Eddie Hearn and Gennady Golovkin

groves looked significantly worse after froch 2. their 1st fight showed how tough to beat froch is, and while the stoppage was panicky and premature, the 2nd confirmed it was likely coming.

it amazes me though that some seriously think the difference between the 2 fights was groves.

 

I've not been a member long enough to post links, but this is from an interview with Eddie Hearn:-

"He made those comments before the Groves rematch on a Facebook debate with [Sky’s] Adam Smith. A lot of those comments were off the cuff while he was playing mind games with Groves. We’ve since had a chat about Golovkin and Carl’s definitely aware of Golovkin’s power and ability, but the bottom line is, as we’ve been told from HBO, Froch-Golovkin is not pay-per-view so you can’t consider that as an option, but Froch-Chavez is pay-per-view.
People are telling me on Twitter that Froch-Golovkin is PPV, but the people who actually make the decisions at HBO are saying otherwise. What people have got to realise is, to the hardcore boxing fan, Golovkin is God at the moment, but outside of that, he’s not quite there yet. I’m sure in six months or a year, he probably will be. Then we can talk about that fight. If the deal was right, Froch would have absolutely no problems fighting Golovkin at all. But, there would have to be huge money on the table, and for that, it has to be a dual PPV."
"It’s all well and good the fans say make this fight, but it would be like me saying to you, ‘I’ve got this job for you, but you won’t get paid anywhere near what you should be, but everyone wants you to do it, so do it.’ You’d turn round and go ‘F*** off!’ Yes, Froch is financially comfortable, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get in the ring for less than he deserves, and that is a horrible, dangerous fight"

 

Merry christmas