Was George Groves robbed? NO. Here's Why:

Ok, so. Last night Groves starts like a house on fire. He’s holding the centre of the ring, looking fast with great timing, working a great jab and making Froch look slow and cumbersome. Then BANG! He puts Froch down with a great shot and Froch looks wobbly. This carries on for the next 4 rounds, Groves is out thinking and out fighting Froch. By the end of the 5th he’s 5 up plus a knock down, it’s 50-44 in Groves favour.

In the 6th he starts to deviate from his gameplan a bit, he engages Froch in a brawl. But no problem, Groves is beating Froch at his own game, for the first half of the round he can’t miss with the right hand. The second half of the round he shows the first signs of fatigue. Groves gameplan thus far has required a lot of nervous energy. He spends the last minute of the ournd backed up, trying to avoid Frochs shots. Under the radar of Jim Watts ridiculous commentary a Froch right hand went through and hurt Groves. It’s now 50-45.

Groves takes the 7th off, he works the jab but doesn’t engage Froch as much, but Froch doesn’t offer much either, Groves does enough. 51-45 Groves.

Froch has more success in the 8th, he lands with more telling shots for the first time in the fight, and Groves is very clearly starting to slow down. Frochs round, 51-46.

The 9th round comes, Froch appears to be growing into the fight a bit, his superior conditioning and durability are beginning to favour him. He lands a good right which hurts Groves. This is followed up by an attack on the ropes where he lands several more flush shots. The ref stops it. Now, make no mistake, Groves had the right to carry on and show his mettle, he wasn’t staggered or knocked down. It was definitely a premature stoppage and very, very harsh on Groves. But was it a robbery? Because a robbery means a fighter was denied CERTAIN VICTORY by poor reffing/judging. Was Groves on course for certain victory? Let’s consider it;

Froch was on course to win the 9th, which would’ve made it 51-47 with 3 rounds to go. Is it unfeasible that Froch, now looking the stronger and fitter of the two could’ve won the last 3 rounds? Is it unfeasible that he could’ve put Groves down during those rounds? Experience would’ve made Groves take a knee at the point of the stoppage. Froch could certainly have taken it to a very close decision. He could also have knocked Groves out. Froch had taken Groves best shots and was still there, growing into the fight. Groves was slowing down, Froch had him in trouble and it’s certainly not unfeasible that Froch could’ve forced a more legit stoppage in the 9th.

I wanted Groves to win. I was outraged when the ref stopped it. It was harsh on Groves who’d boxed so well in the first half. I wanted to see if Groves could weather the storm and see the fight out, I wanted to see what he was made of. He was harshly stopped, but I wouldn’t say he was robbed as he was NOT on course for certain victory. The fight was swinging back into the balance and his opponent is a very hard, durable man with superior conditioning and knock out power, it was gonna be a tough last 4 rounds for Groves, there’s every chance he wouldn’t have survived or that he’d have been clawed back on the cards. Harsh decision? YES. Poor reffing? ABSOLUTELY. Robbed of certain victory? DEFINITELY NOT.

Also just to conclude, for those saying there won’t be a rematch because Groves has Frochs number and Froch/Hearn will bottle it, I dispute that. Anyone calling the fight would’ve said Groves would start better and rack up the early rounds, with Froch – a known slow starter – coming into it later. That is exactly what happened. What we didn’t expect was just how well Groves would box in the first half or that he would deck Froch. But Froch is a very durable, very well conditioned fighter who will outlast Groves down the stretch and give him nightmares as he slows down. Also Groves may now have played his aces and lost the element of surprise that stunned Froch last night. I’d love to see Groves turn him over, but if there was a rematch I’d bet on a similar (but hopefully more satisfying) outcome.

Shoot me down in flames at will…

I wont shoot you down mate that was spot on. Well put.

Fair summary of the fight.

However, I'm not sure people are saying that groves was robbed of certain victory. The word robbery is normally saved for Injudicious scorecards. People are saying he was robbed of the chance of victory. For me, froch needed a ko or a couple of knockdowns. Every chance that would have happened, but also every chance groves weathers the storm and regroups.

milkyboy wrote:Fair summary of the fight.

However, I'm not sure people are saying that groves was robbed of certain victory. The word robbery is normally saved for Injudicious scorecards. People are saying he was robbed of the chance of victory. For me, froch needed a ko or a couple of knockdowns. Every chance that would have happened, but also every chance groves weathers the storm and regroups.

very true Milky, but the difference for me was that Froch weathered the storm and never looked in trouble after the 1st. Yes he was punched very hard, but never went down again, never did he hold on or fall against the ropes (like he did Kessler in the 12th).

Groves started to get caught and just went to the ropes from the 7th onwards and covered up at times. He then got hit and stumbled, rocked, hit the ropes and was punched very hard three times in the face, the final left hook nearly lifted his head off (which may have prompted the ref to step in).

He was going down IMO, but he SHOULD have been allowed to take an 8 count, its a World Title Fight.

However, I do think that Froch was closing the gap, and had the knockdown occurred, Froch would have been 1 behind for me (I had him 3 down going into the 9th).

He was coming on VERY strong and Groves still had the 10th, 11th and 12th to go.

I PERSONALLY think that Froch would have stopped him or at least grabbed a few knockdowns in the last few rounds and won via an SD or via KO.

Groves would not have won that fight had the ref let it carry on, no way.

The problem is though that he wasn't given the chance too so you can't say whether he would have lost or whether Groves was just having a breather and then would have pummelled Froch for the remaining rounds.
It was a very poor stoppage whichever way you look at it, and has potentially stopped other big match-ups happening in the UK.

milkyboy wrote:Fair summary of the fight.

However, I'm not sure people are saying that groves was robbed of certain victory. The word robbery is normally saved for Injudicious scorecards. People are saying he was robbed of the chance of victory. For me, froch needed a ko or a couple of knockdowns. Every chance that would have happened, but also every chance groves weathers the storm and regroups.

This is exactly right, Groves was robbed of the chance to keep on fighting, which he deserved, but he wasn't robbed of victory as victory was far from guaranteed. But I've read some stuff where people have been saying Groves was nailed on to win and denied victory by a corrupt system.

Good summary. Having said that, I do feel George is the superior boxer and maybe didn't even need to take a knee in round 9? In a rematch, Groves is favourite for me.

Btw, your point scoring has gone slightly array in your post. Think you need to add 10-9 etc. from round 5 onwards. Also, you could argue a couple of those rounds were draws.

It's opinion mm8, you could well be right, or you could believe David haye, who gave a fairly balanced view as a friend of both fighters, and said that froch was coming on strong but that groves has great powers of recovery.

He was in worse trouble against Anderson and came back to stop him.

One thing we all know for certain is that stoppage was a disgrace.
On the other hand, whether Froch would have stopped Groves eventually is just speculation.

Had the roles been reversed, nobody would argue that Froch was on the brink of being knocked out. Therefore, Groves should also deserve the benefit of the doubt.

In hindsight it's easy to say Froch would have won but the ref should have let it happen. Who knows what actually would have happened, Groves could have landed another booming right or there may have been an headbutt.

milkyboy wrote:It's opinion mm8, you could well be right, or you could believe David haye, who gave a fairly balanced view as a friend of both fighters, and said that froch was coming on strong but that groves has great powers of recovery.

He was in worse trouble against Anderson and came back to stop him.

The thing is, Anderson caught him and groves attempted to hold on and ended up on the deck, took an 8 count, and then the round finished. He had a minute to compose, clear his head, he came back and stopped him in the next round.

Against Froch he NEVER tried to hold once on the ropes, he was punched harder, didn't take a knee, didn't really try and punch his way out of it or anything. He would have gone down within the next 10 seconds anyway.

When/if he got back up, he would have been jumped on again and still had a lot of the round to go against a hard puncher who was only getting stronger in Froch whilst Groves was clearly slowing and his punches were having less of an effect on Froch.

Its annoying because I would have liked Groves to have been counted and allowed to continue so we could have seen how he would have faired in Carls territory. After all, he did say that as soon as he lands flush, he would jump on him and finish him.

Groves tactics worked to perfection, very quick, sharp and powerful, but didn't have quite enough to either stop Froch or stay out of trouble (maybe a stamina issue??)...........soon as Froch started to get HIS tactics spot on (ie, come on strong when Groves gets lacklustre and tired), Groves seemed to wilt a bit and was in clear trouble.

In summary it SHOULD without doubt continued to see how George handled himself under fire against a seasoned pro in froch who had somehow walked through concrete power shots...........................I personally think Carl would have stopped him in devastating fashion similar to Bute.

Saying that, you never know, groves could have won the last 3 rounds and survived.

However, Froch WAS coming on the stronger of the two and was starting to land. I don't think Groves would have lasted, but even if he did, he would have lost the rounds 10-8, 10-9, 10-9, 10-9 id imagine with the pressure that Froch was applying and the Groves clearly couldn't take.

That would have took my scorecard to read a UD for Carl by 2 rounds.

Always hate to criticise a referee for a premature stoppage; I'm far more comfortable panning one for letting the action go on too long.

That said, I think it's reasonable to grant a fighter as much opportunity as compassion allows to attempt to box or spoil his way out of trouble. In this case, Foster probably didn't and it robbed the fight of a spellbinding natural conclusion one way or another (to those that claim to know for certain what would have transpired - you wouldn't be able to find me the winner of the Hennessy Gold Cup next Saturday, would you?).

To both fighters, great credit. Lost in the controversy of the fight's ending will be the further evidence that Froch is one of the toughest, most awkward, cussed and invincibly determined fighters that Britain has ever produced. He has plenty of flaws, but his equally manifold qualities compensate for them and have welded together one of the most successful fighters in UK history. As for Groves, it was so pleasing to see confirmation of my suspicion that he has the ring savvy, talent and character eventually to join Froch at the highest levels of the historical boxing mountain in this country. The boy/man who beat DeGale has matured into a fighter of the highest class and I would expect him to become a bona fide champion in due course.

However, let's try to be careful about bandying around words such as robbery. The ref made a mistake, we may agree. To me, at least, it was an honest and readily understandable one.

Agreed captain, I think the most important thing about last night is that both fighters gave us a tremendous fight. No question for me anymore that Groves is world level, and Froch's resolve is just unreal. Credit to them both.

Too bad it was marred by a ref who made a slightly over zealous call. To be fair I think judging a stoppage is the hardest part of the job, and I certainly wouldnt want to do it.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Always hate to criticise a referee for a premature stoppage; I'm far more comfortable panning one for letting the action go on too long.

That said, I think it's reasonable to grant a fighter as much opportunity as compassion allows to attempt to box or spoil his way out of trouble. In this case, Foster probably didn't and it robbed the fight of a spellbinding natural conclusion one way or another (to those that claim to know for certain what would have transpired - you wouldn't be able to find me the winner of the Hennessy Gold Cup next Saturday, would you?).

To both fighters, great credit. Lost in the controversy of the fight's ending will be the further evidence that Froch is one of the toughest, most awkward, cussed and invincibly determined fighters that Britain has ever produced. He has plenty of flaws, but his equally manifold qualities compensate for them and have welded together one of the most successful fighters in UK history. As for Groves, it was so pleasing to see confirmation of my suspicion that he has the ring savvy, talent and character eventually to join Froch at the highest levels of the historical boxing mountain in this country. The boy/man who beat DeGale has matured into a fighter of the highest class and I would expect him to become a bona fide champion in due course.

However, let's try to be careful about bandying around words such as robbery. The ref made a mistake, we may agree. To me, at least, it was an honest and readily understandable one.

Couldn't agree more with most of that. Great fight, great great fight actually. Will be putting some pennies away for tickets for the rematch, has to happen. Froch needs to forget about Ward and go with Groves... It'd sellout Wembley and do huge ppv numbers.

It would be nice to focus on what an awesome fight it was, one that I don't think any of us thought would produce such action and excitement.

And thanks god I didn't stay up to watch Pacquiao spar against a punching bag!

It wasn't just the poor stoppage Captain, I seen Howard Fosters officiating very one sided. Froch was warned 5 times, one of those times he nailed Groves with two very hard shots when Foster called break. No points deducted, so Froch continued who can blame him , then we have the stoppage he was looking for it .

I'll not stop at just Foster the judges to have Froch only one round behind is almost scandalous, the rounds were clear cut and not particularly hard to score.

Cheers Rodders

Foster was very poor but my issue was his lack of clear instruction, watching it I didn't know when he was calling break or not.

I'm not sure what fight some people watched. Froch got hammered before being gifted the stoppage by probably the biggest fix ever in top level British boxing. Does Groves even need to rematch Froch? everybody knows who really won that fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Foster was very poor but my issue was his lack of clear instruction, watching it I didn't know when he was calling break or not.

Agree with that, he was so muddled in sort of calling break then saying work out that Groves would sometimes switch off and get caught when he didn't realise they were still being allowed to fight.

But hey, same people probably never moaned when Hatton would rough guys up and get away with just warnings. Groves also had a few cheeky ones after the bell etc so let's not pretend it was all one way traffic and the ref didn't have words with them both at the same time etc

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:I'm not sure what fight some people watched. Froch got hammered before being gifted the stoppage by probably the biggest fix ever in top level British boxing. Does Groves even need to rematch Froch? everybody knows who really won that fight.

Clearly didn't watch the fight then as it wasn't a one sided beat down and Froch was starting to come on massively strong.

And there's a rough consensus that Froch had him in real trouble and the end was nigh.

Wait for it to come out on YouTube and then feel free to comment.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Always hate to criticise a referee for a premature stoppage; I'm far more comfortable panning one for letting the action go on too long.

That said, I think it's reasonable to grant a fighter as much opportunity as compassion allows to attempt to box or spoil his way out of trouble. In this case, Foster probably didn't and it robbed the fight of a spellbinding natural conclusion one way or another (to those that claim to know for certain what would have transpired - you wouldn't be able to find me the winner of the Hennessy Gold Cup next Saturday, would you?).

To both fighters, great credit. Lost in the controversy of the fight's ending will be the further evidence that Froch is one of the toughest, most awkward, cussed and invincibly determined fighters that Britain has ever produced. He has plenty of flaws, but his equally manifold qualities compensate for them and have welded together one of the most successful fighters in UK history. As for Groves, it was so pleasing to see confirmation of my suspicion that he has the ring savvy, talent and character eventually to join Froch at the highest levels of the historical boxing mountain in this country. The boy/man who beat DeGale has matured into a fighter of the highest class and I would expect him to become a bona fide champion in due course.

However, let's try to be careful about bandying around words such as robbery. The ref made a mistake, we may agree. To me, at least, it was an honest and readily understandable one.

Were the 76-75 score cards of two judges also a mistake?

To call what they were doing judging is, shall I say, a bit creative.  They were marking numbers on a scorecard alright.

In terms of predicting the winner next week will it be an easier pick  when the horses have travelled three-quarters of the distance?

I fully agree with you on Froch's fortitude and doggedness.  I feel, though, that he has been trading on this more and more in recent fights.  It could be seen that Froch got away with it to an extent last night.  He is coming to his end game.  A rematch with Groves or Kessler would be a good swan song. Ward looks out of the question to me.

There is no way you can say Groves really won that fight, you can say he wasn't given the chance to win but he didn't win either way.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, Mc. Things are rarely so clear-cut in the real world, I tend to find. One thing that I do find extraordinary is that Froch, no matter how much punishment he seems to take, appears to be at his best in the later rounds. I can't think of too many occasions, even against Ward (although Ward was so far ahead at that point that he was understandably coasting), that Froch hasn't been better than his opponents in the last two or three sessions of a fight.

That's why the stoppage was so frustrating for the spectator. Could Froch continue his rally and overpower another opponent late on? Would the younger man have been able to fiddle his way through the rest of the round and then do enough in the final nine minutes to keep a desperate Froch off him? Other decent fighters haven't managed that and it would have been fascinating to see the questions answered. It's much harder to recover from a bad round in the ninth than it is in the first, when the petrol tank is that much fuller.

I guess the answer to your question, though, Mc, is that we watched the same fight, but as always, through slightly different eyes. You don't go to hell for seeing things differently.

First let me say I got Groves completely wrong........What a great performance owning the center of the ring and for me winning 5 -3 at the time of the stoppage...77-74........

I apologise to the lad for doubting his bottle, excellent stuff and to lose so tragically my heart goes to him.........Disgraceful stoppage........and British referees shouldn't be refereeing British world title fights........Referees rely on Promoters for work and Froch is a ppv fighter!!!..

Referee ruined a great spectacle............

After the knockdown Froch's legs didn't really recover till the 4th round..Looked very ginger on them and I was imploring Groves to look for the finish in the 2nd when froch was still rubbery...Maybe he missed a chance........

I believe however Groves was hurt and tired and Froch was taking over the fight and likely to win the fight that round.........But the referee should have let it go because believing and actually happening are two different things.......Reminded me of Tyson-Ruddock where Steele helped out King's fighter again!!!..........

Well done to froch who showed championship heart again and had a probable ko victory ruined......

Whether the fight would have been so close had Groves not knocked him down early I don't know........Have a feeling we could be looking at a Louis-Conn 2.......Or Moore-Durelle 2......

Think the knockdown changed the fight hugely........Groves looked wide open coming in on an alarmingly regular basis.......and It looked a matter of time when Froch got his legs back when he would be caught!!

Then again Froch took a bit of a beating and will be 36 1/2 should they fight again so he may regress further.......

Credit to Groves he wasn't robbed..........After all It was going to be level on two cards after that round and Froch was coming on..... but he was robbed of a chance of hanging on and getting back into a fight...

By a referee who is either incompetent or worse...........Though he'll for sure get more work off Hearn now I'd expect.........

Groves lost the fight but won the war.........Something I didn't see happening...

Good luck to him........

Strongy, at three quarter distance, you'll probably be able to rule out two-thirds of the field in the Hennessy, which still leaves too many with chances! Even last night, you could say that there were still two in with a shot of winning right up to the point of the stoppage.

Think that Truss's card was spot on, by the way, which makes the one-point cards wrong, but not as wrong as others that I've seen. If the fight had continued and if you grant Froch a two-point round in the ninth, then a decision either way is well within the bounds of possibility. At that point, a Groves KO, however, was looking less likely; the thunderous shots with which he decked and shook Froch for the first six rounds seemed, to me at any rate, to have marginally less snap by the ninth. At any rate, they weren't stopping Froch in his tracks to the same extent.

I've never thought that a Ward rematch is a viable one for Froch, wherever it's fought, incidentally. I applaud him for seeking it, but the result seemed a foregone conclusion to me, even without last night for added evidence. A Groves rematch and then retirement would seem the best course of action for a man who is now reaching the end of what has been a superb career. Last night, we saw the passing of the torch, no matter the result. Groves is the future and he represents a wonderfully bright one.

Izzi wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:I'm not sure what fight some people watched. Froch got hammered before being gifted the stoppage by probably the biggest fix ever in top level British boxing. Does Groves even need to rematch Froch? everybody knows who really won that fight.

Clearly didn't watch the fight then as it wasn't a one sided beat down and Froch was starting to come on massively strong.

And there's a rough consensus that Froch had him in real trouble and the end was nigh.

Wait for it to come out on YouTube and then feel free to comment.

Oh... I saw the fight alright. I saw Carl Froch get smashed in that first round. I saw Froch's clumsy come forward attempts where he landed virtually nothing. I saw Groves winning almost every round going onto an inevitable comfortable points decision. I saw the ref robbing him and witnessed everybody in the pub and the MEN arena (or whatever it's now called) deriding the decision.

Like I said it was such a disgrace it doesn't even really need a rematch.

Can you imagine if they were both on Ringside next time, Froch really would start crying.

So you don't think Froch was coming back into the fight winning the 7th, 8th and on his way to winning the 9th, combined with scraping the 5th he was well in the fight.

I actually wouldn't mind Groves going the WBO route after that fight.......For the simple fact I like the Lad and would hate to see him drubbed in a rematch and not to fulfil his ambition.......

He is a class act who holds himself admirably........I was off my seat and getting nonplussed looks from my number 2 when he decked him and I was trying to finish Froch off for him........

Have a feeling that the knockdown may have flattered his success in the fight and we could see a Moore-Durelle 2.....

Then again I'd like a rematch.......Tough one.........

I agree Truss, I think the opening rounds of a rematch is a much more cagey affair and Froch comes on strong down the stretch again. He has a great engine and wont underestimate Groves early second time out.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Izzi wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:I'm not sure what fight some people watched. Froch got hammered before being gifted the stoppage by probably the biggest fix ever in top level British boxing. Does Groves even need to rematch Froch? everybody knows who really won that fight.

Clearly didn't watch the fight then as it wasn't a one sided beat down and Froch was starting to come on massively strong.

And there's a rough consensus that Froch had him in real trouble and the end was nigh.

Wait for it to come out on YouTube and then feel free to comment.

Oh... I saw the fight alright. I saw Carl Froch get smashed in that first round. I saw Froch's clumsy come forward attempts where he landed virtually nothing. I saw Groves winning almost every round going onto an inevitable comfortable points decision. I saw the ref robbing him and witnessed everybody in the pub and the MEN arena (or whatever it's now called) deriding the decision.

Like I said it was such a disgrace it doesn't even really need a rematch.

Can you imagine if they were both on Ringside next time, Froch really would start crying.

Hmmm, had a few? One card had Froch 5 behind, so make that 3 if he knocks Groves down or 4 of he somehow doesn't. The way the fight had swung you could see Froch winning the last 3 or putting Groves down again.

Then you take in to account there were close rounds and I had it 76-75, the likes of captain and Truss had it 77-74 - so one of the close rounds I gave to Froch like the judges did and a few others who we're commenting in between rounds on here last night.

Judging is subjective and there were close rounds no matter which way you look at it. Froch eventually started wading through Groves and without a crystal ball I'd still reckon would've stopped him.

Again, different eyes see different things. But groves most certainly didn't win every round, far from it

A rematch is an interesting one, I think both would be confident of victory, Froch has probably learned more about Groves than vice versa.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I actually wouldn't mind Groves going the WBO route after that fight.......For the simple fact I like the Lad and would hate to see him drubbed in a rematch and not to fulfil his ambition.......

He is a class act who holds himself admirably........I was off my seat and getting nonplussed looks from my number 2 when he decked him and I was trying to finish Froch off for him........

Have a feeling that the knockdown may have flattered his success in the fight and we could see a Moore-Durelle 2.....

Then again I'd like a rematch.......Tough one.........

Deserves a rematch so should get one though in my eyes. Can't see Froch being cute or cagey, just isn't in his make up, he will have an infinite amount more respect though and won't walk straight on to a big right hand cold first out next time. Can see the next fight being just as good though, and for me it must happen.

Right, time to get some lunch on the go

the ref was terrible the whole fight. froch should have been deducted several points for his dirty fighting. cant blame dirrell for being cowardly this time. groves fought well. froch showed he has his limitations. lucky hes been well matched most of his career

Well matched most of his career, you are clueless Lance, there isn't anybody he hasn't faced, the thing is Groves was hitting behind the head and on the break just as much as well as a headbutt.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So you don't think Froch was coming back into the fight winning the 7th, 8th and on his way to winning the 9th, combined with scraping the 5th he was well in the fight.

Don't think Froch won a single round clearly. He was 'coming back into the fight' in the sense that he wasn't getting beat up so much, but Groves was clearly competitive. How could the ref stop the fight in the 9th after Groves clearly still had his senses, yet not stop it when Froch was unconscious in that first round. Shocking decision by a ref who will rightly never ref another high-profile fight.

Captain, my view was Groves had expended too much energy and there only looked like one winner.

A two horse race should be easier to predict but I once saw Ted Walsh lose one by 40 lengths when he was the 7/1 on favourite at a small untelevised meeting. A bit like the judging and refereeing in this fight, these things can happen I suppose.  

Like Truss I was surprised by Groves, I didn't think he had that ability, he also showed he is a passionate guy during and after the fight which will endear him to people.

My card at the end of the 8th round was 78-73 which would have meant Froch needed knock downs or a stoppage.

Sorry, Lance, well matched? Froch can be accused of many things - he says the odd silly thing, he thinks defence is what you erect in de garden, he starts fights too slowly and so on. All fair comment.

To suggest, however, that Froch has somehow taken an easy route, has been fed a succession of worthless opponents or has not fought every possible name of merit in his division over the past six or seven years sells him ridiculously short. "Well matched" is what fighters such as Ricky Hatton were in their early championship careers, not what Froch has been at any stage of his stellar CV. You don't have to look far to spot the Froch faults, but you simply can't ignore the resolve with which he has overcome them.

I still make him number 11 in a list of all British fighters; boxing has never been just about pure talent, or we'd all be rating Kirkland Laing above Colin Jones.

WBO route would be good, but I think a rematch is in order. Would have lost in my eyes, but the ref jumped in too early and now we'll never know.

Looking at the scorecards he would have lost for sure.........Would have been behind at the conclusion of the 9th.........I had it 5-3...........

Unfortunately that's not the point.....

Referees and judges ruining fights seems to be way too commonplace these days..

I had it 77-74 truss so either 86-84 or 85-84 going into the 10th round, any result was still possible but a Groves KO was looking unlikely.

Good article, SBS, but as others have said I don't really think that anyone is saying that Groves was robbed of a certain victory, but he was still robbed all the same in the sense that he looked very well placed for the win, but the chance to cement it was unfairly taken from him.

I'm yet to see anyone actually agree that the stoppage, based on Groves' condition at that precise moment, was justified. And yet at the same time, some are trying to explain it away or sort of defend it on the basis of them thinking that Froch was about to turn it around. He may well have done, but then again that was only one possible scenario. I don't particularly think that Froch going on to flatten Groves in the coming moments was glaringly more likely than Groves finding his way through that troubled moment, clearing his head or catching a wild Froch in the middle of a big exchange, as he'd done several times before in the fight.

It may sound harsh, too, but any defence of Foster's officiating and the stoppage me made doesn't sit well with me. Fighters have been killed and brain damaged, he only has a split second to make the call, the pro-Froch crowd could have swung him etc. Sorry, but at this level I don't think it's asking too much for the referee to be able to do his job without so easily caving in to these urges. I think Groves was on the money in his post-fight interview where he said that the referee may well have been officiating that fight with preconceived ideas and opinions of both men. Fans, by all means, can have that kind of attitude, but a referee should do his job as if both men are alien to him, and with no room for compromise / concession to either. I'm not at all convinced that Foster did that last night.

The term 'robbed' isn't always clear cut, I agree, but the simple fact for me at least is that, if you look at the fight which unfolded last night (including the last ten-fifteen seconds, too) then Groves was the better fighter on the night, and yet has come out the loser. People might want to bombard me, saying that it doesn't matter what's gone before, whoever ultimately renders their opponent unable to continue is the better fighter on the night, even if they are behind, but let's be honest - Froch didn't do that.

At the end of the day, if Foster had waved it off in the opener after Froch rocked backwards once he'd jumped up from the knockdown, I suspect there'd be uproar from many on here who are now trying to argue that the controversy of the eventual stoppage is being overblown.

Froch was in a world of trouble and got handed a get out of jail card. Despite his very commendable and impressive efforts as the fight wore on, in no way do I think he was looking better placed for the win in the ninth round than Groves was, and while some are arguing that the fight was very close to being even before the stoppage, the way I saw it Froch was getting outclassed for the most part, and needed a clean sweep of the last four rounds to salvage anything from the fight.

No matter how many times I strip it down and rearrange it in my head, I end up thinking the same thing. Froch got lucky and Groves was the victim of a big injustice.

But it's what the two/three judges had........That matters.........No doubt If he'd escaped it's a 10-8 round.........and froch is a point ahead.........which was bollox..

I had it the same score as you Mate..........

88Chris05 wrote:Good article, SBS, but as others have said I don't really think that anyone is saying that Groves was robbed of a certain victory, but he was still robbed all the same in the sense that he looked very well placed for the win, but the chance to cement it was unfairly taken from him.

I'm yet to see anyone actually agree that the stoppage, based on Groves' condition at that precise moment, was justified. And yet at the same time, some are trying to explain it away or sort of defend it on the basis of them thinking that Froch was about to turn it around. He may well have done, but then again that was only one possible scenario. I don't particularly think that Froch going on to flatten Groves in the coming moments was glaringly more likely than Groves finding his way through that troubled moment, clearing his head or catching a wild Froch in the middle of a big exchange, as he'd done several times before in the fight.

It may sound harsh, too, but any defence of Foster's officiating and the stoppage me made doesn't sit well with me. Fighters have been killed and brain damaged, he only has a split second to make the call, the pro-Froch crowd could have swung him etc. Sorry, but at this level I don't think it's asking too much for the referee to be able to do his job without so easily caving in to these urges. I think Groves was on the money in his post-fight interview where he said that the referee may well have been officiating that fight with preconceived ideas and opinions of both men. Fans, by all means, can have that kind of attitude, but a referee should do his job as if both men are alien to him, and with no room for compromise / concession to either. I'm not at all convinced that Foster did that last night.

The term 'robbed' isn't always clear cut, I agree, but the simple fact for me at least is that, if you look at the fight which unfolded last night (including the last ten-fifteen seconds, too) then Groves was the better fighter on the night, and yet has come out the loser. People might want to bombard me, saying that it doesn't matter what's gone before, whoever ultimately renders their opponent unable to continue is the better fighter on the night, even if they are behind, but let's be honest - Froch didn't do that.

At the end of the day, if Foster had waved it off in the opener after Froch rocked backwards once he'd jumped up from the knockdown, I suspect there'd be uproar from many on here who are now trying to argue that the controversy of the eventual stoppage is being overblown.

Froch was in a world of trouble and got handed a get out of jail card. Despite his very commendable and impressive efforts as the fight wore on, in no way do I think he was looking better placed for the win in the ninth round than Groves was, and while some are arguing that the fight was very close to being even before the stoppage, the way I saw it Froch was getting outclassed for the most part, and needed a clean sweep of the last four rounds to salvage anything from the fight.

No matter how many times I strip it down and rearrange it in my head, I end up thinking the same thing. Froch got lucky and Groves was the victim of a big injustice.

Froch was rubbery in the second and I was imploring Groves to go for it more.........I could see his legs were still shot..

Good to see everybody got behind the kid after the fight.........He was fighting Froch and the crowd and did a wonderful job...Great effort......

Certainly has a fan in me now......Carries himself well in and out of the ring.......

88Chris05 wrote:Good article, SBS, but as others have said I don't really think that anyone is saying that Groves was robbed of a certain victory, but he was still robbed all the same in the sense that he looked very well placed for the win, but the chance to cement it was unfairly taken from him.

I'm yet to see anyone actually agree that the stoppage, based on Groves' condition at that precise moment, was justified. And yet at the same time, some are trying to explain it away or sort of defend it on the basis of them thinking that Froch was about to turn it around. He may well have done, but then again that was only one possible scenario. I don't particularly think that Froch going on to flatten Groves in the coming moments was glaringly more likely than Groves finding his way through that troubled moment, clearing his head or catching a wild Froch in the middle of a big exchange, as he'd done several times before in the fight.

It may sound harsh, too, but any defence of Foster's officiating and the stoppage me made doesn't sit well with me. Fighters have been killed and brain damaged, he only has a split second to make the call, the pro-Froch crowd could have swung him etc. Sorry, but at this level I don't think it's asking too much for the referee to be able to do his job without so easily caving in to these urges. I think Groves was on the money in his post-fight interview where he said that the referee may well have been officiating that fight with preconceived ideas and opinions of both men. Fans, by all means, can have that kind of attitude, but a referee should do his job as if both men are alien to him, and with no room for compromise / concession to either. I'm not at all convinced that Foster did that last night.

The term 'robbed' isn't always clear cut, I agree, but the simple fact for me at least is that, if you look at the fight which unfolded last night (including the last ten-fifteen seconds, too) then Groves was the better fighter on the night, and yet has come out the loser. People might want to bombard me, saying that it doesn't matter what's gone before, whoever ultimately renders their opponent unable to continue is the better fighter on the night, even if they are behind, but let's be honest - Froch didn't do that.

At the end of the day, if Foster had waved it off in the opener after Froch rocked backwards once he'd jumped up from the knockdown, I suspect there'd be uproar from many on here who are now trying to argue that the controversy of the eventual stoppage is being overblown.

Froch was in a world of trouble and got handed a get out of jail card. Despite his very commendable and impressive efforts as the fight wore on, in no way do I think he was looking better placed for the win in the ninth round than Groves was, and while some are arguing that the fight was very close to being even before the stoppage, the way I saw it Froch was getting outclassed for the most part, and needed a clean sweep of the last four rounds to salvage anything from the fight.

No matter how many times I strip it down and rearrange it in my head, I end up thinking the same thing. Froch got lucky and Groves was the victim of a big injustice.

 Preach brother preach.  

yup, Chris summed it up perfectly

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Looking at the scorecards he would have lost for sure.........Would have been behind at the conclusion of the 9th.........I had it 5-3...........

Unfortunately that's not the point.....

Referees and judges ruining fights seems to be way too commonplace these days..

Seems to have been happening more with UK fights in the last 10 years getting particularly bad in the last 3.  Started in Britain with Wazza and now Hearn is picking up the batton.  The German's wrote the blueprint.

I don't see any problem with a fight getting stopped quickly if the fight is a mismatch, particularly journeymen up against the learning rising stars. In a title fight with so much at stake it just isn't right to be stopping fights before the natural conclusion. A fighter in the biggest fight of his life would prefer to lose by KO after being given every chance as opposed to a cozy arm around the shoulder from the ref.

"natural conclusion"

Could say one more freeby left hook from Froch rendering Groves unconscious was the reason a ref doesn't let all fighters get their senses scrambled in a dangerous way when in trouble. That's why the likes of Castillo got stopped on their feet, the ref didn't want to see a "natural conclusion" as you rather animalistically allude to.

And I'm not comparing refs, am comparing refs who see something and make an instinctive call. Last nights wasn't right, but then if Froch had landed something big and hurt him we'd be crying blue murder. It's all ifs, buts and maybes and it's not a refs job to take a chance on that if he thinks the guy is in serious danger of getting hurt.

Froch was afforded a few things last night including being allowed to carry on when hurt. He also he Groves on the break quite a few times. Looked very much like the ref was on his side.

Izzi wrote: "natural conclusion"

Could say one more freeby left hook from Froch rendering Groves unconscious was the reason a ref doesn't let all fighters get their senses scrambled in a dangerous way when in trouble. That's why the likes of Castillo got stopped on their feet, the ref didn't want to see a "natural conclusion" as you rather animalistically allude to.

And I'm not comparing refs, am comparing refs who see something and make an instinctive call. Last nights wasn't right, but then if Froch had landed something big and hurt him we'd be crying blue murder. It's all ifs, buts and maybes and it's not a refs job to take a chance on that if he thinks the guy is in serious danger of getting hurt.

Castillo was out on his feet. Groves was not. Boxing is dangerous, referees need to understand this.

Izzi wrote: "natural conclusion"

Could say one more freeby left hook from Froch rendering Groves unconscious was the reason a ref doesn't let all fighters get their senses scrambled in a dangerous way when in trouble. That's why the likes of Castillo got stopped on their feet, the ref didn't want to see a "natural conclusion" as you rather animalistically allude to.

And I'm not comparing refs, am comparing refs who see something and make an instinctive call. Last nights wasn't right, but then if Froch had landed something big and hurt him we'd be crying blue murder. It's all ifs, buts and maybes and it's not a refs job to take a chance on that if he thinks the guy is in serious danger of getting hurt.

Natural conclusion is one fighter being "unable to continue". That is what the ring announcer says at the end of the fight when giving the result. Was George a Groves "unable to continue"? Clearly Groves was able to continue as he was still throwing punches.

Boxing isn't a tickling contest as Hatton said. Carl Froch took more brain trauma in that fight than Groves. At the end of the fight Froch said he could not remember being knocked down, is it barbaric he was allowed to continue fighting in this state?

If Groves in no longer defending himself intelligently the ref must stop the fight. Groves was still bobbing and weaving and throwing punches.

It was the worst stoppage in a world title fight I have ever seen. It's that clear cut to me. That ref will be on every Matchroom card for the next 20 years.

Good thread.  Mainly everyone agrees - the minor disagreement is whether someone is "justifying" or trying to "explain" the referees decision.  There is also a disagreement as to what would have been the likely outcome if the referee had allowed Groves to continue.  

It was a great fight and hopefully there will be a Froch v Groves II.  On reflection it seems to me that fight is a bit of a non-brainer - it's the biggest fight (in terms of interest) that Froch could get at the moment.  If he won that convincingly it could be a good point to retire.

ps There are probably not that many fights left in the tank for Froch (he has basically fought everyone), and the quicker he gets a rematch with Groves the better, as Groves is only likely to get better as a boxer (including being more ring smart). In this match it was the element of surprise that really rocked Froch - so he will know what to expect next time round - but he can't leave it too long.