I haven't quite worked out why Froch v Groves 2 was so big. I don't think either fighter is a truly colourful character, and the first fight was good and controversial but hardly an all-action CLASSIC. I don't read the newspapers, but I'm guessing tabloid coverage made this one huge.
No because Chisora, on paper has a bums record. The casuals would look at his record and automatically think "bum" with his 4 defeats. Really though, his defeats have come against top opposition and one of them should have been at least a draw (Helenius). But to the casuals, Chisora looked little more than a bum.
Yes. I think both Haye and Chisora were bigger names than Froch and Groves - rightly or wrongly. Haye was certainly a bigger name than Froch at that time. And still is.
No because they were not 2nd and 3rd best in the world. They were also both coming off defeats to the brothers so it came across as the battle of the desperate for attention losers. Chisora had also a bad image amongst the casuals after his shocking peformance againts Fury the year before on channel 5. Haye had also pissed alot of people off with the toe scandal and most people resented the 15 quid they paid to watch him surrender meekly againts Wlad. No way would the ppv have got the same rates.
groves > chisora in terms of talent, and probably punching power as well if haye lost to chisora, **** lol. that imaginary 'hw legacy' he has would of vanished in mid air.
nah the hype from froch groves was always about the most important thing the first fight The hype for haye chisora was about a few words a someone getting hit with a chair haye doesn't box often enough to have a massive fan base and it was always a bit of a mis match a slow come forward plodder Vs a speedy hard counter puncher... The result of the fight was never really in doubt where Froch Groves defiantly was
Possibly if the order of the fights had been reversed but even then, the fact is the fight was for the number one spot in Britain, was for two titles and the first fight was a war.