Groves had all of his faculties when it was stopped. He was arguing so much with the ref he looked like he was ready to smack him. No way it should have been stopped.
The Michael Watson reason is daft - by that all boxing should be banned then? Should Groves have been given the decision when he knocked froch down? Surely we don't another watson etc etc
You're the only one who thinks that. If the ref had given Groves an 8 count he would have had to let it go on because Groves wasn't hurt.
The ref has a split second to make the decision, the journo's on the whole think it was the right decision. It may have gone on for 10-15 seconds more, but Froch would have nailed him. Groves wasn't defending himself at that moment. Better to be safe and have 2 boxers return home to their families, than one in a box. The angle which the ref was standing at you can see the punches that connect from Froch on Groves.
No, because that in the first round was being caught cold. This was after 9 rounds of punishment. This is how Froch has fought his whole career - slow for the first 5 rounds, on top after.
HE (Groves) WASN'T DEFENDING HIMSELF, even the professionals think Froch would have won had it continued.
That's just rubbish. You don't know what would have happened if it went on. Groves took some shots but he was defending himself throughout. There were times in the fight when Froch was in more trouble but the ref was happy to let it go on. It was a bent decision.
So Froch gets the benefit of the doubt because that's how he fights? Same rules for both fighters surely?
Are you watching a different programme to me? Every professional interviewed said it should have gone on and the ref stopped it too early.
Dunno, Sky Box Office. It wouldn't have gone beyond the round it was stopped in. Did you watch the interview with Froch and Groves? That tells you all you need to know, Groves was hurt, he dominated the early exchanges - but was falling away. Froch interestingly was only a point behind on two official scorecards when the fight was stopped.
No because Froch had taken everything Groves had thrown at him. Groves didn't have anything left to give.
The interview with Froch and Groves only showed Groves knew he had won and Froch knew he was a very lucky fella. Groves was ahead in the fight, he put Froch down and the last round was about the only one Froch hurt him. Considering all that why didn't the ref at least give Groves an 8 count? There's only one reason.
Your posturing Craig - Have you ever considered writing fairy tales? Froch won, that is a fact. The ref stopped the fight because he was in the centre of the ring, and he was in the best place to make that decision to stop the fight. The ref is a professional, whilst we all have the benefit of replays on TV, he doesn't, he has a duty of care for both fighters. I went to uni with a semi pro boxer, and sparred with him a lot. When your chin has gone, it has gone. As far as I'm concerned there was no way back for Groves - Froch was in the ascendancy, he was also only ONE round behind on two of the three judges scorecards. Groves will learn more from this defeat than perhaps he would have learnt from the victory.
You can waffle on all you like. There was huge surprise at the judges score cards. most had a 4 point gap at least. We all watched the same fight. Despite winning Froch stock has dropped and Groves stock has risen
No one is disputing stock rising or falling. I'm just talking about facts. Froch won. Groves lost Two Judges scorecards had Froch 1 point behind. At least if you're going to respond, please make some coherent point rather than just ****. Thanks.
