Froch - I don't need to give Groves rematch

His conduct post-fight has been squalid and sad, but speaking longer term, I suppose you're right. Unless he fights on and ducks the rematch. Retirement = Should not be criticised. Ducking Groves = Cowardice.

 

How can you sit there and call a world champion who has limited skill and has made his name on Fighting and taking punishment a coward really ? I dont think a coward wants to fight the p4p no 2 who all ready has a win over him. You might not like him and each to there own but come on play the game.

 

If he fights Ward it's a cash-out at best. He knows he'll lose, but won't get hurt. That taints his career considerably. With that said, his continued insistence that the fight take place in Britain undeniably puts a more sinister edge to it. We know what would happen if Ward gets sloppy and takes more than a single punch in any given burst.

 

I dont think Froch beats Ward full stop but you have to admire him for trying, Im not sure about knowing you wont get hurt this is boxing after all.

 

My mind was playing tricks on me with the mandatory. Of course he won the title against Pascal and then fulfilled a mandatory against Taylor. I was remembering Pascal as an eliminator for some reason. My bad. But of course I'm aware of how things went down with Calzaghe. He was top 5 p4p at the time and had bigger fish to fry. There was absolutely no value for him in a Froch fight comparative to other options (tv interest wasn't there) so he moved up and fought Hopkins for big money and the linear 175 title. Sounds reasonable enough to me with him having already fought 10 years worth of mandatories.

Froch fought Groves not out of the goodness of his heart, but because:

1) he was mandated to by the IBF and Carl didn't want to relinquish that title

2) there were no more appealing fights available out there. Kessler wasn't ready yet, Ward is unbeatable, Chavez has only just moved up, GGG still clearing out 160, and besides that Froch has stated plenty of times that he's not interested in moving up to LHW as yet. So who else could Froch have fought that was more appealing or brought more money to the table?

3) The money WAS there for this fight. With the backing of SBO Groves was huge for him, likely resulting in a career high payday. That sort of interest was not there for Froch vs Calzaghe or Froch vs anyone else back in 08. Not even close (remember, Joe was on Setanta, Carl was with ITV - who pay no money - and eventually ended up on Primetime, ugh).

But the basic point is this - Groves wasn't "given the chance," he earned his shot in exactly the same way that Carl did, by fighting his way up the rankings to gain mandatory status. Froch insinuates that the right to fight him wasn't deserved, but Groves earned his shot just as he did in 08. Maybe Pascal wasn't a huge name for him but he was the man in position at the time. Them's the breaks. Besides, Froch got a big one with his next fight against Taylor, and plenty more immediately after that in the Super 6. I feel that the cards fell quite nicely for him in that sense. He can't complain too much.

The thing about not being given a chance at the same stage of his career as Groves is kind of a nonsense anyway (even putting aside the misnomer that Groves was "given the chance" at all). Groves had his title shot in his 20th fight after five years as a pro. Froch had his shot in his 24th fight after six years as a pro. Groves hadn't beaten any top 10 fighters beforehand, but then Froch hadn't beaten anyone much before he met Pascal either. There's not a huge amount of difference in any of this really is there?

Incidentally I was supporting Froch against Groves, but he's talking absolute bobbins here.

 

:good

 

You can just imagine Froch sitting reading through all these comments, screwing his face up and getting wound up.

"I'M AN INTERNATIONAL SUPERSTAR, I DESERVE RESPECT" !

 

Ok, I apologise for the tetchiness...the thing is there are so many people on here that literally have no idea of some things and edit history as it suits them. As I've said in other threads - you can see I don't post all that often compared to how long I've been a member here, and this forum really wound me up after the fight on Saturday, so again apologies.

Back to your point though - the main difference is this: Froch earned HIS shot against Calzaghe, but it never happened, and Groves earned his shot against Froch, and he got it.

I know it's semantics, but both fighters fought their way to mandatory positions against household name champions, and only one saw that fight come to fruition. For whatever reason. In my opinion, Calzaghe should really have 'defined his legacy' by the time he had 2 fights left in him, and taking on a BRITISH mandatory should have been a big fight - as it was with Froch/Groves. At the time, Froch had only just moved to ITV, as he was with Sky up until just after he fought Robin Reid. The only fight he had off of UK TV was a stay busy against Rybacki that was on Showtime in the US. His next fight was against Pascal on ITV. So actually, boxing fans at least would have known who Froch was at the time.

What griped at Froch, and I can understand it from his perspective, was that he was mandatory to Calzaghe in what would still have been a defining fight in his (Froch's) career, and he was no.1 contender. He believed he could beat Calzaghe as surely as Groves believed he could beat Froch. As it shook out, Groves was actually mandatory, but no.5 contender, so in many ways Froch saw Groves as getting a bit of a lucky break with other people being out of the picture. In that sense, Groves was lucky - still, the rules are the rules, and it was a fair shot. As you say, them's the breaks. The bottom line is, as you say, that Froch didn't want to relinquish the belt, so the fight had to happen given those factors. I understand your point about other fighters being tied up, but how much stick would he have got if he HAD relinquished in order to wait for Ward, and just said something like 'That's all I care about now, one more fight and then retire, and I'm gonna beat the only guy in my career I haven't beaten'? Define his legacy...as Calzaghe did.

Froch may not sometimes be the greatest at PR, but there is at least a grain of truth to what he says, he just phrases it badly when he has a mic in his face.

 

That's fair enough. I certainly understand Carl having the hump about Joe vacating at that point in time, although I don't think the decision related much to him. He's just unlucky.

It's a shame that Froch and Calzaghe never fought but, though it's fairly irrelevant, my feeling has always been that had they met in 08 have been the wrong moment (then again I did think that of Froch-Groves). It would have been an attention grabber domestically but Froch would not have been taken seriously. The ideal time would have been after Carl had put himself on the map after beating Taylor. At that point it would have been pretty huge fight.

Calzaghe's legacy would look significantly better had he made just a couple of different moves towards the end. Firstly he should never have bothered with the pointless Jones fight and should have gone for Pavlik (the adulation that would be heaped on BHop was there for the taking), and then after that a huge homecoming fight gainst Froch would have been the perfect way to cap a career. Joe was in such a rush to get out of boxing with his 0 in tact though (even though I don't those fights would have posed much risk).

 

I think he's right in alot of what he says actually.

 

Froch is a proud man. He will give Groves a rematch.

 

Couldnt bring myself to read half the stuff Froch said. He got lucky big time with the stoppage. And he talks in certainties like we the public and moreover the fans havent got a clue.

Hes a warrior. But hes not smart. Hes not owed anything. He'll always have the respect of the fans for bringing us entertainment in his best years but please be honest about what is obvious to 95% of us, Groves was robbed.

 

95% :roll:

every poll I've seen has a Froch ko being the likeliest outcome if Foster hadn't jumped in at between 50%--60%, but 95% think he was robbed? You're the one who needs to be honest.

 

It was a figurative representation of a majority. exaggerated for effect. But my opinion IS honest.

Why dont u say what you think? What froch was on the ascendency? He was about to win the fight?

At that point in time Froch in my eyes was desperate and behind on all cards. He was constantly fouling and got tagged with clean shots every round. And we will never know what would have happened since the ref stepped in and stopped it prematurely. I think Groves would have boxed him and seen the final bell. Whether he would have won the fight on the cards given how close 2 of the judges scored it when the writers at ringside had on average a wider margin is also up for debate.

so go on - lets be honest. What do you think? And which polls are you referring to?

 

Yes for me the tide had turned and froch would have got the stoppage. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with that, opinion is clearly divided. I reckon your 95% figure is about right for the amount of people who thought the stoppage was premature but of those a good percentage think it robbed Carl of a controversy free stoppage. I'm taking that from what I've read and polls on various forums. Think the one on boxrec forum has about 60% favouring a froch ko.