BoxRec

If the referee had let it go on, Froch would have jumped on him throwing everything but the kitchen sink, the stronger rman, Groves would have been hurt bad, Groves only defense is hands up, he would not have had the legs to roll punches, Froch would have drove through him. Perfect stoppage for me and I wanted Groves to win.

Amazed this topic is still going on? surely everything that could be said from both sides has been said by now?

Surely there is no real way to resolve this as it is essentially all down to the referee and quite rightly so in that split second or so. I know I would rather be a referee that got stick for calling off a fight to early (as say in the Degale fight) than one who let things go on to far.

It is hard to know what this debate is about on this issue, as surely there isnt a person who thinks the ref made the wrong call?

Broomhall wrote: surely everything that could be said from both sides has been said by now?

since when has that stopped a discussion from going on for 8+ pages?

Counter-puncher wrote:

Broomhall wrote: surely everything that could be said from both sides has been said by now?

since when has that stopped a discussion from going on for 8+ pages?

Too true, soon the subject will change to food or a sexual nature lol.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

davie wrote: If you read what i said, i put a few disclaimers in there.

You missed out the really important one informing us that you are posting from the free Wi-Fi area of a lunatic asylum.

crusader wrote:The ref could've counted and Groves would've likely beaten the count, but he was all over the place and in no condition to continue. Given how bad Groves looked when he went down, with his arms in the air, his legs underneath him, and no signs of movement, I can't blame the ref for thinking he shouldn't continue even if he was trying to get up, and if I were the ref I would've have waved it off immediately.

columbo wrote:People dislike Froch so much that they're looking for every possible angle to discredit the victory... whether it be a fluke shot, the ref could of counted, etc, etc.

I don't sense any dislike from the OP towards Froch. Why do you like to play the 'everyone hates Froch' card so much lately?

Thank you!

As it happens, i did want Groves to win and as far as liking either man? I thought both conducted themselves poorly in the bulid up to both fights and have gone on record as referring to both in a derogatory manner. but that had no bearing on the comments I made in the OP

And ultimately I will support both going forward.

ILikeBeer wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:
Well, i think it's perhaps down to 1 issue many people are overlooking...

George beat the count.

So? That doesn't make it a bad stoppage.

I really, really, really think everyone should refer to the OP and therefore the entire point of this thread before commenting

I did not question the stoppage
I did not say the result was up for debate
I did not criticise the referee
I did say that George himself hasn't questioned it and that is a big factor


What I did say, was should the ref have given himself time to properly assess the situation, perhaps a couple of seconds longer?
Should he have counted? The fact that George was on his feet within about 6 seconds tells me he should have.

Would he still have stopped it?
Almost certainly yes, I would have too.

I don't see what people find so hard to believe about me starting a thread asking this simple question

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

davie wrote: If you read what i said, i put a few disclaimers in there.

You missed out the really important one informing us that you are posting from the free Wi-Fi area of a lunatic asylum.

And my imaginary friend thinks you're a whalloper!

mimmy123 wrote:
If you are implying that ive said you/we are waiting for another Michael Watson you are wrong and seeing something in my reply that is clearly not there.

What I said is that we don't know when the next tragedy will happen so why aid it.

So, in your post, when you said:

"Groves was gone, simple. He could not get his leg out of the position it was so no way was he going to get up before 10. Also we are not in the killing game, the fighter was done, get the doc in and get him help. No one knows when the next Michael Watson tragedy will happen so why aid a possible death by counting. For me the ref was spot on, none of us was over the top of Groves face looking at him so how on earth can anyone here say a ten count should have happened.

Silly question this thread was and goes to show how some people do not fully understand boxing and serious injury and possible death."

there was no implication that the OP may have been written by some bloodthirsty madman, hell bent on seeing the next boxing fatality?
Sorry if I misread your intent

mimmy123 wrote:
Maybe we should have a 20 count in England give the knocked out boxers at least time to recover and get up and carry on while stumbling all over the damn place, maybe should allow referees to help boxers too, maybe hold em up while they at least try to fight on.

Especially when you follow that straight up with a sarcastic post about why we should just go out of our way to see boxers hurt

Viktor Vaughn wrote:
You missed out the really important one informing us that you are posting from the free Wi-Fi area of a lunatic asylum.

[/quote]

Then celebrate when someone calls me a looney!

davie wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:
If you are implying that ive said you/we are waiting for another Michael Watson you are wrong and seeing something in my reply that is clearly not there.

What I said is that we don't know when the next tragedy will happen so why aid it.

So, in your post, when you said:

"Groves was gone, simple. He could not get his leg out of the position it was so no way was he going to get up before 10. Also we are not in the killing game, the fighter was done, get the doc in and get him help. No one knows when the next Michael Watson tragedy will happen so why aid a possible death by counting. For me the ref was spot on, none of us was over the top of Groves face looking at him so how on earth can anyone here say a ten count should have happened.

Silly question this thread was and goes to show how some people do not fully understand boxing and serious injury and possible death."

there was no implication that the OP may have been written by some bloodthirsty madman, hell bent on seeing the next boxing fatality?
Sorry if I misread your intent

mimmy123 wrote:
Maybe we should have a 20 count in England give the knocked out boxers at least time to recover and get up and carry on while stumbling all over the damn place, maybe should allow referees to help boxers too, maybe hold em up while they at least try to fight on.

Especially when you follow that straight up with a sarcastic post about why we should just go out of our way to see boxers hurt

Viktor Vaughn wrote:
You missed out the really important one informing us that you are posting from the free Wi-Fi area of a lunatic asylum.

Then celebrate when someone calls me a looney![/quote]


You aren't a looney.

mimmy123 wrote:
You aren't a looney.

That fornicate for that

I can go back to talking to myself

davie wrote:
I really, really, really think everyone should refer to the OP and therefore the entire point of this thread before commenting

I did not question the stoppage
I did not say the result was up for debate
I did not criticise the referee
I did say that George himself hasn't questioned it and that is a big factor


What I did say, was should the ref have given himself time to properly assess the situation, perhaps a couple of seconds longer?
Should he have counted? The fact that George was on his feet within about 6 seconds tells me he should have.

Would he still have stopped it?
Almost certainly yes, I would have too.

I don't see what people find so hard to believe about me starting a thread asking this simple question

It's much ado about nothing though, isn't it? The correct decision was made, and everybody agrees with it.

If you're so interested in reading what everybody else has to say, recheck my first post on the matter.

ILikeBeer wrote: He could. But what's the difference? No way was the referee going to let it continue after that. Even if Groves had got up, it would've been waved off immediately.

Unlike the first fight, this was a decent stoppage.

In answer to the question, sure the referee could have counted to make sure. But it wouldn't have made any difference. Groves wasn't ready to carry on. It was a legitimate stoppage.

What's the point in debating how sure the referee was when he made the correct call?