Last night my older brother and I rewatched the fight sober. We each scored it and didn't compare cards until the end. Had the sound on but I did my best to tune out the commentary. Here are each of our cards (mine first): 1. G (10/ 8 ) 2.F 3.F 4.G 5.F 6.G 7.G 8.F 76/75 Groves 1.G (10/ 8 ) 2.F 3.Even 4.G 5.F 6.Even 7.G 8.G 78/75 Groves We agreed that the stoppage was terribly premature but that Groves was weakining, his punches were no longer having the effect they did earlier in the fight and that Froch looked like going on to win late by KO/TKO (oh, and that Froch made a complete arse of himself in the aftermath). Both were a bit dirty imho, froch hitting on the break, Groves using the forearm up close. Just thought I'd share that since after watching it again I no longer think Groves was winning as easily or by as much as I thought when watching it pissed and paying more attention to Jim Watt's histrionics and the other bloke's auto-agreement.
I watched it sober without commentary the first time and watched it since with commentary and I still score it 78-73, ALL the good work was from Groves, Froch was eating the Groves jab until the 9th and the 2 I gave Froch was close.
It amazing to me how much of a effect the commentary has on a fight, if Jim Watt is involved I watch the fight with the sound off. I had Groves in front by 2 to 3 rounds and think both fighters fought dirty when possible. A brave thread with all the hate around Froch at the minute but bang on.
The big thing for me was that even if froch did anything in this fight, groves would reply with something better.
On the night, in the arena, I had it 6-2 Groves in rounds. Watching it back, that moved to 7-1 in his favour. Froch had very, very little success before that 9th round rally.
Watched it twice, I can't give Froch more than two rounds. Premature stoppage that was untidly effected.Groves should have been given a bit longer imo he was no more buzzed than Froch was in the first round.