BoxRec

folks, lets not get too carried away - James De Gale lost that fight by a single point from a single judge. Had either of the judges chosen to score just one round even then the fight would have been a draw.

A very small change in scoring would have given James De Gale the fight.

So, for all these "funeral" threads, lets not lose sight of the fact that it was a close, subjective call- as is always the case in this sport.

There is a point to this. I'm sure we all agree that well matched fights like this are better than pushovers. But I think for well matched fights to happen, people need to be more realistic about defeat- "losing the 0" isn't such a big deal, really, in circumstances such as this. It's certainly not a career ending disaster.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Two judges.

and a draw by the other - so none had him winning

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Two judges.

his point is that if one of the judges that scored it for George had scored one more round to James it would have been a majority draw

i think majority draws are silly. but true i misread the post too.

Yeah, thats right- just a single point from a single judge was the difference between win and draw. (or, a losee and a draw for de gale.)

Literally, the closest possible victory in boxing.

The ironic thing is that so many people complain that fighters are overprotected, yet something like this happens and you see plenty of statements like "his career is over" or "he was never anything to start with."

and they wonder why promoters take so few risks!!!

[quote="whicker"]Yeah, thats right- just a single point from a single judge was the difference between win and draw. (or, a losee and a draw for de gale.)

Literally, the closest possible victory in boxing.[/qu
Lets hope this weakons warren! The show was crap massive gaps between fights!

crusader wrote:The ironic thing is that so many people complain that fighters are overprotected, yet something like this happens and you see plenty of statements like "his career is over" or "he was never anything to start with."

and they wonder why promoters take so few risks!!!

Exactly.

We need to stop this "a loss is the end of the world" mentality.

This loss , really, is not a big deal in the long run. People are talking about De Gale. Are people talking about Cleverly? Having lost, too, takes pressure off him.

leforge wrote:

whicker wrote:Yeah, thats right- just a single point from a single judge was the difference between win and draw. (or, a losee and a draw for de gale.)

Literally, the closest possible victory in boxing.[/qu
Lets hope this weakons warren! The show was crap massive gaps between fights!

mate how many times are you going to post about FW being weakened by tonight? Love to know what he's done to you...

Mmmm... I struggle to accept this. I think people are first of all not so much tolling the death knell for Degale as happy that the insolent, supercilious tosser has had his childish little bubble pricked.

Second, who can be upset to discover that sometimes in life, nice guys finish first?

Finally, you say one point, and it's true that I had the fight to Degale, and there were a few rounds in the middle, between six and nine, which could have gone either way, but I also think that one should note that Degale ought to have had two points deducted at least: first for the brazen use of the shoulder, and then for a similarly intentional, but less obvious to the blind-sided referee, elbow.

Now that would have made a difference, and there can be no argument that he shouldn't have had at least one deducted (even if one is extremely lenient and said that the firm telling off was good enough for the shoulder, then the elbow in the very next round surely then justifies a point deduction.)

Carbo wrote:Mmmm... I struggle to accept this. I think people are first of all not so much tolling the death knell for Degale as happy that the insolent, supercilious tosser has had his childish little bubble pricked.

Second, who can be upset to discover that sometimes in life, nice guys finish first?

Finally, you say one point, and it's true that I had the fight to Degale, and there were a few rounds in the middle, between 6 and nine, which could have gone either way, but I also think that one should note that Degale ought to have had two points deducted at least: first for the brazen use of the shoulder, and then for a similarly intentional, but less obvious to the blind-sided referee, elbow.

Now that would have made a difference, and there can be no argument that he shouldn't have had at least one deducted (even if one is extremely lenient and said that the firm telling off was good enough for the shoulder, then the elbow in the very next round surely then justifies a point deduction.)

there was never a point deduction in there. a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. 1 little elbow and pushing with the shoulder once whoopdee doo. Name me one other fight that has gone the distance that hasnt had more. Even pac v mosley had low blows and headbutts they just licked eachothers arses every time it happened. Nigel Benn and Hopkins would never have won a fight if we all judged like that.

kingfinn wrote:

Carbo wrote:Mmmm... I struggle to accept this. I think people are first of all not so much tolling the death knell for Degale as happy that the insolent, supercilious tosser has had his childish little bubble pricked.

Second, who can be upset to discover that sometimes in life, nice guys finish first?

Finally, you say one point, and it's true that I had the fight to Degale, and there were a few rounds in the middle, between 6 and nine, which could have gone either way, but I also think that one should note that Degale ought to have had two points deducted at least: first for the brazen use of the shoulder, and then for a similarly intentional, but less obvious to the blind-sided referee, elbow.

Now that would have made a difference, and there can be no argument that he shouldn't have had at least one deducted (even if one is extremely lenient and said that the firm telling off was good enough for the shoulder, then the elbow in the very next round surely then justifies a point deduction.)

there was never a point deduction in there. a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. 1 little elbow and pushing with the shoulder once whoopdee doo. Name me one other fight that has gone the distance that hasnt had more. Even pac v mosley had low blows and headbutts they just licked eachothers arses every time it happened. Nigel Benn and Hopkins would never have won a fight if we all judged like that.

Almost every fight I watch don't have boxers jumping off their feet to ram their shoulders into the chin of an opponent when in close, or throwing deliberate elbows.

Plenty have head clashes, of the unintended and accidentally on purpose type, but few, that I've seen, have such blatant use of the shoulder and elbow.

I don't know what rules you think fights are governed by, but it is my understanding that deliberate use of any part of the body other than the knuckles of the glove in an effort to gain an advantage over an opponent -- usually the head, elbow, forearm, thumb or shoulder -- constitutes a points deduction.

And the shoulder, especially, was brazen.

The point I'm trying to make is that we're talking about a difference in judging in favour of one guy in a what-if scenario, but if we do that, it's only right to point out that, in fact, Degale could easily have had two points deducted.

whatever mate - degale shoved groves with his shoulder wow and caught him with a bit of an elbow wooo!

Evander holyfield used to headbutt his opponets, calzaghe used to throw them below the belt, hatton used to rough them up and say its not a tickling contest, Benn jumped across the ring and headbutted gman, hopkins cheats not stop, ward and bradley may as well wear boxing gloves on their heads, bruno used to leave his elbow out after a hook deliberatley, maidana roughed up khan, khan pulled maidanas head down constantly.

If you think two minor liberties deserve a point deduction you've been watching the wrong sport.

goldenears wrote:

leforge wrote:

whicker wrote:Yeah, thats right- just a single point from a single judge was the difference between win and draw. (or, a losee and a draw for de gale.)

Literally, the closest possible victory in boxing.[/qu
Lets hope this weakons warren! The show was crap massive gaps between fights!

mate how many times are you going to post about FW being weakened by tonight? Love to know what he's done to you...

The bloke a blemish on British boxing imo. He overcharges fans for his shows he has no redeeming qualities imo. If Adam Smith had any bollcks this show would have been bumped from ppv. Adam Smith one creppy person!

Got to agree with you , Leforge.

I dont like Warren for the same reasons, but I am sure he don't care, he has more money than most, so he has to be doing something right.

I do agree that he has killed boxing here in the UK, thats for another debate though.

Well done George, tbh, I thought the fight could have gone either way, but am glad George won it. James comes across way too brash, and you can see its an act, to an extent.

George will get better, as a fighter, so ppl who think James would beat him, if they fought again, I am not so sure.

leforge wrote:

goldenears wrote:

leforge wrote:

mate how many times are you going to post about FW being weakened by tonight? Love to know what he's done to you...

The bloke a blemish on British boxing imo. He overcharges fans for his shows he has no redeeming qualities imo. If Adam Smith had any bollcks this show would have been bumped from ppv. Adam Smith one creppy person!

yeah but he's also forged the careers of most of our recent champions.

After the terrible judging we have recently in British rings, I fail to see why people are putting so much emphasis on this result. To be fair, the judging last night was not too bad and there was certainly no scandal at all.

However, as stated in the OP, just one point from one judge was the difference between a Groves win and a majority draw, so let`s put this into some perspective. The opinions of these three judges are not the definition of objectivity and as such are not the basis for conclusions on Degales future career. What we can do is look at the fight to see that Degale is not (at least not yet) as good as most people thought he was. He did not force the fight when it was obvious that he had to, he had no plan B, he looked very ordinary in there.

I had Degale winning the fight by a round, but was not impressed by him at all. The fight was a huge disappointment. Very little action and it was the Groves game plan that takes the majority of the blame for that. Even though, if Degale was half as good as I thought he was, he should have been able to adapt and win the fight regardless.

This is certainly not the end for Degale, but it is a reality check that he badly needed.

I won`t argue with the decision, as it was a very close fight and a difficult one to score, but I do feel Groves was lucky to get the decision and "take"the title with that performance.

Groves was however fairly generous in his praise for Degale after the fight and he acted with an amount of class that we would have unlikely seen had Degale won the fight.

crusader wrote:The ironic thing is that so many people complain that fighters are overprotected, yet something like this happens and you see plenty of statements like "his career is over" or "he was never anything to start with."

and they wonder why promoters take so few risks!!!

X100

Do you remember the exciting crop of unbeaten light middles we had a few years back? That's right, the ones you all complained about never getting matched together? The ones who never met in the ring, never really achieved anything above Euro level and are now pretty much forgotten?

Promoters can't win sometimes.

Last night was an example of quality matchmaking that both lads can use as a springboard for bigger things. It could just be the launchpad for another golden era of British super middleweight rivalry.

If anything, the fight has solidified my judgement that Degale will ultimately go further than Groves. One defeat by a single point on a single judges card doesn't mean the end.

im not saying its the end, but give groves some credit here, he WON the fight, AGAIN, the 1 point doesent matter, the way degale spoke about groves before the fight was a joke, he LOST the fight and no matter how anybody looks at it, its a loss on his record forever.

jessi wrote:im not saying its the end, but give groves some credit here, he WON the fight, AGAIN, the 1 point doesent matter, the way degale spoke about groves before the fight was a joke, he LOST the fight and no matter how anybody looks at it, its a loss on his record forever.

Dead right.

A point is a point & that is the difference between success & failure in all sports.

Do people seriously think that there's not going to be difference of opinion in respect of the result?

kingfinn wrote:whatever mate - degale shoved groves with his shoulder wow and caught him with a bit of an elbow wooo!

Evander holyfield used to headbutt his opponets, calzaghe used to throw them below the belt, hatton used to rough them up and say its not a tickling contest, Benn jumped across the ring and headbutted gman, hopkins cheats not stop, ward and bradley may as well wear boxing gloves on their heads, bruno used to leave his elbow out after a hook deliberatley, maidana roughed up khan, khan pulled maidanas head down constantly.

If you think two minor liberties deserve a point deduction you've been watching the wrong sport.

So what your basically saying is that boxing is just UFC????

LOOK THE FACT REMAINS that jd said sum torrid things than, completely diregarded this guy and said EMPATICALLY he would ko him so the POINT is who HAS EGG ON THEIR FACE???

whicker wrote:folks, lets not get too carried away - James De Gale lost that fight by a single point from a single judge. Had either of the judges chosen to score just one round even then the fight would have been a draw.

A very small change in scoring would have given James De Gale the fight.

So, for all these "funeral" threads, lets not lose sight of the fact that it was a close, subjective call- as is always the case in this sport.

There is a point to this. I'm sure we all agree that well matched fights like this are better than pushovers. But I think for well matched fights to happen, people need to be more realistic about defeat- "losing the 0" isn't such a big deal, really, in circumstances such as this. It's certainly not a career ending disaster.

great post whicker

Records are for Dj's

diggler wrote:

whicker wrote:folks, lets not get too carried away - James De Gale lost that fight by a single point from a single judge. Had either of the judges chosen to score just one round even then the fight would have been a draw.

A very small change in scoring would have given James De Gale the fight.

So, for all these "funeral" threads, lets not lose sight of the fact that it was a close, subjective call- as is always the case in this sport.

There is a point to this. I'm sure we all agree that well matched fights like this are better than pushovers. But I think for well matched fights to happen, people need to be more realistic about defeat- "losing the 0" isn't such a big deal, really, in circumstances such as this. It's certainly not a career ending disaster.

great post whicker

I think most people's posts are not so much about DeGale's career being over, but more along the lines of laughing at him for the fact that he, along with Jimmy Mac, were basically laughing at and taking the mick out of Groves (not to mention DeGale saying he also doesn't like Haye, either. Why say that?).

So when someone is as stupidly brash as DeGale has been, people will laugh when all his bravado back fires.

Not happy about it? Simple answer is to keep your mouth shut if you can't take the heat.