Froch/Groves or Burns/Beltran

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by tdf1974, Jan 3, 2014.


  1. tdf1974

    tdf1974 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,132
    2,354
    Sep 9, 2013
    with Burns returning to the ring it has got me thinking,
    what was the worse the Burns decision and not having the rematch?
    Or the Froch decision/stoppage and not having the rematch?

    i would do a poll but i am a technotard.

    for me the Burns decision was so bad i have to say that was worse although i can see why Burns and Froch dont want their respective rematches after their lucky escapes.
     
  2. Collie

    Collie Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,638
    8
    Jun 16, 2012
    Its hard to compare because Burns is facing a mandatory next so the choice was pretty much out of his hands, although Beltran deserves a rematch obviously (he should have the belt). Froch has the option of making the Groves fight and it'd make a lot of money if he wanted it but it doesn't look like he does.

    I'd say Burns would rather face Beltran again than Crawford if he had the choice, to be honest.
     
  3. Robney

    Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ

    94,685
    29,596
    Jan 18, 2010
    :think

    Burns vs Beltran was just a blatant robbery, and everyone knows who actually won that fight. There's no suspence over who's going to win the rematch when held on neutral territory. While Froch vs Groves actually has a suspence thing going on, due to that dreadful referee. Froch was coming on strong after getting whooped in the 1st half of the fight and might actually have been on his way stopping Groves in a legit fashion. Or Groves might have turned the tables again and maybe be the first to stop Carl... who knows?!

    Both need a rematch, but the Froch vs Groves bout DEMANDS it.
    You can just call Beltran the better man after a completely finished fight and be done with it. Although there's the issue of that belt.
     
  4. Mufc30

    Mufc30 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,629
    1
    Jan 28, 2013
    Both as bad as each other,possibly Froch was worse because if it hadn't been stopped The scorecards were so bad that if it went 12 the chances are Froch would have taken the win deserved or not. You could argue that regardless of what Groves did,I'd he didn't spark Froch it was decided he was never going to win

    Though I guess you could say that about Beltran however he got a draw and not a defeat-though still no belt
     
  5. assasin

    assasin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,315
    13
    Feb 21, 2010
    well, Burns pretty much accepts that he didn't really win the fight and had another bad night. but he was willing to fight Beltran again until the mandatory got in the way. hopefully though, Beltran gets to fight the winner.

    whereas Froch won't accept the thought of Groves winning the fight and considers the stoppage to be legit. he's also negative on the rematch happening.



    but which one was worse of the two? they're both as bad as each other. the robbery and the ref stopping the fight too early didn't give us the outcome boxing deserved.
     
  6. billy nelson

    billy nelson the fighting scots gym Full Member

    15,873
    674
    Jan 9, 2009
    Answer me this, i accept Jose boxed much better than Ricky the first 6 rounds but Ricky dug in and made him quit and won nobody stopped the fight other than Jose and his team, now Froch was getting an even bigger schooling from Taylor and stopped him in the final seconds but he becomes a hero, whats the diffrence?
     
  7. Farmboxer

    Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

    86,105
    4,100
    Jul 19, 2004
    A rematch with Groves is what most fans want to see.................
     
  8. tdf1974

    tdf1974 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,132
    2,354
    Sep 9, 2013

    a KO?

    even the partizan Jock crowd got the hump it was that bad of a decision!

    but at least Burns has not talked complete sh1te since the fight so i think probably still has a lot of the public behind him...Froch on the other hand needs a massive P.R lesson asap or i dont see him fighting again in UK
     
  9. Furey

    Furey EST & REG 2009 Full Member

    16,695
    6,816
    Oct 18, 2009
    Froch v Groves.

    Not only was it a bull**** stoppage, the scorecards were also ridiculous.
     
  10. smithshaun

    smithshaun Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,579
    494
    Oct 20, 2013
    look to be a world champion not only do you need to be highly talented you need to be able to dig deeper than the other man, gonzalez was winning the fight but he couldn't handle the pace and the situation, he hit burns with everything he had and burns kept coming that's the difference between a good challenger and a great champion, if you believe for one minute his hand was that badly injured he couldn't carry on your all fools, he was beaten mentally and physically that's why he quit, as for beltran ricky has stated so many times he would like the rematch so we can stop going on about it, but once again beltran should of been able to finish the fight such was the extent of rickys injury but he couldn't end of.
     
  11. Sugar 88

    Sugar 88 Woke Moralist-In-Chief

    27,263
    18,356
    Feb 4, 2012
    Hey Billy,

    I'm pretty sure you two are on about different fights. He's talking about the Beltran fight and you seem to be on about the Gonzalez fight.

    The difference between the Gonzalez fight and the Taylor fight is that Taylor didn't quit he got KTFO.

    Good luck to Ricky against Crawford I'll be pullin for him and hope he then gives Beltran the rematch he deserves.
     
  12. billy nelson

    billy nelson the fighting scots gym Full Member

    15,873
    674
    Jan 9, 2009
    Remember he could have switched stance he's equally comfortable