Groves: Audley-type delusion?

First topic message reminder :

"I totally dominated the first fight and I felt like I was in control of the second fight. That's down to people's opinions and interpretations, but no one thought I was on the verge of getting stopped.

"It's just one of those punches. It's a shame it happened now - I've spent my whole career where this could've happened and hasn't, and it's happened to me at the worst possible time."

Sounds to me like he is trying to spin this as some kind of lucky punch. In control of the fight? It was even at best. Truth is that Froch boxed a smart fight this time around, and improved from their first encounter. Groves needs to acknowledge that before he moves on.

Thoughts?

SugarRayBray wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It wasn't lucky but it was unexpected, why are you struggling to grasp that concept?

So it was unexpected, does that invalidate it? Does that mean Froch isn't the better man (which he is)?

That isn't the point in question, it's Groves perception which we're talking about which is in no way deluded.

You made a statement to me, and I responded.

It is deluded. He has been stopped twice and is still arguing the case for why he should have won. I'll Grant you he was unlucky to be stopped in the first encounter, but we will never know how that one would have turned out. Would you (George) be more convinced if Froch won on points? Or would there still be a whinge, like you were robbed on the cards?

I'm not sure what more could be done than sparking someone.

Is anybody saying froch wasn't the better man on the night and deserved it? It was a close fight, it looked like the flow had turned against him a bit and he answered that in emphatic style.

The stoppage in the first fight sucked, and in most people's eyes he was holding his own give or take in the second. What do expect the guy to say... And more to the point if you start a thread asking for people's opinions when you're comparing groves to audley, don't get too indignant if you get replies that don't quite agree with your assertion.

milkyboy wrote:Is anybody saying froch wasn't the better man on the night and deserved it? It was a close fight, it looked like the flow had turned against him a bit and he answered that in emphatic style.

The stoppage in the first fight sucked, and in most people's eyes he was holding his own give or take in the second. What do expect the guy to say... And more to the point if you start a thread asking for people's opinions when you're comparing groves to audley, don't get too indignant if you get replies that don't quite agree with your assertion.

So the form is to start a thread and then never reply to any of the posts? Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

The Audley reference was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I stand by my assertion that Groves/Harrier is sounding a bit deluded here and there.

No, the form for most people is to stand your ground and argue your point, but maybe be less dismissive of opposing views. But hey that's not the case for all threads... So fill your boots.

Hammer the groves fan. Poacher turned gamekeeper 

I like Groves, he's a real fighter. Would need to lose via Kayo, TKO, RTD, TD, UD, and SD to the same fighter for him to believe he couldn't have won.

That said, he isn't really to deluded here. Dodgy stoppage in a fight he was winning, and a career punch in a fight which was very close. Would be interesting to see a third fight, as I think he's pretty close to Carl's level. This is boxing, not tennis though, so I think the business is finished. War Froch, and all that.

tunes666 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I'm with catchweight on this, personally I had groves slightly ahead, but looking in the ascendency at the time, so I can see his point entirely.

However, there's no doubt he's part convincing himself... That's what fighters do. If he allows himself to believe he's just not quite good enough, where does that leave his confidence going forward. I think most fighters have a slightly delusional element to them. Carl froch thinks he's an international superstar... And is on record as saying some fighters are just tough and others are super talented like him.

Froch haters really do try their best. How can you say he has claimed he is an international super star when in his latest press conference when someone called him as such, he corrected them while laughing saying"national Star" but not so sure about "international star" ... Seems it does not really matter what he says..

Err it was Froch who referred to himself as an international superstar (on more than one occasion). When Groves pulled him up on it he was clearly a bit embarrassed and has tried to play it down as tongue in cheek ever since.

I felt the fight was very even at the time of the KO, but to me Groves was hitting & moving better in the 7th & 8th and Froch was starting to look a bit untidy, but then Groves got sloppy and gave Froch a free shot at his chin.

Agree with all of that raf.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I'm with catchweight on this, personally I had groves slightly ahead, but looking in the ascendency at the time, so I can see his point entirely.

However, there's no doubt he's part convincing himself... That's what fighters do. If he allows himself to believe he's just not quite good enough, where does that leave his confidence going forward. I think most fighters have a slightly delusional element to them. Carl froch thinks he's an international superstar... And is on record as saying some fighters are just tough and others are super talented like him.

Froch haters really do try their best. How can you say he has claimed he is an international super star when in his latest press conference when someone called him as such, he corrected them while laughing saying"national Star" but not so sure about "international star" ... Seems it does not really matter what he says..

Err it was Froch who referred to himself as an international superstar (on more than one occasion). When Groves pulled him up on it he was clearly a bit embarrassed and has tried to play it down as tongue in cheek ever since.

I felt the fight was very even at the time of the KO, but to me Groves was hitting & moving better in the 7th & 8th and Froch was starting to look a bit untidy, but then Groves got sloppy and gave Froch a free shot at his chin.

So in other words, Froch didn't win, Groves gave it away? Sigh.

And to answer the original question I don't think Groves is deluded at all. He was the dominant fighter in the first time round and unfairly stopped. He lost fair & square second time round but in fairness he was controlling the last 2 rounds before Froch out of the blue hit him with what Froch himself describes as the best punch he's ever thrown.

I think Groves can take a lot of heart from both performances, and also learn as well. He clearly learned from the first fight that he needed to pace himself against Froch and was doing that well; just because he wasn't giving Froch a shellacking like the first fight Jim Watt decided he wasn't performing at all and got hysterical about how amazing Froch was doing just because he wasn't getting beat up this time.

SugarRayBray wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I'm with catchweight on this, personally I had groves slightly ahead, but looking in the ascendency at the time, so I can see his point entirely.

However, there's no doubt he's part convincing himself... That's what fighters do. If he allows himself to believe he's just not quite good enough, where does that leave his confidence going forward. I think most fighters have a slightly delusional element to them. Carl froch thinks he's an international superstar... And is on record as saying some fighters are just tough and others are super talented like him.

Froch haters really do try their best. How can you say he has claimed he is an international super star when in his latest press conference when someone called him as such, he corrected them while laughing saying"national Star" but not so sure about "international star" ... Seems it does not really matter what he says..

Err it was Froch who referred to himself as an international superstar (on more than one occasion). When Groves pulled him up on it he was clearly a bit embarrassed and has tried to play it down as tongue in cheek ever since.

I felt the fight was very even at the time of the KO, but to me Groves was hitting & moving better in the 7th & 8th and Froch was starting to look a bit untidy, but then Groves got sloppy and gave Froch a free shot at his chin.

So in other words, Froch didn't win, Groves gave it away? Sigh.

No mate, Froch knocked him spark out - stop looking for an argument that isn't there. But anyone who watches it must see there was an element of sloppiness from Groves in having his left so low with his back against the ropes. That punch travelled a long way before it hit his chin. Groves didn't give it away as such, but he certainly left an opening that Froch exploited mercilessly.

Sugar Ray, you're coming across like you've got a right chip on your shoulder here I must say mate. What's with all the attitude and stuffing words in people's mouths when they disagree with you?

Nobody is saying that Froch wasn't the better man or the deserving winner last night, least of all Groves. Like most of us (even those who thought Froch was going to win by stoppage) I suspect Groves had never really conjured the thought of being taken out of there with one single shot. I don't think he's writing it off as pure bad luck on his part and good luck on Carl's - just alluding to how surprising it was more than anything else. On a personal note, of course he's going to lament the fact that it happened now of all times, when it's not usually been a quality associated with Froch.

He did dominate the first fight before the stoppage. As for the second, you'll not he downgraded that to "I felt like I was in control of the second fight. That's down to people's opinions and interpretations, but no one thought I was on the verge of getting stopped." Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but you're acting as if he claimed he was clowning Froch before the knockout blow last night. As long as they had it 4-3 in rounds (don't think it could be wider to either man, but that's just me) I think anyone's scoring of the fight would be 'right' so to speak, but Groves was well in it and had certainly been on top for the five minutes of action which went before the knockout. Claiming that he was in control at that point in his opinion (key word at the end there) is perfectly reasonable and valid.

I can't really see anything delusional in what he's said, nevermind being on Audley's level.

First, I don't think I have an "attitude", or a chip, I'm just degending myself and my points. Second, I just find some of these arguments pointless and futile. Third, if Groves really had discounted the possibility of getting knocked out, then more fool him. Particularly as Froch is heavy-handed. I have already pointed out that the Audley reference was a bit naughty and tongue-in-cheek. I just don't think he considers Froch to be the better man - and perhaps he should.

Felt really sorry for Groves, its always awful when you just get cleaned out with one shot. Froch was doing a much better job of avoiding the right hand at times and seemed to be more switched on.

I thought Groves did pretty well, it was clear the plan was to turn it on in the later rounds, but Froch just caught him with a peach. Its even worse that the punch that finished him was as he was throwing the left hook, seems that plan was his undoing. Groves will come again, there aren't many fighters that can take shots like Froch.

I've alway's been a Froch fan,and the fight was close,nothing at all in the rounds nobody dominated,one thing I never do is gloat,Groves is a good fighter and at only 26 I hope he comes back an even more determined better fighter than he already is and becomes a world champion.

What I was happy with was the kid was able to get to his feet and recover in the corner,and do the after fight interview.

Froch said after the fight there was nothing in it,George left himself wide open and world champions look for that opportunity and take it when it comes.
Groves will learn from it I'm sure of that, and work on his defence.

Absolutely, I agree with that. But he won't learn unless he accepts that being knocked out isn't in any way unlucky.

One thing that we have to say and Froch does it time and time again, he was starting to get put under some real pressure and he finished the job. That is what true champions do, I thought his post fight interview was excellent as well.

Love to see him bash up JCC Jr or fight Golovkin.

SugarRayBray wrote:Absolutely, I agree with that. But he won't learn unless he accepts that being knocked out isn't in any way unlucky.

Yep he has to accept it,Froch didn't throw an hit and hope desperation punch he threw a perfectly timed punch.

I actually thought both of them handled the post fight interviews pretty well. Froch offered credit to groves, there was no gloating. Groves was perhaps less magnanimous, but he was battling the disappointment, so entirely understandable.

From a personal point of view it was a Shame it ended when it did because it was just boiling up nicely, but it was a great finish. The only real disappointment of the night was the sky commentary.

See, I don't think that a fighter saying they made a mistake is tantamount to them saying that their opponent had a slice of luck or that their opponent had the rub of the green.

Groves did make a mistake, after all. There's no such thing as absolute perfection throughout a fight, though some outstanding fighters can get seriously close to it. Every fighter makes mistakes, no matter how infrequent or small they are, every time they step in the ring. That doesn't mean that when / if their opponent exploits a weakness that the vanquished has been unlucky or the victor fortuitous, though, and I don't think Groves is suggesting that with his comments, personally.

Groves made a mistake, but nobody is saying that this equates to him losing it rather than Froch winning it. Froch won it for precisely that reason - because he was brilliant enough to take advantage of the mistake. The same way Groves took advantage of Froch's mistakes last time.

Groves hasn't used the word luck, unlucky, unfortunate etc in giving his version of events. Sure, he said it's a "shame" that it happened now, but of course he's going to lament what's happened for the reasons I gave above. It seems that for some, mentioning the fact he made a mistake automatically equates to him taking credit away from Carl or suggesting that the only reason he lost was plain old fashioned bad luck, but I don't think they go hand in hand really. You can meet in the middle.

milkyboy wrote:No, the form for most people is to stand your ground and argue your point, but maybe be less dismissive of opposing views. But hey that's not the case for all threads... So fill your boots.

Hammer the groves fan. Poacher turned gamekeeper 

He's lost the plot with that one, im the guy who had him a round away from drawing with Ward.

SugarRayBray wrote:I don't know why everyone is obsessing over what happened prior to the knockout, it really doesn't matter.

Yeah it does, it's what the whole (poor) thread is based on.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:No, the form for most people is to stand your ground and argue your point, but maybe be less dismissive of opposing views. But hey that's not the case for all threads... So fill your boots.

Hammer the groves fan. Poacher turned gamekeeper 

He's lost the plot with that one, im the guy who had him a round away from drawing with Ward.

... And at least four rounds up against Taylor

SugarRayBray wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It wasn't lucky but it was unexpected, why are you struggling to grasp that concept?

So it was unexpected, does that invalidate it? Does that mean Froch isn't the better man (which he is)?

Who said it invalidates it? Was in control means before the punch, he's not arguing for the result to be overturned.

milkyboy wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:No, the form for most people is to stand your ground and argue your point, but maybe be less dismissive of opposing views. But hey that's not the case for all threads... So fill your boots.

Hammer the groves fan. Poacher turned gamekeeper 

He's lost the plot with that one, im the guy who had him a round away from drawing with Ward.

... And at least four rounds up against Taylor

Taylor didn't win a round in that fight Milky do be serious, the knockdown was a mere slip caused by Taylors corner not wiping the corner properly, almost robbed I tell ya.

Scottrf wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:I don't know why everyone is obsessing over what happened prior to the knockout, it really doesn't matter.

Yeah it does, it's what the whole (poor) thread is based on.

The thread is based on Groves' post-fight comments, not all of which I listed. If it is such a poor thread, you are quite welcome to leave.

Scottrf wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It wasn't lucky but it was unexpected, why are you struggling to grasp that concept?

So it was unexpected, does that invalidate it? Does that mean Froch isn't the better man (which he is)?

Who said it invalidates it? Was in control means before the punch, he's not arguing for the result to be overturned.

The fact it was unexpected is a moot point.

His post fight comments are based on how the fight was going before the punch. He got caught, it happens, but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. Thus the fact it was unexpected isn't moot.

None of this means he thought he didn't deserve to lose, but a low percentage punch was the difference.

Scottrf wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It wasn't lucky but it was unexpected, why are you struggling to grasp that concept?

So it was unexpected, does that invalidate it? Does that mean Froch isn't the better man (which he is)?

Who said it invalidates it? Was in control means before the punch, he's not arguing for the result to be overturned.

... Interesting concept. 'Dear Ibf, carl hit me when I wasn't expecting it, i demand a rematch, love George'

Maybe boxing should introduce the brilliant golfing concept of the 'mulligan'. Instead of getting a free shot when you hook your drive into the trees, you'd have George lying on his back mouthing mulligan,

.... or perhaps, the corner could pull out an 'it's a knockout' style joker card, When their guy gets sparked, and he gets an ice bucket chucked over him and the knockdown scratched off.

Just brainstorming a few ideas to liven up the sport, don't get on my case about it.

Scottrf wrote:His post fight comments are based on how the fight was going before the punch. He got caught, it happens, but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. Thus the fact it was unexpected isn't moot.

None of this means he thought he didn't deserve to lose, but a low percentage punch was the difference.

I'm sorry, but to me all this smacks of 'I'd have won, had I not lost'.

milkyboy wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It wasn't lucky but it was unexpected, why are you struggling to grasp that concept?

So it was unexpected, does that invalidate it? Does that mean Froch isn't the better man (which he is)?

Who said it invalidates it? Was in control means before the punch, he's not arguing for the result to be overturned.

... Interesting concept. 'Dear Ibf, carl hit me when I wasn't expecting it, i demand a rematch, love George'

Maybe boxing should introduce the brilliant golfing concept of the 'mulligan'. Instead of getting a free shot when you hook your drive into the trees, you'd have George lying on his back mouthing mulligan,

.... or perhaps, the corner could pull out an 'it's a knockout' style joker card, When their guy gets sparked, and he gets an ice bucket chucked over him and the knockdown scratched off.

Just brainstorming a few ideas to liven up the sport, don't get on my case about it.

Ha-ha Love it.

SugarRayBray wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His post fight comments are based on how the fight was going before the punch. He got caught, it happens, but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. Thus the fact it was unexpected isn't moot.

None of this means he thought he didn't deserve to lose, but a low percentage punch was the difference.

I'm sorry, but to me all this smacks of 'I'd have won, had I not lost'.

Yeah, your comprehension skills aren't great. I'll leave this troll thread as advised.

You're arguing for the sake of it, time to quit while you're miles behind.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're arguing for the sake of it, time to quit while you're miles behind.

For the sake of it just because we have a difference of opinion?

Bully boys are out I see.

Scottrf wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His post fight comments are based on how the fight was going before the punch. He got caught, it happens, but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. Thus the fact it was unexpected isn't moot.

None of this means he thought he didn't deserve to lose, but a low percentage punch was the difference.

I'm sorry, but to me all this smacks of 'I'd have won, had I not lost'.

Yeah, your comprehension skills aren't great. I'll leave this troll thread as advised.

My comprehensions skills are fine, thank you very much. If disagreeing equals trolling on here, then I am not alone.

You boys shouldnt play so rough...somebody is gonna end up crying  

Steffan wrote:You boys shouldnt play so rough...somebody is gonna end up crying  

Tell them to leave me alone, big bullies :-p.

SugarRayBray wrote:

Steffan wrote:You boys shouldnt play so rough...somebody is gonna end up crying  

Tell them to leave me alone, big bullies :-p.

Unfortunately there is a culture on here where if people don’t agree with your opinion they will try to make your opinion seem stupid or insult you. Also, if two or more people tend to disagree they will gang up. There are some real internet hardmen along with some 'I know it all' types on here fair do on here

You learn to tolerate these fools after a while. Just stick to your guns mate they hate that more than anything. You do learn who the bullies are though pretty quick

Thanks, Steffan. I'll bear that in mind.

SugarRayBray wrote:"I totally dominated the first fight and I felt like I was in control of the second fight. That's down to people's opinions and interpretations, but no one thought I was on the verge of getting stopped.

"It's just one of those punches. It's a shame it happened now - I've spent my whole career where this could've happened and hasn't, and it's happened to me at the worst possible time."

Sounds to me like he is trying to spin this as some kind of lucky punch. In control of the fight? It was even at best. Truth is that Froch boxed a smart fight this time around, and improved from their first encounter. Groves needs to acknowledge that before he moves on.

Thoughts?

For what it is worth I think you have a valid point (albeit perhaps not to Audley levels.....yet), I was thinking similarly when I heard the interview earlier today. Whilst it is arguably positive for Groves to move forward with the attitude that he is unbeaten I question if it is becuase he was SO confident in his analysis that he is better in virutally every department (skills, speed etc) that he cannot comprehend the result?  If he however cannot grasp the concept of being 0 for 2 will he improve?

SugarRayBray wrote:Thanks, Steffan. I'll bear that in mind.

Steff, sugar... You can form your own gang and fight back against the bullies. Bullies are cowards after all.

Beast - at least someone agrees with me. But I think you phrased it a little better than I did.

The Beast wrote:

SugarRayBray wrote:"I totally dominated the first fight and I felt like I was in control of the second fight. That's down to people's opinions and interpretations, but no one thought I was on the verge of getting stopped.

"It's just one of those punches. It's a shame it happened now - I've spent my whole career where this could've happened and hasn't, and it's happened to me at the worst possible time."

Sounds to me like he is trying to spin this as some kind of lucky punch. In control of the fight? It was even at best. Truth is that Froch boxed a smart fight this time around, and improved from their first encounter. Groves needs to acknowledge that before he moves on.

Thoughts?

For what it is worth I think you have a valid point (albeit perhaps not to Audley levels.....yet), I was thinking similarly when I heard the interview earlier today. Whilst it is arguably positive for Groves to move forward with the attitude that he is unbeaten I question if it is becuase he was SO confident in his analysis that he is better in virutally every department (skills, speed etc) that he cannot comprehend the result?  If he however cannot grasp the concept of being 0 for 2 will he improve?

Except he doesnt consider himself unbeaten whatsoever. Hes actually said nothing of the sort. He accepted he got KTFO all he said was up until the time the punch landed he thought he was winning the fight (in his opinion which was open to disagreement).

People are p1ssing wind with this argument that Groves thinks he someone didnt lose the second fight. He accepted he lost the second fight. He said Froch as the better man and he accepted he was knocked out.

To be fair it does seen a bit far fetched in my opinion.


I had Froch ahead.

10-9
10-10
10-9
9-10
10-9
10-9
9-10

68-66 Froch

I feel he was controlling and in serious concentration mode watching that right hand and pawing the jab to prevent the Groves sharp shooting shots. Picking his combo bursts perfectly well and after 5 started to work the body and start to feignt his shots nicely (one actually led to the ko).

Groves won the first part of Fight 1 but for stopped in controversial circumstances.

This time he got out thought and eventually KTFO!!!! (Milky).

Given was on Twitter a few hours after the fight joking about how he got KTFO'd (his actual words) and don't think he's delusional and you're reading his comments wrong.

Would chuck in that I had him 6-2 going into the 9th in the first fight and 5-2 going into the 8th in the second fight - so of 15 completed rounds of boxing arcross two fights I'd only given Carl 4 rounds. Once again I felt only one judge had his scorecards in order, GG was probably on his way to an SD loss anyway.......

I like Groves....He seems like a nice kid.....Thought he looked gunshy..I did write an article a few months back saying most rematches pale into comparison with the original...Mainly because people learn from their mistakes..

Unfortunately Groves over analysed and wasn't positive enough

Mm8... I guess its ok to use it, when groves has himself!

I thought Groves was pretty smart in there on Saturday, (although not as smart as the person who decided who have a ring the size of one those one you get from Toys r Us with two wrestling figures in a little box....kudos to that guy).

Groves knew he shouldn't/couldn't meet Froch in the middle of the ring (despite his pre-fight hype) and was looking to bide his time until he got to grips with a more focused Froch. He was unable to adopt a stick and move tactic by virtue of the fact that the was hardly room to swing a cat in there. (You're fighting in the biggest fight in British post war history and you've got the smallest ring ever seen!!!!) Thought Groves was conserving energy and looking to go the distance and come on a bit stronger. Punch stats show that he was more accurate that Froch (bar that all important finally right hand!!!!!)

By round seven I felt Froch was starting to get a tad complacent (feeling happy with his work) hence him shipping that huge left hand. After that I saw Groves growing in confidence and the fight shifting more in his favour. However, both me and the missus sat and said "Well, who saw THAT coming?" after the KO.

Really good fight and was a shame it ended when it did as I thought it was warming up nicely.

Shame people are now dismissing Groves when, as I said before, he's done more than enough to demonstrate that he belongs at that level. A few tweaks here and there and you never know. He still got years to learn his trade and he doesn't strike me as the kind of fight who will curl up and die.

You might be right re gunshy truss... I thought he was just setting a twelve round pace, which is what a lot of people, myself included thought he should do. It was always likely to be a cagey start.. Froch was going to be more careful. Just depended on what strategy groves came in with.

I really didn't see this froch establishing his jab thing that others have. Just saw, groves not pressuring him, and looking to counter. Punch stats don't ever tell the full story but on this occasion they support what I personally saw... Froch throwing clusters that mainly hit gloves or missed, groves countering with some success.

Froch looked like getting on top a bit in 5 and 6, groves wrestling the initiative back in 7 and 8, at the time he was expected to fade... Then bang out of blue.

Close rounds though and horses for courses re scoring. All made redundant by the finish anyway.