BoxRec

I had Groves comfortably up. it was only when I got a text message from a mate who was sarcastically questioning if I thought Groves was still going to win, I realised that the SKY commentary was going to be balls. When I saw the card I had a heart attack.

Right man won...but the problem is, if a robbery occurs later, if Watt has coloured (uneducated) peoples views then it changes the perception of the fight.

Like the British Olympians. Robbery after robbery, but as long as Woodhall is sat with his microphone in one hand and his todger in the other saying team GB fighters have won every contest, it's a non story because the masses think the right man won.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

liamlion wrote:
Froch didnt land anything significant in the first fight and was gifted the decision. Its as simple as that. But you carry on answering your own questions...

I will. Just please promise us you’re going to continue making stuff up to fit in with what you wanted to happen in the first fight. The forum needs a lot more of that type of analysis.

Are you 10 years old? Clown.

Because of course, if i was "making stuff up to fit in with what i wanted to happen in the first fight" (whatever the fook that means?) then the rematch would never have taken place let alone been the biggest hyped and highest attended event in British boxing history, now would it?

Come on then Brains, what was the angle for such an eagerly anticipated rematch?

Counter-puncher wrote:

liamlion wrote:
Froch didnt land anything significant in the first fight and was gifted the decision. Its as simple as that. :

oh, dear.

Oh dear, oh dear...

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

liamlion wrote:
Come on then Brains, what was the angle for such an eagerly anticipated rematch?

That 'Froch didn't land anything significant in the first fight and was gifted the decision', perhaps?

PS 10-year-olds aren't clowns, I think you have to be over 18 for that gig.

PPS I've just realised that you're an idiot, my mistake.

Congratulations. Brilliant rationale and logic to your argument.

I may be billy no-mates here but I think Jim Watt is a brilliant commentator and I have absolutely no problem at all with how he called the fight on Saturday night. I was paying attention to his observations and scoring and thought he was doing fine.

You have to bear in mind, it is easy for fans on a forum to cherry pick certain comments etc and analyse them with the benefit of hindsight. I guess we all do it, hence the existence of forums, but the difference between us and Jim Watt is that he calls it live, as the action unfolds, whereas we have the benefit of hindsight and can pick up on things at our leisure.

In Jim's defence, he very quickly picked up on the fact that it was a different Carl Froch in there compared to last time. He wasn't too impressed at Grove's tactics and that is absolutely fair enough. Others may see it differently, or score it differently, and that is fine too. It doesn't make Jim Watt a liar or incompetent. He is a top class commentator

Watched it in Riley's in town. Couldn't hear the sound properly due to the music but thought Groves was nicking lots of rounds by landing the jab. Froch charged forward and pounded away but lots of those shots hit arms and Gloves.

I was shocked when the scorecards flashed up and Watt had given Froch every round but the second I was shocked. I thought the first round was a definite groves round. I will take some comfort that the actual scorecards where pretty close and a fair reflection.

Will watch again with the commentary. I think the narrative of a fight can be changed by the commentary, you see this often in the betting odds on betfair changing if the commentary is biased but the fight being pretty close. Prizefighter is especially good for this from a betting perspective.

Also just to add the telegraph had a massive front page spread on Froch Groves today and in the comment at the back the columnist applauded the great story and anticipation created for the event. His only negative comment was the poor quality of the commentary and the analysis.

JimJim2009 wrote:I may be billy no-mates here but I think Jim Watt is a brilliant commentator and I have absolutely no problem at all with how he called the fight on Saturday night. I was paying attention to his observations and scoring and thought he was doing fine.

You have to bear in mind, it is easy for fans on a forum to cherry pick certain comments etc and analyse them with the benefit of hindsight. I guess we all do it, hence the existence of forums, but the difference between us and Jim Watt is that he calls it live, as the action unfolds, whereas we have the benefit of hindsight and can pick up on things at our leisure.

In Jim's defence, he very quickly picked up on the fact that it was a different Carl Froch in there compared to last time. He wasn't too impressed at Grove's tactics and that is absolutely fair enough. Others may see it differently, or score it differently, and that is fine too. It doesn't make Jim Watt a liar or incompetent. He is a top class commentator

Did you think 5-2 Froch was a fine score?

I don't agree about the hindsight part. Loads of people complain about commentators during fights and immediately after, before they can re-watch them. I had the sound off and didn't see Watt's score until the 6th, at which point I cringed, asked myself wtf he was watching, and came here to see if people were eating it up. It is was a very bad card in my opinion and has no reasonable justification.

And someone please give me good reasons why Froch shouldn't have been down 3-1 or 4-0 after the first four. People talk about not much happening, but I thought it was very clear that Groves was more accurate, landing more, and catching Froch with better shots. I really don't see how Froch was doing just as well as Groves was in those rounds, and the vague 'he was controlling it' doesn't really cut it for me, especially when it seems like controlling just means moving forward and throwing the occasional flurry in which little connects, all while being outlanded by and hit with cleaner shots from an opponent who is roughly as busy, if not more.

The numbers below reflect the fight I saw. For Watt to give Groves only 1 of the first 6 rounds is laughable.

http://www.BS.com/compubox-gro ... tch--78487

Don't see what the big fuss is about. Up until the stoppage it was a very close fight that could have been scored either way but personally myself I preferred Carl's work and had it 5-2 in rounds to Carl.

Watts card and analysis were ridiculous, it really is as simple as that. Anyone that agreed with his interpretation of events knows nothing about boxing. I can understand slight variations on scoring to a degree when some rounds are close but his constant nonsensical disregard for Groves' work was hard to listen to. I was scoring the fight round by round and I thought I was going mad until Sky interviewed Amir Khan and he agreed with my scoring. Above posters are correct the general public are impressionable and when a message keeps being fed to them they will believe it you only have to look at politics, the media, the press.

What is really concerning to me is the judges scoring on a number of recent occasions. Take the Froch v Groves first fight, two judges only had Groves one round ahead at the time of the stoppage. In the first Rees vs Buckland fight, Buckland got the decision despite the fact that almost everyone gave Rees the fight.

Scoring can be subjective. Is it right that in 2014 results can be decided by absolutely barmy scoring. Is there another way? Is there a better way?

You're completely entitled to your opinion, and I wouldn't argue with it. Some people will see Froch bossing things, others will see Groves being that bit more effective in most of the rounds. I think Jim Watt, and a lot of people, were impressed at Carl's composure, restraint and measured pressure and workrate. I thought Carl was clearly ahead at the time of the stoppage but if others disagree, that's fine. These things happen in boxing - different people see different things. I just think it is out of order to accuse Jim Watt of being a liar or incompetent. He called it as he sees it. He is a former world champ who is hired to give his views and analysis during a fight, live. He is very good at his job, hence he's been paid to do it for several decades now. It's perfectly fine to disagree with any commentator, and I myself don't always agree with him (I don't run the jim watt fanclub), but its disgraceful to run a thread with this title. No wonder some people in the sport think that forum posters are sometimes bottom feeders.

Maybe it's the Eddie Hearn factor.a lot of scoring discrepencies for Theodore Hearn fight cards in favourite the house fighter

davie wrote:5 and 6 were froch rounds, 7 was groves and i had him agead in 8 as well before he collapsed.

Its the first 4 where we differ. Watt had froch 3-1 up, where as i had groves 3-1 up.
But they were very close rounds with very little happening.

I'm not knocking watt too much for this scoring

That's a really good post and sums things up well

Not too much happened in the first 4, but I don't see how more than one of them could go to Froch. Boxing is about doing more than your opponent, not necessarily doing a lot.

if nothing happens for 5 rounds but Froch is at least holding centre and Groves isn't getting involved, what can you do? score 5 drawn rounds in a row?......actually, it may not be a bad way of doing it - even if someone won by two rounds to one with a load of drawn rounds. At least it's accurate. What's Watt meant to do - chuck Groves each alternate 10-9 to kee things nice and balanced? Rubbish. Think it's outrageous to suggest the man's a liar for that.
On a side note however - what does it say about the prospects of retired boxers that Jim Watt isn't getting stronger competition for his analyst role? Where are they all?

n1ebf wrote:if nothing happens for 5 rounds but Froch is at least holding centre and Groves isn't getting involved, what can you do? score 5 drawn rounds in a row?......actually, it may not be a bad way of doing it - even if someone won by two rounds to one with a load of drawn rounds. At least it's accurate. What's Watt meant to do - chuck Groves each alternate 10-9 to kee things nice and balanced? Rubbish. Think it's outrageous to suggest the man's a liar for that.
On a side note however - what does it say about the prospects of retired boxers that Jim Watt isn't getting stronger competition for his analyst role? Where are they all?

Groves wasn't getting involved so what else can you do? You make it sound like he wasn't punching, which he was doing just as much as Froch; look at the punch stats or count them yourself.

And why should Froch win rounds just because he's in the center of the ring? That means nothing on it's own, and even less when the guy moving around is the one landing more often and more cleanly.

ApolloCreed wrote:

However, when Ed Robinson spoke to Khan (who had Groves well up) he had to double check that Khan didn't have the names mixed up - so obviously Ed Robinson was scoring it similar to Watt.

That bit was incredible. 'You mean Carl Froch?' 'No, I mean George Groves...'

Or more likely Robinson just went along with what Watt was saying

JimJim2009 wrote:

davie wrote:5 and 6 were froch rounds, 7 was groves and i had him agead in 8 as well before he collapsed.

Its the first 4 where we differ. Watt had froch 3-1 up, where as i had groves 3-1 up.
But they were very close rounds with very little happening.

I'm not knocking watt too much for this scoring

That's a really good post and sums things up well

there are times in boxing when you see a round only going one way. Like some of the rounds in the first Pacquiao vs Bradley fight, where only the most corrupt of judges could have given anything but a comfortable 10-9 to Manny, yet managed to give them to Tim

But those first 4 rounds were tight. I agree with most on here that Groves edged the first 4 and was 3-1 up. But they really were tight and the margin of difference was as thin as one or two jabs landed.
If anyone had it 4-0 to froch or 4-0 to groves i would find it difficult to make a convincing case against that, which is why i can't give watt a hard time


He is useless though

Watt is a former world champ from the days when you had to earn and win it the hard way. He has paid his dues to British boxing.

I didn't agree with his card, but I did have Froch 1 up going into the 8th.

To call him a liar is simply wrong. He is an honest guy who loves his boxing. In the first fight he was all for Groves (correctly) in this fight he was seeing more of Froch's work, but certainly not neglecting what Groves was doing.

It was a tough fight to score, many different opinions on it.

However, a bit of respect should be in order for the old bugger. I met him out in Hamburg after the Haye fight in the airport lounge and he seemed a decent fella to me.

Anyone who has done what he has done in boxing and then gone on to make a living from the other side of the ropes is a man worthy of respect.

I understand that he is not everyone's cup of tea, but to question his integrity is not right.

As for the other fights that night, the Degale stoppage was a shocker. Gonzales was actually throwing punches as he was stopped. British ref I presume.

The Mitchell fight was a tougher call. It appeared early at the time, but having watched it back the guy was shot. He was up on the cards though and it was the penultimate round. I doubt Mitchell would have been stopped in a similar state/scenario.

Have to say that for all the talk of Groves being chinny, the lad got up from that shot and would have carried on if allowed (not saying he should have been allowed). Showed a great chin for me and massive cahones.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:Playing devil’s advocate, after most big fights fans take to Twitter and forums to say that the officiating, scoring and punditry got it wrong, but could it be possible that us fans don’t know how to score a fight and that’s why we’re constantly out of touch?

People are going to pop on and say we’re the hidden kings of boxing punditry and officiating. On the other hands, we’re all contributing to a very popular thread asking if the ref should have counted when he clearly shouldn’t, and any official worth his salt would know that, including the fight’s referee.

Is it possible that they’re right and we’re wrong, or are we completely infallible, and would be perfectly capable of working a fight live and getting it spot on each and every time?

Similar to the England manager’s role, everyone can do a better job than the current incumbent, but few get themselves into a position where they’re actually a viable candidate for the role.

Depends how educated the fan is. Some are clueless, but I am convinced the clueless fan is either swayed by commentary, or his love for 'his guy'. I know there were Scots saying Burns was unlucky to lose to Crawford.

But as for those of us who immerse ourselves in the sport, I feel we can formulate a proper opinion. The other option is for us to swallow what every colour commentator gives us, and I believe that having spend 10-15 years around gyms and watching the sport religiously, I have earned the right not to do that!

That doesn't mean we don't have nights our opinion differs from the rest of the world...i have had a few.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:I’m not clueless or swayed easily, but I had Froch up on Saturday and thought GG fought a pretty poor fight, especially compared to last time.

Immersion in the sport doesn’t mean you should be trusted. Would you trust a bag handler for Team Whoever’s take on a fight that involved his or her fighter? Or the opinion of someone who used to hang around one gym, and would cheer their fighters, who has since moved on to another gym and immediately switches his allegiances? Even you, you’ve done some work in boxing, but you’ve also worked closely with specific fighters and promoters, so you’ve fallen into that Team Whoever mind-set at least once. Plus people get ripped during fights.

People absolutely smash Watt for setting his mind early. Then we talk about the scoring criteria we apply to fights. Rarely mentioning that you should adapt it as the fight goes on and do each round individually while keeping the story of the fight in mind.

Everyone thinks they can do what Watt does. I’m not so sure. I’ve been at fights where it takes multiple people 3-4 attempts to jot down the correct stoppage, weights, judges etc. between them. Imagine doing it on the cuff.

One thing’s for sure, Watt was accused of favouring GG last time, Froch this time, so at least he’s objective.

Never said you were a clueless fan. To be fair you are not a bandwagon jumper. Therefore even if your opinion differs to mine, I will respect that. You have to judge someone opinion by their merits. In the future you will see it one way and me another..so be it.

I'm not sure I have. My scorecards have always been in line with what has happened. I have never called robbery when there wasn't one. As for fight promotion, yes, you have to wear different hats, and as that is almost impossible to do, and keep REAL credibility for all your work, I decided to bail on the writing for the time being, ( objective stuff anyway) I will continue with press stuff

There is a jump between that, and being TEAM whoever, no matter what happens. That is an accusation I reject

Now, I can count on one hand the amount of times I've disagreed with Watt's interpretation of a fight and even his card (in a big way). Saturday was one of them..... However, when you see the final outcome I have to think - "well was Watt correct for hanging his flag with Froch from the start". He got that Groves was fighting between two styles, he got that Groves was the one more cautious.... when you see the final outcome it makes sense it was Groves who was the one who changed approach greater.

For me, Froch was Froch. I think the Bute fight has painted him as this come forward, 200 punches a round warrior when most of his other 12 defensives show he typically starts cautiously, tries to command the centre of the ring without punching much. That's why I am stunned at all the negative comments at Dirrel running, when in the main he was throwing more shots than Froch, Froch stalked in the main without doing eff all (okay, don't get me started on the scoring of that fight again).

Froch wasn't Froch in fight one... he might claim it was cos he cut corners in preparation. I think it was more to do with the hard KD in round one made him rethink. I don't think it was a career best Froch on Saturday (it was standard Froch), whereas Groves wasn't the same fighter in the rematch. A point that hasn't been made is I thought he looked slower a tad in this fight, now there has been talk about the strength coach and him putting on more muscle. I couldn't see it myself, but he seemed slower with his jab on Saturday.

Therefore, when you look at Watt's commentary - and taking into account the final outcome maybe Watt was right to call it as he did - perhaps he could see this was on the cards early in the fight. He did say at the end "this was no come from behind victory, he was always in control and looked the boss in there tonight" - whereas if I called it, it would have sounded like a dramatic come from behind victory - as I had Groves edging the nip and tuck start and pulling away in the 6, 7th. Groves was seconds away from a 3 point lead with 4 to play on my card and unlike fight one was looking fresh as a daisy also.

Watt’s commentary was absolutely ridiculous. Extremely pro-Froch throughout.

I remember saying so to mates at the time as we were watching it.

The scoring could go either way, but if you'd had closed your eyes and just listened to Watt you’d have got the impression Groves spent the first 7 rounds being beaten around the ring and not landing a shot of his own.

Malignaggi also seemed like a sulky yank when commentating on the undercard. Especially the Gonzales stoppage.

I had Froch by a round but easliy could have been groves by a round as the first round very little happend and i think i gave tht to froch when it could have groves round.

I think Watt's commentary was pro Froch in the second fight because he was seen to be pro Groves in the first.