i just don't think there was anything remotely outrageous about (contains Saturday night spoilers!)...

...the decision to stop Groves last night.

I say that as someone who's been watching boxing for twenty years, is a big fan of both fighters, and who was obviously disappointed we didn't get to see another three rounds of what for me was one of the very best British fights.

Groves was fantastic, he beat Froch up, won six of the eight completed rounds and proved himself at home as a world-level contender, but he was taking some huge punches there, one concussive left especially where his eyes rolled back, and was protected for his own good. There was no way he'd have got through the round.

People need to differentiate between what was the better outcome for them sat at home in their armchair with a few beers, and what was the right decision. As crude and disappointing as Froch was on the night, one more big punch there and Groves would've been not only on the floor but could've been seriously hurt.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that people just like being offended, don't they? It's why they pick up the Sunday papers, it's why they watch sport, etc, etc.

Change the title of this, some people may not have seen the fight yet!!!!!!

Could've , would've, should've, ifs and buts irrelevant.

A horrendous stoppage, every bit as bad as Mckenzie on Enzo last year , referee should be demoted for a while.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:Could've , would've, should've, ifs and buts irrelevant.

Obviously that's a nonsensical thing to say if we're talking about fights being stopped to protect fighters. Absolutely everything has to be based on possibilities, that's the whole idea, ffs, preventing stuff that hasn't already happened.

You'd have stopped froch in the first then monzon?

milkyboy wrote:You'd have stopped froch in the first then monzon?

I'm not of the opinion that he was seriously hurt, no. At one point his legs went, but Groves had already backed off. He was also knocked down but seemed to quickly regain his composure. When Groves takes Froch's big left shortly before the stoppage, he's out on his feet. The fight absolutely would not have gone on for another thirty seconds, max.

Mystic meg has some serious competition on this board.

His legs went when he rose after the knockdown. Would have been a very premature stoppage, but a better one than the farcical one we got. Complete conjecture that groves would only have lasted another 30 seconds. If you've been watching boxing for 20 years, you've seen guys recover from far worse.

That's the BIG difference here from a refs point of view.

Carl got clocked WIDE open in the first, hit the deck, got back up, jabbed out the rest of the round and looked composed. EVERY shot he got hit with after never once had him holding on or stumbled or against the ropes. Not once.

The moment Groves got caught late on in the 7th, then the 8th he started to waver, held on a bit, retreated to the ropes.

He managed to move out of that position in the first 4 rounds, so when not in the 7th 8th and 9th?

He got caught with a left hook, was holding on, fell against the ropes, was punched flush and hard 3 TIMES, all of which made his legs dip and head roll back.

Never happened when he hit Froch. Not once.

milkyboy wrote:If you've been watching boxing for 20 years, you've seen guys recover from far worse.

I think a true boxing fan would've seen enough bad things come off referees NOT stepping in to stop fights to care a bit for the welfare of fighters.

It's at the point that Froch lands the vicious left hook the his dips and his eyes go in to lala land that I think the ref made the call on. Groves did also stumble badly back in to the ropes after the stoppage, to suggest he was compus mentus isn't exactly true. We will never know if it was truly a bad stoppage, give Froch one more free shot and Groves could end up face down unconscious and is hurt... We then all cry about how he was being caught with big shots and it should've been stopped.

It's somewhat annoying that one of the best fights on these shores is being talked about not for the greatness of the action but rather a supposedly dodgy ref.

milkyboy wrote:His legs went when he rose after the knockdown. Would have been a very premature stoppage, but a better one than the farcical one we got. Complete conjecture that groves would only have lasted another 30 seconds. If you've been watching boxing for 20 years, you've seen guys recover from far worse.

Took a stumble back, but got the full 8 at which point he looked ok. Big difference is that Groves had to be protected as he was taking big big shots with he senses scrambled heavily..., at least that's what the ref thought.

If you watch the reply when George looks hurt he lands 2 punches before the ref pulls him off!!!! He's still throwing back. The ref had made his mind up when Groves was on the ropes about 30 seconds before that. Froch was wobbled plenty of times in the beginning and was allowed to regroup, yet once Groves gets tagged he has to be saved.

It was all down to their reputations and Foster obviously is of the mindset that Groves is chinny. Watch a fight that Kenny Bayliss refs, he would wait until the second the other fighter stops throwing before jumping in....GROVES WAS STILL THROWING!!!haha. Really was ridiculous and leaves Matchroom with yet another bogus champion . Froch and Ricky Burns should become a tag team

monzon wrote:

milkyboy wrote:If you've been watching boxing for 20 years, you've seen guys recover from far worse.

I think a true boxing fan would've seen enough bad things come off referees NOT stepping in to stop fights to care a bit for the welfare of fighters.

Ouch. You really got me there. Good job. You're a true boxing fan and a compassionate human being, and I'm not.

So Izzi you must feel Gatti should have been stopped in nearly every fight he was in.

And for the people crying fighters getting hurt...ITS BOXING NOT BALLERINA. if Groves dropped his arms and been defenseless then fair enough but grabbing him in a head lock after he has thrown 2 punches is a disgrace .

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:So Izzi you must feel Gatti should have been stopped in nearly every fight he was in.

Cappuccino had no right to let him keep going against Ward, for instance. Any he was stopped fairly by FMJ so your point is....?

Watch the 12th round of second Kessler fight and tell me the stoppage was correct. Froch hurts him as him stumbling, lands a couple, the ref has a look thinks about stepping in but doesn't and rightfully so.

Izzi wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:So Izzi you must feel Gatti should have been stopped in nearly every fight he was in.

Cappuccino had no right to let him keep going against Ward, for instance. Any he was stopped fairly by FMJ so your point is....?

Mcgirt pulled him out, there would have be an uproar if Frank stopped that fight, he was vindicated when Gatti came back like a mad man.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Watch the 12th round of second Kessler fight and tell me the stoppage was correct. Froch hurts him as him stumbling, lands a couple, the ref has a look thinks about stepping in but doesn't and rightfully so.

Say it time and again, but they have to make split second decisions. Facts were:

Groves had lost control of his balance and legs
Was swinging wildly back but lacked any coordination
Was getting nailed flush and was slumping down
Almost fell over after stopped

The ref based on the above made a snap decision in the interests of Groves. If he lets him go on and Groves gets hurt we all cry blue murder for him not stopping it. He goes on to recover and hold on for the win it doesn't get mentioned. The refs job is to protect the fighter when he is what he views trouble in getting hurt - we weren't feet away like he was. He saw something that led him to making that decision, that is sport and more so boxing and would much prefer to remember this fight as one of the greats I've seen on these shores.

As far as I'm concerned Groves was still protecting himself and fighting back landing shots. There is no defence of the stoppage.

I've been watching Boxing for over twenty........and like rodders who has too..........

It stunk of keeping a prized PPV asset.......

milkyboy wrote:You'd have stopped froch in the first then monzon?

why?, he had a count, got to his feet put his hands up and was not being hit by a barage of shots preventing him from recovering, I cant work out how people are saying the knock down in the first was the same as the stoppage. Groves SHOULD have taken a knee and that would have given him a chance to recover more and for the reff to let him have 10 seconds out..

Didn't have chance to take a knee.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've been watching Boxing for over twenty........and like rodders who has too..........

It stunk of keeping a prized PPV asset.......

This is a view I don't quite understand, Froch has very few fights left if any whereas Groves is young and clearly a world class operator, if i'm Hearn I want Groves winning that fight not Froch. Groves gets the win and he takes the mantle from Froch as the country's number one and has years of earning potential ahead of him.

Groves wouldn't be PPv had he beat Froch.......

I love the kid but he lacks star quality..........Froch has been at the top years..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't have chance to take a knee.........

How many fighters voluntarily take a knee anyway?

Look at Arguello against Pryor, if he'd have taken a knee the fight could have panned out differently but just like Groves his fighting heart made him stay up trying to fight back.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't have chance to take a knee.........

Yes he did, but he puched carl back and turned his back and tried to move away instead...

The kid was in trouble.........If he hits the deck or is "Out of it" do something........

But he was winning that fight and deserved a chance..........

No way would Froch have been stopped If roles were reversed..........

The guy is just incompetent or worse.........

tunes666 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't have chance to take a knee.........

Yes he did, but he puched carl back and turned his back and tried to move away instead...  

Bollox he's on the ropes and fighting back.......He takes a knee it costs two points the 9th....... in a close fight...

Be quiet..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't have chance to take a knee.........

How many fighters voluntarily take a knee anyway?

Look at Arguello against Pryor, if he'd have taken a knee the fight could have panned out differently but just like Groves his fighting heart made him stay up trying to fight back.

Yes because Groves was too busy trying to survive. Taking a knee would have actually been a very mature tactical thing to do and just showed a little lack of experience all be it loads of heart..  When Groves is hurt he fights back but he was swinging into air and Froch was picking him off...  why would have have stopped picking him off if the reff was not there?

In the heat of battle how fighters take a knee?

I can think of Cotto against Margarito but last night I doubt Groves thought himself he was in serious trouble of getting stopped.

that being said I think if the Reff was not there Groves would have gone down and that is maybe where the reff made the mistake, he should have let him go down and take 10 seconds.. When the reff did step in through, Groves looked a heap and this maybe influenced the reffs decision... If the reff was not going to stop the fight then he should not have been there anyway as they were not holding and Froch was lining up his shots.

nothing at all like the first round knock down though, not sure how people can say that, Groves was simply not going in for the stoppage, maybe he should have, But think he was also weary of getting caught.

Fighters don't take knees they fight back.........

Only a muppet can agree with the stoppage...Can't stop a fight on what might happen!!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In the heat of battle how fighters take a knee?

I can think of Cotto against Margarito but last night I doubt Groves thought himself he was in serious trouble of getting stopped.

He seemed quite happy to fall into the reff with his back turned to Froch.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fighters don't take knees they fight back.........

Only a muppet can agree with the stoppage...Can't stop a fight on what might happen!!

its not a case of agreeing with the stoppage, its a case of understating how it happened and assessing the situation.

You have to be a muppet to not see that Groves was in serious trouble.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't have chance to take a knee.........

Yes he did, but he puched carl back and turned his back and tried to move away instead...  

Bollox he's on the ropes and fighting back.......He takes a knee it costs two points the 9th....... in a close fight...

Be quiet..

exactly.

Groves was throwing punches back and still had his guard up high, why would he take a knee when he is defending himself and fighting back.

tunes666 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In the heat of battle how fighters take a knee?

I can think of Cotto against Margarito but last night I doubt Groves thought himself he was in serious trouble of getting stopped.

He seemed quite happy to fall into the reff with his back turned to Froch.

The ref grabbed him from behind in a headlock.

watch the whole fight. then tell me the ref wasn't protecting froch. how many times did froch hit on the break, seconds after they were told to stop punching, headlocks, forearms and even a knee at one point. ref only broke things up when groves was on top. how did froch not lose a point? he was a cheat the entire fight. the ref knew who hearn wanted him to protect, he did his job well

Exactly Lance........When he cracked him three times in the face after he shouted break.......Should have been a point..

Looked like he was protecting an investment.......

Groves needs to veto this chump...If it happens again..

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In the heat of battle how fighters take a knee?

I can think of Cotto against Margarito but last night I doubt Groves thought himself he was in serious trouble of getting stopped.

He seemed quite happy to fall into the reff with his back turned to Froch.

The ref grabbed him from behind in a headlock.

no he didnt, he pushed froch away and slumped forward away from froch towards the reff who then grabbed him and Groves fell forward which the free grabbed him... the reff should have left him for a bit admittedly.

It was a shambles. Never a stoppage and those who think it is are clearly stupid.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Exactly Lance........When he cracked him three times in the face after he shouted break.......Should have been a point..

Looked like he was protecting an investment.......

Groves needs to veto this chump...If it happens again..

and of course when Groves hit him in the back of the head that was all fine.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It was a shambles. Never a stoppage and those who think it is are clearly stupid.

I think those who think Groves would have made it through the round are stupid. Besides it being an early stoppage.

You can see into the future then can you Tunes?

Larry Holmes wouldn't have been top 10 heavy material If Tunes had been around in the 80s......reffing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You can see into the future then can you Tunes?

No But many here can it seems...

It's opinion based, I think Froch would have carried on his onslaught but have no idea how Groves would have reacted to it, he was hurt but how hurt we don't know.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Larry Holmes wouldn't have been top 10 heavy material If Tunes had been around in the 80s......reffing.

pointless comment as I have not disputed the stoppage was too soon.  I am clearly saying that I think the stoppage would have still happened had he waited, and that people are underplaying the position Groves was in.

how many more clean shots to the head in a row would you have been happy with before he stepped in? Groves was trying to defend him self but he was still getting planted with shots... and Froch was still rearing to throw more... I could not see a way out personally.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's opinion based, I think Froch would have carried on his onslaught but have no idea how Groves would have reacted to it, he was hurt but how hurt we don't know.

and the kid deserved the chance to find out..