BoxRec

I've just read Groves' interview in Boxing News and to be honest I was shocked. On the one hand he was being straight and honest with the interviewer, but what a nasty individual he seems. I never quite understood why Froch ( and his family) detested him, but I'm beginning to get the picture.
EVERYBODY is wrong but him. It's always somebody else's fault. If it's not Adam Booth not being at the gym it's Paddy Fitzpatrick not training or coaching him properly . You'd think James DeGale was a mass murderer to listen to Groves.
It'll be the same for the McGuigans when he eventually loses under their banner.
It's not often in boxing that you come across such a detestable individual . The vast majority of professional boxers, at all levels, are decent people, even those whose public image don't show that. I don't know if the money he got from the Froch fights has turned his head but my goodness he's on the wrong track. The quote in the interview that done it for me was "" halfway through my session Frampton walks in and I think ' that f.....s fighting on pay per view, I should be as well'." Dear oh dear !

Aye the boys a world class knobhead!

I don't think he's that bad. Yes he blames people a bit but that's often a mark of someone who is ambitious and a little narcissistic. In his mind blaming other people for his failures rather than himself means he can retain some measure of confidence. If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

It's very rare for a world class boxer to admit that they lost to a better fighter. They sometimes say 'he was the better man on the night' but that implies they had an off night.

He comes across quite intelligent.

reggaereggae wrote:If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

That may be the truth though, he's had a good run, no point getting battered every time he steps up.

Nightmare Roy wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

That may be the truth though, he's had a good run, no point getting battered every time he steps up.

He lost a split in a world title fight abroad!

Nightmare Roy wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

That may be the truth though, he's had a good run, no point getting battered every time he steps up.

Right. But a lot of top boxers are deluded when they're past it. Holyfield, Roy Jones etc. Boxing is like no other sport in that there is a significant space for delusion.

IE big names can box on way after they're past it, and still get money and hang onto their dreams.

Sprinters, footballers etc can't. If they're not fast enough anymore or good enough.... Boom they get dropped and no longer get the opportunity to compete. Boxing though.... It doesn't matter how shot or old, or useless you've become... You can still get a payday. Even chuck bloody Gardener had a payday against Bruno, even though he was middle aged, fat and utterly shot. No one would pay to watch a 46 yr old Laender Paes get smashed by Stan Wawrinka, but in boxing they would.....

reggaereggae wrote:I don't think he's that bad. Yes he blames people a bit but that's often a mark of someone who is ambitious and a little narcissistic. In his mind blaming other people for his failures rather than himself means he can retain some measure of confidence. If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

It's very rare for a world class boxer to admit that they lost to a better fighter. They sometimes say 'he was the better man on the night' but that implies they had an off night.

He comes across quite intelligent.

I don't disagree that most fighters will make excuses after a loss, but they usually do so by giving quite generic reasons (wasn't feeling myself in there/might have overtrained/carrying a slight injury etc), whereas Groves is actively blaming others.

Of course, maybe he's just sick of being blamed himself all the time

Boxerbeetle wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:I don't think he's that bad. Yes he blames people a bit but that's often a mark of someone who is ambitious and a little narcissistic. In his mind blaming other people for his failures rather than himself means he can retain some measure of confidence. If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

It's very rare for a world class boxer to admit that they lost to a better fighter. They sometimes say 'he was the better man on the night' but that implies they had an off night.

He comes across quite intelligent.

I don't disagree that most fighters will make excuses after a loss, but they usually do so by giving quite generic reasons (wasn't feeling myself in there/might have overtrained/carrying a slight injury etc), whereas Groves is actively blaming others.

Of course, maybe he's just sick of being blamed himself all the time

I blame George Groves

mickey1975 wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:If he admitted he failed because he's not good enough he might as well retire.

That may be the truth though, he's had a good run, no point getting battered every time he steps up.

He lost a split in a world title fight abroad!

That's true but I think the second Froch fight really took a lot out of him.

I'd have to agree with you Dalcumly...the interview did make wince and especially as the BN guys are always very fair with fighters in a way that the wider sporting press are not. In other words; this was not a hatchet job and I reckon they recorded George verbatim.

I was not a fan of Fitzpatrick - who seemed more than a wee bit eccentric and perhaps operating a couple of grades above his usual level - but I have to say that it was George who hand-picked him and it was George who frequently and publicly sang Paddy's praises.

Wind the clock back and I am pretty sure there are reams of quotes out there where George says that Paddy was the guru he'd been looking for, someone who understood him best and that the relationship was clicking and gave him the edge.

I've got to say that Fitzpatrick has been done a major disservice this time round.

What the McGuigans do with George is anyone's guess. To be frank, when I heard the partnership it felt completely wrong but if they get George to live and breathe boxing like Frampton does then they deserve some kind of medal.

ive turned turtle to be honest.....

when groves fought de gale i was rooting for george, he seemed the more honest decent bloke and de gales 'ugly boy' comments made me favour george.

but.....

as the interview suggests..george seems to blame everyone for everything when he really needs to look straight in the mirror and question himself. I will root for de gale should they have a rematch, and i rooted for froch in both groves fights. should george take on a foreigner again (ie jack) then ill of course root for the brit, but i dont support him against other brits.

what i will say however is that if froch had stayed down in that 1st round of the first fight (fornicate knows how he got up from that peach) then groves would have been seen as the saviour of british boxing and paddy would have been the trainer of all trainers....thats just how fickle boxing can be.

rhino222 wrote:ive turned turtle to be honest.....

when groves fought de gale i was rooting for george, he seemed the more honest decent bloke and de gales 'ugly boy' comments made me favour george.

but.....

as the interview suggests..george seems to blame everyone for everything when he really needs to look straight in the mirror and question himself. I will root for de gale should they have a rematch, and i rooted for froch in both groves fights. should george take on a foreigner again (ie jack) then ill of course root for the brit, but i dont support him against other brits.

what i will say however is that if froch had stayed down in that 1st round of the first fight (eff knows how he got up from that peach) then groves would have been seen as the saviour of british boxing and paddy would have been the trainer of all trainers....thats just how fickle boxing can be.

Well put, groves did look like the second coming in that first fight with froch but I think he left the best of him in the ring that night

littlepug wrote:

rhino222 wrote:ive turned turtle to be honest.....

when groves fought de gale i was rooting for george, he seemed the more honest decent bloke and de gales 'ugly boy' comments made me favour george.

but.....

as the interview suggests..george seems to blame everyone for everything when he really needs to look straight in the mirror and question himself. I will root for de gale should they have a rematch, and i rooted for froch in both groves fights. should george take on a foreigner again (ie jack) then ill of course root for the brit, but i dont support him against other brits.

what i will say however is that if froch had stayed down in that 1st round of the first fight (eff knows how he got up from that peach) then groves would have been seen as the saviour of british boxing and paddy would have been the trainer of all trainers....thats just how fickle boxing can be.

Well put, groves did look like the second coming in that first fight with froch but I think he left the best of him in the ring that night

Great for 4 or 5 rounds.

or was Froch poor and under prepared as he expected an easy night?..... im really not sure.

rhino222 wrote:or was Froch poor and under prepared as he expected an easy night?..... im really not sure.

He genuinely didn't care and in a way financially it was the best mistake he ever made.

Regardless, Callum Smith would take out whatever George has got left, which by the look and sound of things is not very much.

Smith is in the ascension whilst George is looking very much over the hill now (and has done in every fight since Wembley I'm afraid).

littlepug wrote:

rhino222 wrote:ive turned turtle to be honest.....

when groves fought de gale i was rooting for george, he seemed the more honest decent bloke and de gales 'ugly boy' comments made me favour george.

but.....

as the interview suggests..george seems to blame everyone for everything when he really needs to look straight in the mirror and question himself. I will root for de gale should they have a rematch, and i rooted for froch in both groves fights. should george take on a foreigner again (ie jack) then ill of course root for the brit, but i dont support him against other brits.

what i will say however is that if froch had stayed down in that 1st round of the first fight (eff knows how he got up from that peach) then groves would have been seen as the saviour of british boxing and paddy would have been the trainer of all trainers....thats just how fickle boxing can be.

Well put, groves did look like the second coming in that first fight with froch but I think he left the best of him in the ring that night

He looked so good because he had hurt Carl and Froch was moving in slow motion. Once Froch got his legs back it was curtains for wee George. I mean Groves hit a badly hurt Froch with every punch in his arsenal and could not finish him.

G0mez wrote:

rhino222 wrote:or was Froch poor and under prepared as he expected an easy night?..... im really not sure.

He genuinely didn't care and in a way financially it was the best mistake he ever made.

Regardless, Callum Smith would take out whatever George has got left, which by the look and sound of things is not very much.

Smith is in the ascension whilst George is looking very much over the hill now (and has done in every fight since Wembley I'm afraid).

Callum vs George would be a perfect match for me

Whoever lost, I could have a lol

I wonder under what circumstances the interview was conducted. It seemed a little stilted to me and it seems to end halfway through.

rhino222 wrote:ive turned turtle to be honest.....

when groves fought de gale i was rooting for george, he seemed the more honest decent bloke and de gales 'ugly boy' comments made me favour george.

but.....

as the interview suggests..george seems to blame everyone for everything when he really needs to look straight in the mirror and question himself. I will root for de gale should they have a rematch, and i rooted for froch in both groves fights. should george take on a foreigner again (ie jack) then ill of course root for the brit, but i dont support him against other brits.

what i will say however is that if froch had stayed down in that 1st round of the first fight (eff knows how he got up from that peach) then groves would have been seen as the saviour of british boxing and paddy would have been the trainer of all trainers....thats just how fickle boxing can be.

I had the same way of thinking , when he was fighting Degale , but he seems like a spoilt child now and if he had of stopped Froch first time round he wouldn't have been the saviour of british boxing for long as it turned out . I thought Jack beat him well and it wasn't as close as Groves thought.

When it comes to Groves I think the real turning point for him was the Froch fight and I mean the first one, Froch didn't perform as well as he regularly did and Groves was boxing really well without a doubt and unfortunately for him he got caught and that was that. He carried the same mentality into the second fight thinking it would go as well as the first but Froch prepared better and with intent and ultimately Groves got stopped but hasn't accepted that he wasn't good enough on the night and instead of re-building himself and climbing back up the ladder to world contention he thinks he deserves another crack at a world title without effectively getting better.

I can use Paul Smith as an example, he lost to both Degale and Groves but he didn't complain and moan and make excuses he went back to British level and eventually won the British Title and fought Arthur Abraham not once but twice because the first fight was so close to call.
Again using him as an example he might not have won the title but did he complain or moan like Groves, no he just carries on and he'll work his way back up and I can see him fighting for a version of the world title again in the future

northern wrote:
I can use Paul Smith as an example, he lost to both Degale and Groves but he didn't complain and moan and make excuses he went back to British level and eventually won the British Title and fought Arthur Abraham not once but twice because the first fight was so close to call.
Again using him as an example he might not have won the title

but did he complain or moan like Groves

.

Of course he did, he's a scouser, he probably blamed Hillsborough and the Thatcher government of the eighties for the Abraham judging, whilst making a big thing about not buying the Sun and saying how much he loves his nan

[quote="Counter-puncher

Of course he did, he's a scouser, he probably blamed Hillsborough and the Thatcher government of the eighties for the Abraham judging, whilst making a big thing about not buying the Sun and saying how much he loves his nan[/quote]

But compare the two after the rematch was announced, Groves complained, got beat and never improved and still moans about one thing or another, Smith got the rematch lost over another 12 rounds competitively and accepted the result and now is slowly making his way back up.

Groves will fight an over match opponent who he can beat, rush into another title fight and the whole song and dance begins again.

northern wrote:When it comes to Groves I think the real turning point for him was the Froch fight and I mean the first one, Froch didn't perform as well as he regularly did and Groves was boxing really well without a doubt and unfortunately for him he got caught and that was that. He carried the same mentality into the second fight thinking it would go as well as the first but Froch prepared better and with intent and ultimately Groves got stopped but hasn't accepted that he wasn't good enough on the night and instead of re-building himself and climbing back up the ladder to world contention he thinks he deserves another crack at a world title without effectively getting better.

I can use Paul Smith as an example, he lost to both Degale and Groves but he didn't complain and moan and make excuses he went back to British level and eventually won the British Title and fought Arthur Abraham not once but twice because the first fight was so close to call.
Again using him as an example he might not have won the title but did he complain or moan like Groves, no he just carries on and he'll work his way back up and I can see him fighting for a version of the world title again in the future

But Groves was never in trouble in the second fight until he got pole-axed by one massive punch. At the time of the knockout Groves was well in the fight and leading on various experts' scorecards.

Over the course of two fights Froch never beat up Groves in terms of a sustained and destructive battering.

The stoppage in the first fight was clearly premature and whilst Froch might have gone on to batter Groves, he simply didnt. Groves was winning the first fight on the scorecards at the point it was stopped. Groves is not completely delusional to think that he did more than decent against Froch.

Getting knocked out in boxing is an occupational hazard. One single punch doesn't necessarily mask the fact that over 16 or 17 rounds that Groves shared with Froch, Groves won most of those rounds.

But . . . .being levelled. Big time. Has taken a lot out of boy George, both physically and mentally.

He's a soft target for online booboys is George. All top boxers have big egos. Generally speaking he's handled himself with class.

I prefer to give the kid the benefit of the doubt. If it's true that Booth abandoned him mid camp or just before the camp started for Froch 1 then his performance deserves even more credit. In the 2nd fight he acquitted himself well before getting caught with one. It's no disgrace to lose to a man widely viewed as one of the best British World Champions of the past 20 or 30 years.

His comments about Fitzpatrick are hard to disagree with. Is Fitz top drawer ? No way.

In his most recent fight he picks himself off the floor in the 1st round and has the balls to battle back and only narrowly lose a split decision to a home fighter in a world title fight in Vegas. What's not to like about that ?

I think he gets way too much unjustified criticism and I think a lot of it emanates from the perceived lack of respect he showed Froch in the build up to their 1st fight.