Jim Watt AS MUCH to thank as Foster for Froch Groves 2

I can't stand the ****s voice

 

I think Sky should make a red button option of turning off commentators so you just get crowd noise.

I think the only reason they don't is because they know hardly anybody would listen to them

 

The OP is right, watch it without the commentating, for a lot of the rounds it just looks like two of them having a good ding dong, obviously Groves won the most rounds but even in the rounds he won Froch was still having some success that was going unnoticed by the commentators.

Should be a very interesting rematch, let's see who can adapt the best.

 

I'll never understand this whole 'without the commentary' thing either. Are people saying because of someone's words, they become blind to what is happening in front of their very eyes?

 

Absolutely superb point.

 

Blind? No. Influenced? Of course.

Boxing isn't the easiest sport to watch, particularly live. There's a lot going on from lots of different angles and it's easy to miss some things.

Now when a commentator is telling you what's going on, i.e. not reporting on the fight in a "nice jab", "good bodywork" way but in a "I think he's beating Froch at his own game in the early stages"

Now watch just the first round again.

Barely anything happens in the first minute, a few range finder jabs that don't land from either fighter and a very brief flurry of body punches from Froch.

In the second minute, more range finders, a scruffy bit leading to a clinch with digs to the back of the head from each but still nothing much. A few more jabs with the odd one landing before Groves lands a couple of decent overhand rights which Froch takes and follows up with a bigger looking right that causes Groves to steady his left leg (more balance related as he doesn't look shaken).

To start the third minute Froch lands a decent jab then more tit for tat jabs missing. A clinch after one of Froch's wild, looping left hooks sees Froch land a couple of nothing punches, one to the head and one to the body. Froch soon eats a straight right and backpedals to the ropes where he lands a right uppercut which he tries to follow up with a big right (that lands, just!) leading to the lovely left right combo from Groves for the knockdown. After the knockdown Groves lands a right on the bell and another just after (not dirty it just doesn't score).

Obviously a 10-8 to Groves with the knockout but I wanted to post my thoughts to counter the argument that Groves was "schooling" Froch from the start. In the first minute almost nothing happens bar for Froch perhaps landing a scoring punch in the tiny flurry around 40 seconds. In the second minute again mostly nothing until the exchange of rights, two to one to Groves at the end. In the third minute there's the clinch where Froch bags a couple of nothing but scoring punches, the Groves right, Froch uppercut and the big left right for the knockdown (plus the two rights at the bell).

So a round where Froch lands about 7 punches and Groves 6 (probably plus a few single jabs each where the opponent moves their head back and it's hard to tell and no one really cares!) is pretty even bar for the knockdown. Still, Groves massively in the ascendancy at the end of the round!

Cue Jim Watts commentary between rounds of "Carl Froch as we know has the toughest chin in the business but he's throwing punches with no confidence and he's paying the penalty".

Um, what Jim? The knockdown comes after Froch tries to level Groves with a huge right, clearly no confidence there.

Then "look at his legs when he come up there, he is gone there, he is gone there".

Really? You can argue whether he sticks out his arms to break his fall or whether he just gets lucky with that but he's not out of it. There's a look towards the ref as he's getting up (pretty much immediately), defintely some bandy legs as he goes back to the ropes but he gives the shrug to try and look like he isn't hurt (he is), has a play with his shorts and looks back to his corner and has a quick word with the ref to say he's ok. Was he hurt? Definitely, pretty badly. Was he out on his feet? Not at all.

Now just to give some of the anti Froch brigade on here something to scoff at. Froch wins round 2 whilst Watts spends half the round banging on about how dominant Groves is and the other half criticising Froch (the laughable comment about how he always mentions Froch's low left hand and he hasn't changed it, the man is mid 30s Watts, it isn't happening!).

 

Froch won a maximum of two rounds..

 

Drew the 2nd won the 5th and 8th for me, was winning the 9th prior to Foster getting excited.

 

Watt called the fight as he (and most people ) saw it, just with a bit of exuberance which is part of what commentators are hired for. His job is not just to mention every little thing that happens, he's not there to give audio description for the blind, he's mentioning the more important things and the general story of the fight as he see's it.

Jim mentions what Groves is doing more because that's what was (or should have been in his opinion) winning Groves the rounds (i.e landing the more effective shots, controlling the center of the ring, backing Froch up etc). When Froch did have some success he said so "that was more of a Froch round" (not sure which round exactly, somewhere around 4th/5th/6th). He said Froch had no confidence in his jab and punches in general early/Froch was making mistakes/was out on his feet after the KD etc because it was true and clear to see.

Only a hand full of people suggest Froch had no success at all in the fight prior to the 9th. What most people believe which was backed up by the commentary is that Groves won most of the rounds. Some rounds were dominant and some were close but even the close rounds could be given to Groves (which is what Watt did) because his punches were cleaner and seemed to do more damage whereas Froch's punches were quite inaccurate and sloppy. Some people (including most Froch fans and the judges evidently) gave the close rounds to the pre fight favourite and defending champion Carl Froch.
Some people may think groves dominated and some may think it was a close fight but it's a matter of opinion and both are fair and valid opinions it just depends on what you think is most important and what you score a fight/round based on.

 

I think that's kind of missing the point. GrandSlam makes a good point comparing the BBC's commentary to Sky's (though admittedly I haven't heard the BBC's so I'll take it at face value to be how he states).

Watts certainly called the fight how he saw it but that likely influenced the viewers perception of the fight, particularly casual viewers. I've explained how I saw the first round in detail and that isn't how Watts called it. I'll give him a tiny amount of leeway as he's the colour commentator (Halling also does a pretty poor job of being the "play by play" guy which doesn't help) but after the excitement of the knockdown he loses the plot and goes crazy for Groves. In the second round Froch fights really well considering the knockdown and barely gets any credit from the commentary as they're both caught up in the action (essentially two people bad at their jobs!). That does influence people watching the fight.

As for how it actually turned out. I had Froch winning 2, 5 and 8 but all three were close rounds. On the other hand, the five that Groves won were more comprehensive and this again gives the perception that Groves is running away with the fight to someone who is watching it as a whole rather than keeping a mental tally of rounds in their head.

I don't agree that it's a fair and valid opinion that Groves dominated, that just isn't borne out by the fight. Groves was well in the lead, by at least 4 points going into the 9th but I'd be hard pressed to find someone not giving Froch at least one of 2,5 or 8 and he was clearly on his way to winning 9.

For what it's worth I think round 6 is the turning point. Groves wins the round but it takes too much out of him. A lot is made of his stamina but, for me, it's more about his punch resistance. He seems to suffer more from the accumulation of punches he takes rather than just getting gassed from his own exertion. Regardless of how this fight ends up, I hope he can sort this out as he'll either need to improve his defence or this to keep mixing it at world level. Plenty of time for him to work on both mind.

That was an odd display in that round and Watts, as ever, doesn't come out well commenting on it! There's the bit about 30 seconds in where after a few Froch body punches, Groves swings in a wild left hook that misses and then jogs into the corner with his back turned! Froch stupidly goes in with the forearm and gets the warning where it could have gone to Groves and in any case, that's a bad habit to get into!

As an aside, two minutes into the round where Froch is very much on top, Watts calls it "a round that's very much in the balance". Ok Jim.

The bit you mention is with 35 seconds left. Groves lands a nice straight right though it glances a bit off the top of the head and Groves follows up with a half clinch as Foster walks in looking to call a break. He then doesn't and oddly pulls away from the break as Groves goes for his first punch at the back of Froch's head, who in fairness, has allowed his back to turn as well. Groves goes for another dig at the back of Froch's head at which point he pivots and gets in three good digs as Foster rushes in to break.

I really don't know what Foster was doing in that bit. Failing to sort it out when Froch's back gets turned (with a brief warning for Froch perhaps though it was something and nothing), letting Groves get away with the clear punches to the back of the head and then moving in for the break when they are square on and punching clean again? It doesn't make any sense to me?! Now he goes out of shot as Froch turns to fight back and I don't hear a call of break when I've watched again so perhaps Froch is being dirty, Watts certainly has kittens in his commentary but honestly, Foster's positioning is bad here and once he gets there to put his arm in no further punches are thrown. The bottom line is that I don't see why the break should be called then and Groves was in a pinch on the ropes after eating a couple of big hits.

Anyway, I've argued this one to death (again). I'm just happy that we get to see a rematch that will put everything to bed. One more thing I will say here though, I wish the current odds were reversed as I'd like to lump on Froch at 2.5.

 

SKY wants to spin a narrative. Going into the bout, I like many thought it a bit of a mismatch. So any success Groves had, it was in the interest of SKY to promote it.

And it has worked, people are getting pumped and spending Millions on an excellent domestic bout. I bet SKY, Matchroom et al cannot believe their luck!

 

Yes, it is called peer pressure. Something humans have in them and can be manipulated.

 

Peer pressure is a real thing and people can be manipulated but that doesn't necessarily mean that was the case with the Froch/Groves fight commentary. The peer pressure and manipulation could be happening when people are trying to convince others that the fight was close/that the scorecards were correct/that the commentary was clouding everybody's judgement/that Froch under estimated him/that Groves was gassing and that him getting stopped was inevitable etc. It can work both ways.