera was very cautious - I thought it was 116-112 (but a 116-112 that wasn't a reflection of the manner of the win).

Dirrell vs Froch was one of the worst decisions I have seen IMO (and this fight took place in the days of round by rounds - so it aint a memory thing). Even the incredibly bias commentary team at it Dirrell by 3.

Having said that I will say that watching fights live and watching fights on TV are two different scenario's - and I do remember everyone who went to the fight live failed to see the controversy, whereas most who saw it on TV thought Dirrell clear.



I've watched this fight a few times and come with the same conclusion - Dirrell clear. He wins the fight far bigger than Kessler won the first one. I have since watched the Froch vs Kessler 2 fight again and scored it very different to my live (on TV) Round by round card - Froch was a clear winner.

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

Groove Armada wrote:

clopixolacuphase wrote:Amazing how Froch, our best fighter, gets bashed so much now. Such a shame. People start hating on a fighter the first chance they get. Depressing. And bashing his record? Who has had a better run of opponents? Sometimes people on Boxrec get me down. Ward is on PEDs and boring, can't wait for him to lose. Groves was alright now he's arrogant and wants to be David Haye can't wait for him to lose. Haye is twat can't wait for him to lose. Fury is a twat can't wait for him to lose. Wladamir is boring and a cheat can't wait for him to lose. Mayweather is boring and cherry picks can't wait for him to lose. On and on it goes. GGG and Provodnikov, current darlings, wonder how long it takes before everyone starts to hate them too?

At least everyone still loves Maidana. That makes me happy.

Froch is not being bashed by me.

mickey1975 wrote:I've been slating Froch since I joined the forum. I begrudgingly admire his achievements, but can't do with him. I will love it if Groves beats him, LOVE IT!

crusader wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

Many people said immediately after the fight that it was a bad decision; I don't think it's gradually shifted into a blind robbery. I do think, however, that after Froch's recent success Froch-Kessler 1 shifted from a consensus close but clear win for Kessler to a roughly 50-50 split on who won.

And 9-3 MAB. I thought he dominated given that he won at least twice as many rounds and won his rounds very convincingly (he certainly schooled him within a few rounds, even if it would be inappropriate to say he schooled him over the entire fight), which Nas didn't.

Wrists wrote:

stujones wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

Barrera did dominate Naz, not in a complete shut out no - but Naz never dominated a round and Barrera was very cautious - I thought it was 116-112 (but a 116-112 that wasn't a reflection of the manner of the win).

Dirrell vs Froch was one of the worst decisions I have seen IMO (and this fight took place in the days of round by rounds - so it aint a memory thing). Even the incredibly bias commentary team at it Dirrell by 3.

Having said that I will say that watching fights live and watching fights on TV are two different scenario's - and I do remember everyone who went to the fight live failed to see the controversy, whereas most who saw it on TV thought Dirrell clear.



I've watched this fight a few times and come with the same conclusion - Dirrell clear. He wins the fight far bigger than Kessler won the first one. I have since watched the Froch vs Kessler 2 fight again and scored it very different to my live (on TV) Round by round card - Froch was a clear winner.

Yes and I appreciate I bring this up quite a lot, but you scored Calzaghe V Kessler a draw.................... so on that basis 'Dirrell clear' should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Apologies.........

lillywhite14 wrote:

crusader wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

Many people said immediately after the fight that it was a bad decision; I don't think it's gradually shifted into a blind robbery. I do think, however, that after Froch's recent success Froch-Kessler 1 shifted from a consensus close but clear win for Kessler to a roughly 50-50 split on who won.

And 9-3 MAB. I thought he dominated given that he won at least twice as many rounds and won his rounds very convincingly (he certainly schooled him within a few rounds, even if it would be inappropriate to say he schooled him over the entire fight), which Nas didn't.

My point is people often talk about Barrera utterly destroying Naz and winning every second of every round when that wasn't the case. Its just how some people choose to remember it rather than how it happened. In my opinion its the same with Froch-Dirrell. Gradually its becoming some kind of 'worst decision ever seen' kind of result in some people's eyes.

lillywhite14 wrote:

crusader wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:People's memories seem to forget certain things.

Its like when you hear people talk about Barrera schooling Naz in a complete shut out, which is absolute bollocks. Dirrell getting robbed blind in Nottingham is the same. I thought Dirrell had an argument in a very close fight which could have gone either way.

Many people said immediately after the fight that it was a bad decision; I don't think it's gradually shifted into a blind robbery. I do think, however, that after Froch's recent success Froch-Kessler 1 shifted from a consensus close but clear win for Kessler to a roughly 50-50 split on who won.

And 9-3 MAB. I thought he dominated given that he won at least twice as many rounds and won his rounds very convincingly (he certainly schooled him within a few rounds, even if it would be inappropriate to say he schooled him over the entire fight), which Nas didn't.

My point is people often talk about Barrera utterly destroying Naz and winning every second of every round when that wasn't the case. Its just how some people choose to remember it rather than how it happened. In my opinion its the same with Froch-Dirrell. Gradually its becoming some kind of 'worst decision ever seen' kind of result in some people's eyes.

columbo wrote:

CheckHook wrote:

Groove Armada wrote:Froch should be glad Calzaghe did not fight him, he would have been slapped silly.

Groves is more Mario Veit than Joe Calzaghe though, isn't he?

Veit is bloody harsh haha. Groves is a talented fighter. Good enough to beat Froch im not sure. Probably has enough boxing ability but whether his chin holds up is a different matter altogether.

Groove Armada wrote:Guys, Froch has been great over the years, but let not act as though he is SRL and Hagler rolled into one.This is a good fight

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Groove Armada wrote:Guys, Froch has been great over the years, but let not act as though he is SRL and Hagler rolled into one.This is a good fight

Groves is way out of his depth here. Different levels.

Ricky_ wrote:Not only is Froch grossly overrated

Deserter wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Not only is Froch grossly overrated

How on earth is that true? Pretty much everyone on this board views him as the second best in the world at super-middle behind Ward and his fight resume supports that view.