Degale or Groves who do you rank higher?

No.

AA was the most useless SMW of that era.

He really didn't though. Dirrell and Ward proved that.

 

Name something else other than his chin which won him fights.

 

Froch was on over achiever. He wasn't a great boxer. He was tough, he was game and had good stamina.
A past prime Kessler beat him, a past prime Taylor was seconds away from doing the same, Andre Direll you could argue beat him, and Ward mugged him off. He struggled past Magee. As noted already, he outlasted Groves because of the above attributes but had to take a beating to do so.

A career to be proud of for sure, a throwback fighter who would always take on a challenge but he wasn't actually particularly talented. He is also a bell of a man.

 

Degale wasn't more talented, this is just remnant of the media hype, the laughable hype that had Groves completely outmatched before their fight, despite Groves beating Degale in the ams. And also because ''talent'' is now attached to some kind of ''slick'' flashy style as opposed to general ability as a fighter.

Groves is not losing to Truax or whatever that guys is called and he obviously didn't get bashed up by Eubank.
Degale also got badly beaten up by Badou Jack, who a compromised Groves had a closer fight with.
Degale would probably have been stopped by the Chudinov Groves fought since it was basically only Groves' power that kept him off and ended the fight.

The Bute Degale beat was post Froch. Dirrell was not ''prime'' either, what did he do afterwards?

People act like Degale was so old when he got beaten up. He was only 32/33. Golovkin and Kovalev both beat ''ATGs'' Canelo and Ward (at the very least were neck and neck with them) older than Degale was when he retired, and those two had long careers also. The reason the pressure fighting of Truax and Eubank got to Degale was because he didn't have the skills to stop it, not because he was so old. If he was so talented, he should have been able to beat them at only 33, even if he'd lost a little speed. You are supposed to compensate with your immense skill if you are an immense talent, right?

Groves was a far better puncher and was fast and skilled. He probably couldn't take quite as much punishment, that's the advantage Degale had. I think Groves retired too young from a biological perspective, and may have had big wins in him still, but obviously he was mentally gone from making that guy a vegetable and so on. Point is, if he'd continued, he would have made it very clear he was superior to Degale. Because he would not be getting beaten up at 33 by lower tier fighters.

 

Well his right hand apparently didn't do too badly at wembley

 

Literally one fight. He never done that against class operators at world level.

 

Your shooting yourself in the foot mate lol how is knocking groves out in a title fight no world level that means Joshua only stopped one man at world level fury only stopped one man at world level Klitschko did he stop anyone at world level going by that logic your having a mate mate log of and never come back lol

 

Doesnt DeGale’s olympic gold medal slightly edge it for him?

 

Gold medals mean as much as blue Peter badges mate

 

Wembley? Can’t remember froch fighting there.

 

Well isnt that the whole point of competing?
Winning the prizes?Medals in the amateurs and belts in the pros.

 

Yeah he rarely mentions it, very modest is carl

 

In terms of their actual careers, they had very similar successes with their wins etc though I always preferred Groves.

That said, I think Groves achievements were slightly better - final of WBSS when clearly past his best, the mega-fight against Froch. Degale never had a fight that had massive publicity, his decision to earn a few quid on PBC might have benefited him financially long term but it left him with little legacy over here.

 

The below arguments sway it for Groves for me;

1). Groves beat him as an amateur and a pro.

2). I don't see Degale doing what Groves did to Froch off the front foot because in that first fight he truly did give him hell. Degale in his pomp was a classy operator and could bang (his finish at Wembley on the Froch v Groves undercard was quality, he dropped Dirrell with a great left hand and also put Badou Jack down). But he was prone to switching off and taking breathers allowing himself to be backed up against the ropes... that spells disaster against Froch.

3). They both had very close fights with Badou Jack. Degale put Jack down early and Jack put Groves down early. The difference after the knockdowns was that Groves was able to box his way and get a foot hold in the fight whereas Degale took a lot of stick and was then put down and badly hurt late himself. Degale was never the same after Badou Jack.

4). Groves sold out Wembley. Whether he was on the losing end or not, it was a ****ing huge fight and eclipsed any stage Degale got himself too.

5). I don't even see the one-armed taped together version of Groves that boxed Callum Smith losing to Caleb Truax.

6). They fought Chris Eubank Jr exactly 1 year apart. Groves beat him and buzzed him numerous times whereas Degale got completely manhandled and punched around the ring.

 

I voted for De Gale based on maybe slightly better wins. I think Dirrell is probably better than Chudnov maybe but after reading that I think your probably right.

Head to head Groves nicked it - always surprised they never rematch and probably the better career overall - Probably earn't more than James well.