Boxing Thread 2013.

[bertlambshank]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think you need to watch a bit more boxing to understand it.You would make a great spin doctor.

[taylorsworkrate]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think Froch is becoming the villain of the piece because of the way he has conducted himself, and his ludicrous comments after the fight.

To suggest the ref saved Groves career is incredibly arrogant considering Groves spent the majority of the fight making Froch look rather foolish (two of the judges scorecards were an utter disgrace).

I'd be surprised if Froch was to give Groves a rematch aswell. He knows he got very lucky in this fight, and Groves is only going to improve whilst Froch is on the decline.

[eastie]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think Froch is becoming the villain of the piece because of the way he has conducted himself, and his ludicrous comments after the fight.

To suggest the ref saved Groves career is incredibly arrogant considering Groves spent the majority of the fight making Froch look rather foolish (two of the judges scorecards were an utter disgrace).

I'd be surprised if Froch was to give Groves a rematch aswell. He knows he got very lucky in this fight, and Groves is only going to improve whilst Froch is on the decline.

I agree, froch has gone down in my estimation not only as a boxer but as a man - maybe he has an Aussie relative .

[paul_e]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think you need to watch a bit more boxing to understand it.You would make a great spin doctor.

I understand perfectly fine thanks, I watched lots of boxing in the past but you don't really get it in Norway.  The idea that because I don't agree with you I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about is pretty insulting and arrogant.

As I said, 'in my opinion' (that's the important bit) Groves wouldn't have made the end of the round.  As he came off the ropes his legs were all over the place.

Watch from 2.35 and pay attention to his feet, he looks drunk, that's what makes me think the decision isn't as terrible as you seem to think.

 The key punch is at 2:41 and catches him right on the temple just as he is coming off the ropes, he walked right into it.  As far as I'm concerned the ref then judged that he wasn't capable of defending himself sufficiently and ended it, I don't agree but I also don't think it's a clear sign that it was fixed and that the referee is a massive cheat as seems to be the consensus from many.  As for thinking Froch was talking shit, there are 2 people who can see Groves' eyes after that punch, 1 stopped the fight the other said he thought it was the right call, I'm not going to dispute that.

I don't really care how many Hearn fights have or haven't been fixed, I'm judging this one entirely on the fight I watched and on that basis the ref stopped it the first time he thought a boxer was genuinely in trouble, whether you agree or not that's his justification for his decision, we have no way to know whether he was right or wrong, just opinions.  In my opinion a finisher like Froch stood over someone whose legs had gone was only ending 1 way so the early stoppage had no bearing on the result, regardless of your opinion of it.

Am I still wrong, do I still need to watch a bit more boxing or are you going to admit that I'm allowed to have an opinion, particularly when I can back it up?

[paul_e]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think Froch is becoming the villain of the piece because of the way he has conducted himself, and his ludicrous comments after the fight.

To suggest the ref saved Groves career is incredibly arrogant considering Groves spent the majority of the fight making Froch look rather foolish (two of the judges scorecards were an utter disgrace).

I'd be surprised if Froch was to give Groves a rematch aswell. He knows he got very lucky in this fight, and Groves is only going to improve whilst Froch is on the decline.

I agree, froch has gone down in my estimation not only as a boxer but as a man - maybe he has an Aussie relative .

This is why I feel more sorry for Froch than Groves over this, because he's got people questioning him now when he did nothing wrong.

[bertlambshank]

Paul e should the ref have stopped it in the 1st round?
Froch's eyes and legs were all the place after he had been knocked down.

[bertlambshank]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think you need to watch a bit more boxing to understand it.You would make a great spin doctor.

I understand perfectly fine thanks, I watched lots of boxing in the past but you don't really get it in Norway.  The idea that because I don't agree with you I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about is pretty insulting and arrogant.

As I said, 'in my opinion' (that's the important bit) Groves wouldn't have made the end of the round.  As he came off the ropes his legs were all over the place.

Watch from 2.35 and pay attention to his feet, he looks drunk, that's what makes me think the decision isn't as terrible as you seem to think.

 The key punch is at 2:41 and catches him right on the temple just as he is coming off the ropes, he walked right into it.  As far as I'm concerned the ref then judged that he wasn't capable of defending himself sufficiently and ended it, I don't agree but I also don't think it's a clear sign that it was fixed and that the referee is a massive cheat as seems to be the consensus from many.  As for thinking Froch was talking shit, there are 2 people who can see Groves' eyes after that punch, 1 stopped the fight the other said he thought it was the right call, I'm not going to dispute that.

I don't really care how many Hearn fights have or haven't been fixed, I'm judging this one entirely on the fight I watched and on that basis the ref stopped it the first time he thought a boxer was genuinely in trouble, whether you agree or not that's his justification for his decision, we have no way to know whether he was right or wrong, just opinions.  In my opinion a finisher like Froch stood over someone whose legs had gone was only ending 1 way so the early stoppage had no bearing on the result, regardless of your opinion of it.

Am I still wrong, do I still need to watch a bit more boxing or are you going to admit that I'm allowed to have an opinion, particularly when I can back it up?

On Saturday night you were using the BBC website to try and back it up,you didn't back it up then and you haven't now.

[paul_e]

Another arrogant post that completely misses the point, I'm arguing that, in my opinion, despite it being stopped early the result wasn't affected, you're basically saying my opinion is meaningless.  Me showing other people saying the same from the BBC was to show that there are people in boxing who think the same.

Me showing a video was explaining why I have the opinion I do.  I'm not saying you have to agree with me and I'm not saying I'm right but I think there's far too many people saying Groves was cheated out of it and I just didn't see it that way as, in my opinion, Groves had slowed down.  I think nothing like enough credit has been given to the amount of solid body blows Froch landed through the fight, Groves was getting his head out of the way well but was taking a lot shots to the body and they sapped a lot of his energy.

Your backing up of your opinion is largely based on other hearn fights being dodgy, which I've accepted, and on it being stopped early but I'm not arguing with you on that, what you've not answered is whether you think Groves would've lasted to the end of the 12th from that point.  If you think he would've then fair enough in your opinion he's had the win stolen from him by a poor stoppage, if not then I don't really get why you're being so arrogant about it because largely we then agree.

As for the ref stopping it in the first round, if the ref thought Froch couldn't defend himself he should have stopped it, largely the difference was that Groves didn't press it home, I agree Froch was in trouble though.  Once again though, I wouldn't have stopped the fight when he did, my point regarding the specifics of the stoppage is that there is an assumed knowledge from many that he stopped it because the fight was fixed, that might be the case, but I prefer to think that the ref made a judgement based on Groves walking into that punch just before he stepped in.  Much like I personally prefer to believe that Froome and Bolt are clean, regardless of any drugs issues in the sport/country.

Once again to make sure you understand:

The ref stopped the fight too soon
The result wasn't affected, in my opinion
The stoppage shouldn't be seen as a clear case of fixing without reviewing the events

If you want to carry the conversation on please stop making this black and white that I must think the stoppage was correct, I've never said that at all, I've simply tried to offer an alternative to the assumption that the fight was fixed.

[Ron Manager]

Paul e should the ref have stopped it in the 1st round?
Froch's eyes and legs were all the place after he had been knocked down.

Thats a very good point you have made. Froch for a few seconds was gone but boxing doesnt work like that does it!

[bertlambshank]

Paul e should the ref have stopped it in the 1st round?
Froch's eyes and legs were all the place after he had been knocked down.

Thats the point,you can't take a fight has a one off.Boxer's reputations count for so much but some people can't see it.

Thats a very good point you have made. Froch for a few seconds was gone but boxing doesnt work like that does it!

[paul_e]

Paul e should the ref have stopped it in the 1st round?
Froch's eyes and legs were all the place after he had been knocked down.

Thats the point,you can't take a fight has a one off.Boxer's reputations count for so much but some people can't see it.

Thats a very good point you have made. Froch for a few seconds was gone but boxing doesnt work like that does it!

That's not the same point you've made previously though, you've previously insinuated that the fight was fixed, now you're saying that the ref was influenced by his opinion of Froch and Groves as fighters, I agree with the latter point, I think part of him stopping it early was to protect Groves because Groves has been suggested as having a glass chin, whereas Froch is renowned for being able to take shots (which is why he's managed to make it to the top despite his left hand guard being pathetic).  I can totally understand that argument and I agree with it.

[bertlambshank]

I have never said the fight was fixed.The ref made a decision based on a number of factors.Yes the Hearn camp get decisions their way.It has always happened in boxing and it always will.The champ always gets the rub of the green and can play dirty.Froch certainty did and got away with it.

[taylorsworkrate]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think Froch is becoming the villain of the piece because of the way he has conducted himself, and his ludicrous comments after the fight.

To suggest the ref saved Groves career is incredibly arrogant considering Groves spent the majority of the fight making Froch look rather foolish (two of the judges scorecards were an utter disgrace).

I'd be surprised if Froch was to give Groves a rematch aswell. He knows he got very lucky in this fight, and Groves is only going to improve whilst Froch is on the decline.

I agree, froch has gone down in my estimation not only as a boxer but as a man - maybe he has an Aussie relative .

This is why I feel more sorry for Froch than Groves over this, because he's got people questioning him now when he did nothing wrong.

What about Froch's conduct after the fight? Froch knows that this was a poor stoppage and he no longer deserves to be champion, yet he comes out with complete guff about the referee saving Grove's career, and that it was a good stoppage.

If Froch would have just come out and said that Groves was the better man on the night and the stoppage was the decision of the referee, without lying and saying it was correct, he wouldn't be getting the stick he is now.

I can't see Froch giving Groves his rematch either. Froch said something along the lines of "if it makes sense". That seems to me like he's giving himself an escape route.

[paul_e]

Again, I agree he stopped it too early, my opinion is he stopped it 3-4 punches sooner than it would've ended naturally, hence why I'm not as outraged as most people.  If you believe he'd have made it to the end of the round then you can be indignant on behalf of Groves, if not your sympathy should be with Froch who is being made a bit of a villain in this by many and his victory is being heavily questioned by most.

I think Froch is becoming the villain of the piece because of the way he has conducted himself, and his ludicrous comments after the fight.

To suggest the ref saved Groves career is incredibly arrogant considering Groves spent the majority of the fight making Froch look rather foolish (two of the judges scorecards were an utter disgrace).

I'd be surprised if Froch was to give Groves a rematch aswell. He knows he got very lucky in this fight, and Groves is only going to improve whilst Froch is on the decline.

I agree, froch has gone down in my estimation not only as a boxer but as a man - maybe he has an Aussie relative .

This is why I feel more sorry for Froch than Groves over this, because he's got people questioning him now when he did nothing wrong.

What about Froch's conduct after the fight? Froch knows that this was a poor stoppage and he no longer deserves to be champion, yet he comes out with complete guff about the referee saving Grove's career, and that it was a good stoppage.

If Froch would have just come out and said that Groves was the better man on the night and the stoppage was the decision of the referee, without lying and saying it was correct, he wouldn't be getting the stick he is now.

I can't see Froch giving Groves his rematch either. Froch said something along the lines of "if it makes sense". That seems to me like he's giving himself an escape route.

Froch gave as much bullshit after the fight as Groves and Froch both gave before the fight, meh.

As for the bold bit, That 's just not true, Froch was behind on points but with 10minutes of fighting still to go to suggest he doesn't deserve to be champion is exactly why I feel more sorry for Froch than Groves over the whole thing, Groves has come out of it with his rep enhanced and most of the public thinking he won the fight and was robbed so he's the one that gets the most benefit from this in the long run.  If it had carried on and Froch had carried on pummelling him that might not be the case.

[bertlambshank]

We will never know.