Kessler won that fight.

I think Groves would do well against Froch why would'nt he...? Johnny Nelson made a easy observation, 99.9% of the opponents Carl Froch faces all hit him. Groves is showing big improvements in defence! And we already know he can BANG, and has a decent boxing brain. He has more athleticism and speed than Carl Froch. Everybody is banking on Grove's chin being weak..? Well i don't think it's weak enough for all you Carl Froch to do a job on him.

Groves is showing signs that he is the 168, White Ginger Version of David Haye. I would say David Haye's defence is slightly better but, the why they technically throw their punches and mannerism are very similar.

Groves for a white boy has genuine Athletic ability aswell.

Joe Calzaghe had Italian blood in him, so i don't class him as full on Anglosaxon White like Groves.

Groves is knocking guys out with violent shots.

I was just calmly watching the Groves fight, while i was waiting for Froch vs Kessler main event. I was casually texting on my phone and then..? BOOM!

 

Here we go.

You don't even know WHY you have said this, and what it means.

It's just one of those phrases people say, when they want to sound all intelligent.

Groves has better defensive than Carl Froch by a mile!

 

For once you're correct the problem being Froch can walk through punches from fighters that can punch as hard if not harder than Groves on the evidence so far Groves cannot.

 

Walk through and then do what..? Grove's is really athletic and fast, i don't think Froch would nail him with combinations like he did against Kessler. Kessler agility is not as good as it used to be, Groves has David Haye type athleticism. Froch will be landing single shots, which would not be enough. Grove's jab is is like a laser aswell! It would be a interesting fight.

I don't think it would be a easy fight for Froch.

 

I know exactly why I said it, but if I was going to explain exactly what I mean by every bit of shorthand which is used for convenience and an understanding that most people are going to understand what is meant by the terminology, my posts would be twice as long. This is why a lot of people use all kinds of word, just for convenience. Ironically, you have failed to substantiate any of what you have said in this post by way of any kind of analysis beyond "Groves has better defensive than Carl Froch by a mile!" That is far less helpful than shorthand, PK. A misunderstanding about words is one thing, you ain't even tried with that PK!

Anyway, what I meant by that is its not just about moving your head when your opponent is on the other side of the ring and "looking" like you've got great upper body movement when there ain't any call for it, which Groves does a lot by the way. It's what is his defence is his like at the base level, what are his instincts when he's tired and the reflexes are fading and you aren't moving your upper body like in the first round, what is he like up close against a real fighter who ain't Noe Gonzalez? The signs of what I'm talking about can be seen in the Anderson fight. He can look great superficially, but under pressure in a harder fight he's got a bit to do to convince me about his defence, and I'm unsure whether he's improved or whether he's been accommodated by his opposition.

 

So has Carl Froch got better fundamental defence..?

The Anderson fight was how long ago.?

This white kid has got defence game man, it's not that bad.

Footwork, Movement, Agility, getting in and out of range is defence. And George Groves is showing by far better ability at doing this than Carl Froch. If The situation arises when his legs are gone, and his reflexes are gone..? Then its time to retire. People say Bernard Hopkins does not rely on his physical skills, he is still a better athlete than 99.9& of the 175 pound fighters out there. You can have all the fundamental skills in the world, but if your body cannot implement the information your mind is inputting..? then you are ****ed.

James Toney has got great fundamental skills, but..? he is still being beaten up these days by complete no marks. To many times people on forums keep mentioning the phrase...."HEY BUT THIS GUY HAS NOT GOT FUNDAMENTAL SKILLS", and people usually say this phrase when discrediting athletic boxers.

"You don't have a ****ing clue what you are talking about, and you have been influenced by the trend of..? saying that phrase to discredit athletic fighters. You hear it all the time, its complete nonsense i am reading"...

Its always the non athletic guys who have the fundamental skills for some reason.

"Like having a high guard and taking shots on the gloves"...

That's a lazy defence.

People have forgotten what real boxing skills are.

 

I realize the Anderson fight was a while ago. But my point was...he may have improved, or it may be smoke and mirrors. The reality is he's fought some soft opposition and Glen Johnson didn't really turn up offensively. He definitely hasn't had a hard fight in that time to test his defence, its been about how many punches can George Groves land and when is he going to get a stoppage...not about avoiding much coming back (although if you've seen the Sierra fight - he got hit a fair bit.) Froch has been fighting excellent competition, its tough to start comparing defence, I'm simply saying I'm skeptical about it until he gets in with somebody like Froch.

It's nothing to do with whether he's got a high guard, I don't give a crap if somebody has a high guard or is shoulder rolling the **** out of people for the most part. Who cares - if it works? I'm commenting on the questionable quality of it, any ideas you have about my bias towards a particular defensive style are purely insecurities you have picked up from this forum, which may or may not be based in reality, I dunno. But as you've brought it up, my preference is not for holding up ear muffs, as its pretty reactive and can affect offensive opportunities in my opinion. But thats far from the point, the main thing that matters is how good you are in whatever you're doing.

You bring up James Toney. James Toney is a good demonstration. James Toney has always been gifted defensively, but he was still gifted when he was mid thirties and in awful condition because his technique is solid, he's comfortable with it and its natural for him, it wasn't about amazing athleticism at that stage. The only thing that changed compared to when he was 160 and 168 was obviously he didn't have the same upper body movement or legs, but he was still gifted defensively compared to ordinary fighters. His defence is **** now because James Toney is **** now, there is no illustrative point to be made in looking at the corpse of James Toney.

 

Hit and not get hit. Taking punches on the arms is better than on the face and body. But those mother****ers still hurt, even if it is the arms.

You still feel the impact against certain out and out powerful fighters.

The best fighters, the longest lasting fighters, are those that minimize any punches landing. Meaning, moving the upper body, moving the head, rolling with punches, parrying punches, watching carefully what the opponent is doing, what they are looking for, patterns, what they have tried, what they might go for, anticipating shots, using footwork, spinning your opponent. Making sure you are well protected when committing yourself, good stance and posture, good balance, good weight distribution, correct foot placement, willing to move quickly if need be, always ready for any possible situation, bringing an arm and glove up to the face for safety when finishing an attack and stepping out, all these are key areas of a superb defence.

Defence is not all about putting two arms up and blocking punches.

Boxing has moved on just a tad since then. :smooch

 

Has Carl Froch got better fundamental defensive skills than George Groves..?

 

I'm undecided, one is fighting opposition several leagues higher. It's easy to see if a guy has power at a lower level, or speed, or whatever. But defence is a lot tougher, I think.

But since you probably don't want me to sit on the fence, I think Froch's is probably better. I think Froch's defence is better than it seems, he looks clumsy at times which gives a bad impression, but I don't think he gets hit as clean as often as people think. People talk like he's walking through punches all the time with this amazing chin, but I think he knows what he's doing defensively.

We'll find this out soon enough.

 

115-113 Froch

 

I had it 115-114 for Kessler. Jim Watt had Froch 2 up after 8 and Kessler won 9,10,11 and I thought he won first 2 minutes of 12.. He then changed his scorecard. Just because the majority say something happened it doesn't make it true. In honesty this was a very close fight that could have gone either way. Scoring is also subjective Froch hit with a lot of punches in the first 3 rounds and Kessler more or less took control of the fight.. Good fight I had Kessler sneaking it and gave final round 10-10

 

I saw it similarly, although I perhaps gave Kessler the benefit of the doubt in a couple of close rounds. There was no robbery here - quite a few rounds were down to what you prefer.

 

Bollocks has Groves got Haye style athleticism what he does have is the same trainer who gets him to fight the same way as Haye.I'm a Groves and Booth fan but think he would benefit from fighting in a more orthodox style defensively.