Froch Groves I - a different perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xvFXxe-c14 (Start at 12:59)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAhl_d-Sju0 (Start at 1:28)

Above is a youtube video of the BBC Radio 5 Live broadcast (top) and the Sky broadcast - if you line up the time codes as above and mute the Sky one, watch the fight again.

For people who say Froch had NO success in the fight, try watching the video with an unbiased commentator who actually calls the shots that Froch lands. You'll also start to see how many jabs Froch was landing early, how much Groves was missing, and a couple of big rights early from Froch.

Contrary to what people were saying about Groves pushing him back all the time, if you actually watch the knockdown, you'll see that it happens because Froch connects with a big uppercut inside, and chases it up like a dog running after a ball and just gets planted.

Interestingly, Bunce scores the fight the same as Judge 1, and Costello actually has it as one point for Groves at the time of the stoppage.

I'm not saying this is a great Froch performance, or that he was winning by any stretch, but what I'm saying is that he was hardly shut down by Groves and unable to land anything for the whole fight, which is the way a lot of people seem to be remembering it. If anything, the only performance worse than Froch's on that night was that of Messrs. Halling and Watt, who almost entirely neglected to mention a single shot Froch landed.

There's a reason Groves was blowing in the 9th with 2 black eyes...

 

@Solaris: So you watched the video with BBC commentary then? The point of the thread is that if you listen with commentators who actually commentate on the punches landed, as opposed to rimming one fighter for half an hour, you see that in fact Froch wasn't 'utterly dominated' - behind as he no doubt was - but actually had successes in every round that led to Groves being worn down to the extent he was in the 9th. So, no, it isn't a pointless thread, and debate is what the concept of a message board is about...

 

Again, bear in mind, I'm not saying Froch was ahead, I'm saying it puts in perspective that Froch was actually in the fight every round. It's not like he didn't land anything for 24 mins and then the fight was stopped for no reason. Yes, he was losing; yes, the stoppage was early - but he was hardly out of the fight at any point.

 

I agree: In any 10-9 round, the margin of dominance can be massively varied. You can lost 10-9 never landing a punch, or lose 10-9 landing many punches but not doing quite as well as the other guy. In the latter scenario it demonstrates exactly why fights are 12 rounds...who can take the most punishment and who can eventually prevail over the distance. Watt made it sound like Froch might as well not have bothered turning up because he'd already decided Groves was going to win, and he does that in so many fights that his commentary is absolutely dreadful. Costello for the BBC is a great blow-by-blow commentator, and I certainly felt watching the video with the BBC commentary that it gave a truer representation of what was happening!

 

Also, if you listen after the fight, there's a huge debate going on - where Bunce, Booth, Costello, Hearn and McCracken all get stuck into each other, so much more raw than anything Sky would show, and it's actually a really good listen...

 

I didn't expect you to change your opinion on the fight, judging by the way you post elsewhere on the subject, but the BBC commentary pathetic?! The BBC is one of the most impartial platforms in world broadcasting, Sky aren't exactly known for that. When you WATCH the fight and LISTEN to the BBC's commentary, you can see exactly what Costello's talking about. It's so easy to listen to Watt's commentary and decide that Froch landed nothing, or did nothing of note. Take the moment in the 5th I think it is, where Froch turns Groves onto the ropes and Groves then turns Froch straight back...they both pulled the same move within 2 seconds of each other, but Watt goes on about what a 'classy move' it was from Groves, whereas Costello calls the whole process, BEGINNING with the fact that Froch had manoeuvred Groves. There are many other points where you can illustrate that Watt ignored work from Froch - whether it was clean or not - that clearly led to tiring Groves out down the stretch.

We'll see in the rematch, but I think Froch has the ability to do the job properly this time...