I'm a massive fan of Froch, but not a 'fanboy' in the sense that I'm blinded to things he does wrong, or thinking that he's untouchable. I'm not trying to justify score cards, I've not even really said anything too subjective. What I said, and maintain, is that Froch - whilst undoubtedly behind - was landing shots in EVERY round that combined to break Groves down and leave him extremely tired in the 9th. I also said 'Interestingly' that Costello's scorecard was one point for Groves. Hearn says he had it 2 for Groves. As an unbiased commentator, that is interesting to note, I'm not even saying I have any argument with a score card that sees Froch anything from 1-5 points behind. If you watch the videos, the Froch successes are more apparent than on first watching with Sky commentary.
It is almost considered to be a crime to be a fan of a fighter on here without quantifying it with every flaw, or lucky decision they have benefited from :huh
I didn't start the thread to say I thought Froch was winning the fight. I started it to show that he was IN the fight the whole way through. It doesn't matter in this case whether he LOST every round, the point was that he was consistantly landing punches and that the end result was a worn out and worn down Groves being stopped prematurely. You can win every round of a prize fight and be knocked out in the last minute of the last round. Guess what? You still lose. A fighter who can cause damage for 12 rounds, and take more punishment than the guy in front of him always has a chance of winning. I don't need to post score cards because I'm not trying to say Froch was ahead, or trying to justify him winning certain rounds. And actually, I'm not trying to justify scorecards one way or the other. What part of this can you not get your head around?
Did you listen to Costello after the fight? Bloke was an embarrassment. Sounded like a casual fan and wouldn't stop sucking Froch off.
Well, he put some context into what happened. The good thing about the beeb was that they let the debates run after the fight... you had 5 people (Hearn, McCracken, Costello, Bunce and Booth) who were all getting into debates with each other which between them covered virtually every argument you could make in the direct aftermath of the fight. It also pitted people from different camps in direct debates within 5 minutes of the fight ending. I don't think he 'sucked Froch off' to the degree you're implying, but he was trying to stop people getting carried away with somehow blaming Froch for the stoppage or the result of the fight.
Come on, the BBC comms (Booth aside) was just as biased toward Froch as Sky Sports were towards Groves. Nothing to see here.
They probably spent a lot of time together when the BBC were involved in boxing at the start of the 00s.
Other than trying to rim Froch cause you're in love with him, what was the point of this thread? We know Groves' face was marked up at the end. Doesn't mean that Froch was competitive throughout, because he wasn't, he got through with a few shots here and there, but he was outclassed throughout the fight. No he didn't grind down Groves to a stoppage, this is yet another Froch fanboy myth, the tide hadn't turned either atsch He was losing round 9 until he landed a hayemaker that hurt Groves, then he landed a few shots while Groves made the mistake of trading on the ropes and before Groves was given a chance to ride the storm, Foster jumped in and didn't give him the chance, even though Froch was in a worse state in the first round! Let's not forget that right before Foster jumped in, Groves came off the ropes with his hands up and shoved Froch off him, he wasn't out of it and he never hit the deck. The reason you're not posting a score card is because you know you'll get made to look silly. Please tell us about how Ward-Froch was a close fight that could have gone either way, and how Froch was robbed against Kessler :roflatsch
On the cards the fight wasnt even close, Groves by a landslide, but anyone saying that Groves was dominating the actual 'fight' doesn't know what they are talking about. Any neutral unbiased observer could see that Groves had started to slow down by the 7th/8th rounds. His shots had lost their effect by the 8th and the momentum was clearly beginning to shift. Groves was no where near hurt enough to call a stoppage, but he was clearly hurt and feeling the pace. His output dropped, his power was no longer there or even a factor and Froch was still fresh. As fans of boxing the only people really robbed were us. No one knows what the outcome would have been, all we can do is speculate. My personal feeling? Froch has a great engine and would have carried a high tempo to the end, it's what he does. Groves is known to tire, probably because he puts so much into his shots and he had slowed down dramatically in pace, power and output. I think he'd have been knocked down a few times if not stopped. He was no longer as elusive and was getting hit more and that trend I feel would have continued.
It's your opinion! people are going to favour one fighter or the other this is a decent thread and just highlights how much commentary can make a big difference. Why people have to post like you do I dont know must just have an inablity to think outside you're own little world. No-one mentioned anything about Kessler/Ward if you hadnt noticed they are not really part of this discussion. Another one to add to the ignore list! :yep
I've listened to it, don't worry about that. The first post in this thread is revisionist BS. You don't need to align audio with video and compare commentaries to realise what happened in the first fight. You just open your eyes and watch the damn thing. Anybody with an iota of boxing knowledge will be able to see and decide for themselves.
I was referring to both commentaries. I've watched the fight without sound I still see the same domination from groves and only the froch delusional fans see it close it really is laughable. Stop making yourselves look like idiots
How did this highlight how commentary makes a difference? who changed their mind after listening to different commentary? If you're swayed by what commentators say you probably don't know how to score a fight properly If you're upset by my post, chances are you're another Froch fanboy, funny how many of you went into hiding after the beating Froch got against Groves. I'm sure now the rematch is on you will start to resurface again, hopefully Groves will put the record straight and the Froch fanatics like will disappear for good