BoxRec

"Froch still standing, then lands a right of his own and Groves is wobbled.

Groves is in big trouble now and Froch sense's it.

Froch is going for the finish.

Groves legs have gone.

Groves is hanging on here,

Just holding and spoiling trying to buy some time,

But Froch smells blood here.

Groves is in trouble he takes another one,

Then another,

And Howard Foster has stopped it"

VERBATUM

As much as George Groves tries to propagate that it was a bizarre stoppage, the hugely Pro Groves commentary doesn't sound or read like it was. At all.

Is this supposed to be evidence that it was a fine stoppage? Should the large group of people who think it was a very poor stoppage based on what they saw change their opinion because of what Halling and Watt said?

Apart from doing well until roughly the final 30 seconds, Groves was ducking, putting his hands up, holding, and throwing when he was in trouble; he took about only 3-4 shots in the final sequence and was hardly defenseless as certain people (e.g. Danny Wright) suggest. This is boxing and people get fatigued and hurt, but a huge number of them have survived tough moments to go the distance and/or win (e.g. Groves against Anderson). Froch himself was dropped heavily, hurt, and hit repeatedly with power shots throughout many rounds, but he was given the chance to fight on and claw his way back, just as he was in the Taylor fight. Groves should've been given the same opportunity when he was in trouble, but it seems like different standards apply ('because Froch is a warrior who is used to getting beat up at times and he always owns the late rounds; that's when he drowns you').

I can only imagine how some people would complain if the Froch rematched Ward, dropped him hard, seemingly landed more and controlled the fight, but was stopped because he had a 30 second unsteady spell (yet punched back, ducked under punches, put his hands up, held, etc). I'm confident we'd get mentions of how he's come back from adversity before, but unlike others I won't act like I know exactly what would happen.

you forgot the next line

"He's stopped it! That is going to be really controversial"

(That was the jist - its from memory)

That flavours it slightly differently doesn't it???

crusader wrote:Is this supposed to be evidence that it was a fine stoppage? Should the large group of people who think it was a very poor stoppage based on what they saw change their opinion because of what Halling and Watt said?

Apart from doing well until roughly the final 30 seconds, Groves was ducking, putting his hands up, holding, and throwing when he was in trouble; he took about only 3-4 shots in the final sequence and was hardly defenseless as certain people (e.g. Danny Wright) suggest. This is boxing and people get fatigued and hurt, but a huge number of them have survived tough moments to go the distance and/or win (e.g. Groves against Anderson). Froch himself was dropped heavily, hurt, and hit repeatedly with power shots throughout many rounds, but he was given the chance to fight on and claw his way back, just as he was in the Taylor fight. Groves should've been given the same opportunity when he was in trouble, but it seems like different standards apply ('because Froch is a warrior who is used to getting beat up at times and he always owns the late rounds; that's when he drowns you').

I can only imagine how some people would complain if the Froch rematched Ward, dropped him hard, seemingly landed more and controlled the fight, but was stopped because he had a 30 second unsteady spell (yet punched back, ducked under punches, put his hands up, held, etc). I'm confident we'd get mentions of how he's come back from adversity before, but unlike others I won't act like I know exactly what would happen.

Good post...the Froch fanboys acting liker Mystic Meg saying he would 'defo stop him' have either got a Delorean or are trying to spin it.

Groves was in much more trouble against Anderson and he came back. Froch may have stopped him, but we will never know, and Groves was robbed of the chance to recover

If Froch was the underdog (Bute) it would have probably been a great stoppage and that would have been the end of it

HALLING: "Wow, that is going to be controversial. Groves is disgusted. Groves if furious and there is going to be some controversy here. Froch had him in trouble, no question about that but he was so far ahead George Groves, was he in so much trouble that it required a stoppage? That's the question thats gonna be asked over and over again."

WATT: "Well considering the punches both men took leading up to that, considering what was on the line, I feel the that referee could've let it go on a little bit longer, to see if Groves could've taken a count, could've grabbed hold of Froch, Froch looked at times to be in bigger trouble that Groves was at the time of the stoppage. I don't like to criticise refs......"

Verbatim.