Charlie Fitch from NYC. Forget the ref... how about some talk about decent judges? Last time out, after a knockdown and a total 6 round domination from Groves... 2 judges had Froch up after 9 rounds... utterly impossible.
A Polish judge has already been excluded, eventually we will get to the fight and have 3 judges that can actually score, the judging last time was laughable. Even if the fight continued last time there would have still been controversy with the judges scores at the end, there was no way Groves was losing that fight...
Judging last time was not laughable... it was 100% criminal IMO. They got away with it, I am still stunned there was not more press focus on the scores.... beyond incredible.
No one had Froch up. They had it 1 point to Groves, and the scores didn't include the 9th round, cos that's when it was stopped. They had it 4 rounds each over 8, with the extra point for Groves coming from the KD.
Which is still bull****. Including the KO round, Froch won a grand total of 2. Round 7 and Round 9. The rest were all Groves. Round 8 was close but I edged it to Groves purely because I think Froch should have had a point deducted in that round. No way in hell did Froch win 4 rounds.
Will if you think he won 2 and 7, and Watt gave him round 5 - then obviously there's a solid argument for him winning 3 rounds...so why is a pair of judges arguing he won a 4th so inconceivable? Plus, the argument the poster was making was the two judges had Froch winning, which was wrong. Whether having one point down or not was bull**** was a moot point...
I understand this, apologies for getting it slightly wrong.. however, including a 10-8 opener... and cast iron 10-9 in Rd 3 and 6... how was Froch anywhere close after 9? level or one behind are just inconceivable.. and citing Jim Watt?
Just because you can make a 'solid arguement' that he won 3 rounds does not mean you can make a solid argument that he won 4. Example. If one fighter clearly wins 7 of the 12 but the other 3 could have gone either way. You can make a case for the other fighter winning 3 rounds. In no way can you make a case for the fighter winning 4. Just because the difference between 3 and 4 is 1...... Doesn't make the statement that the second fighter won 4 rounds any less riddiculous!!!
No probs, but my point citing Watt was that he clearly gave the 5th to Froch, and he was MASSIVELY pro Groves in the fight, so if someone that blinkered gave it clearly in Froch's favour, then there's a fair chance the judges did. Plus, if you only have 3 'cast iron' rounds to Groves, doesn't that make the other 5 debatable by definition? Ok, fair point, but personally I'd also say the 7th and 8th were close. I wouldn't be surprised if the two judges who had it by one point gave Froch 2,5,7 and 8. People have argued that Froch won the 5th, 7th and 8th at various points. The fact that R-Duran - who saw the fight as a Groves domination - scored the 2nd to Froch is interesting. That means amongst various people's opinions, that rounds 2,5,7 and 8 have all been scored to Froch at some stage. Whilst eveyrone agrees that 1,3,4 and 6 were all obviously Groves rounds, if the 4 debated ones were seen by 2 judges as Froch rounds then the scores are plausible - if not wholly agreed upon by other people.