George Groves - How much has his stock dropped and where does he go??

First topic message reminder :

Where are we with this guy now ???....Just been in the biggest fight in the UK for years......Almost say he's a superfighter.....

But he fought a mainly negative fight... acted like an a-hole beforehand....and was comprehensively beaten with a seriously punishing knockout punch......

The rematch validates the result of the first fight....So Groves has been stopped twice in a row....

He can't go from a "Superfight participant" to a Chief Support that is an insult.....He can't go back to being a small venue fighter........The British belt is a step back and is a pointless exercise ..........and yet he needs to gain confidence by learning to win again so a quick alphabet shot is out one would think !!.....One would think as a headline act he'd have to fight someone decent...

Just glad I'm not managing this guy at the moment because I don't know..

A. How popular he is.....

B. What to do with him....and when to do it...

Groves is an interesting phenomenon.............

Never looked at it like that Truss and would be interested to know if there's anything to back that up (scientifically rather than what we think,) Would certainly show why it's better to protect a fighter then :-)

I think there'll be a lot of interest in his next fight over here just to see if the knockout did affect him. I'm looking forward to it but unsure of whether i'd like to see him thrown in the deep end so to speak or have an easy run out to get back on the horse.

It's trauma.............You can think you are over something and something triggers it..

Humans are like computers....We are programmed to react a certain away through our makeup.....

Change the co-ordinates you get a different reaction..

I get that bit Truss with the mental part of it which is also something you can overcome, but if physically his body shuts down momentarily every time it happens he could be in trouble. That's the bit i'd be interested to know if it's been proven and if so can you do anything to try and change it?

Two fighters spring to mind...Lewis and Wlad...both KO'd cleanly in their careers yet recovered sufficiently to regain a place at the top of the tree. The common denominator for me...a very strong self belief. I think Groves is cut from the same cloth. He could have gone away and moaned about the poor stoppage forever an a day but he decided to spend his own time and money lobbying the IBF to be granted a rematch. He brokered deals with Eddie and Sauerland singlehandedly to secure his future and I think he'll be just fine. He was philosophical about the KO (couldn't be anything other than, really) but it appears he's jumped straight back into training as he believes he has the skillset and ability to get himself a belt and maybe another fight with Froch. Frazier was annihilated by Foreman and got another crack at him so why not Groves? After all, it was even stevens before the KO and not the one-sided pummelling people seem to think. He wasn't out fought or outclassed, just caught with a great shot.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Landing more shots is a smokescreen......

You might as well say Leonard won every round against Hagler if that is the criteria...

Froch bossed the fight and the kid didn't engage enough....

Three rounds for me........

I had Froch well up.

The first 4 rounds were close and how you scored them created wide variations. It was just one of those fights. HBO had groves 4 up after 4 as did quite a few people. I had it pretty even. Whenever jim was raving about froch catching him with combinations, they'd show the slow mo at the end of the round and froch was missing and groves countering. Genius when mayweather does it.

Agree with the comments earlier that froch won the inside exchanges and groves the outside ones. Only someone with an agenda or a strong preference for one style of fighter over another wouldn't see it as a close fight. Froch himself thought it was, and he's not known for his modesty... in case anyone hadn't noticed.

From my seat/standing position I had Groves 2/3 rounds up and that was the general feeling around the area I was situated including the Froch fans. Groves outlanded Froch in almost every round, wouldn't say Froch was that aggressive either.

Cheers Rodders

Compubox showed Froch connected on 96 of 349 shots (28 percent) while Groves landed 126 of 314 (40 percent). As Groves landed 31% more punches than Froch this does not support the case of those having Froch 2 or 3 ahead at the time of the stoppage. I had it even, possibly Groves ahead by 1. I think Froch's vast improvement from the first fight could make it appear as though he was controlling the fight compared to the pasting he took in their first fight.

Bottom line is Groves is too good not to come back and be a world champion. Would be a real shame if the KO does leave psychological scars with him.

Rodney wrote:From my seat/standing position I had Groves 2/3 rounds up and that was the general feeling around the area I was situated including the Froch fans. Groves outlanded Froch in almost every round, wouldn't say Froch was that aggressive either.

Cheers Rodders

ditto

milkyboy wrote:The first 4 rounds were close and how you scored them created wide variations. It was just one of those fights. HBO had groves 4 up after 4 as did quite a few people. I had it pretty even. Whenever jim was raving about froch catching him with combinations, they'd show the slow mo at the end of the round and froch was missing and groves countering. Genius when mayweather does it.

Agree with the comments earlier that froch won the inside exchanges and groves the outside ones. Only someone with an agenda or a strong preference for one style of fighter over another wouldn't see it as a close fight. Froch himself thought it was, and he's not known for his modesty... in case anyone hadn't noticed.

I had Froch three ahead.........But only because Groves workrate wasn't strong enough in some rounds for me to take them away from the aggressor..

Never said it wasn't competitive..

Would be slightly insulted If anyone thought I'd be swayed by the idiot known as Jim Watt ...............

Intersting approach to scoring from a Mayweather fan (and by fan I mean hero-worshipper who thinks PBF is essentially faultless).

GG did what PBF does, hit without getting hit (apart from 'that' punch, onvs), as the above poster showed he threw less but landed more - he accurately counter-punched the busier more aggressive fighter.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The first 4 rounds were close and how you scored them created wide variations. It was just one of those fights. HBO had groves 4 up after 4 as did quite a few people. I had it pretty even. Whenever jim was raving about froch catching him with combinations, they'd show the slow mo at the end of the round and froch was missing and groves countering. Genius when mayweather does it.

Agree with the comments earlier that froch won the inside exchanges and groves the outside ones. Only someone with an agenda or a strong preference for one style of fighter over another wouldn't see it as a close fight. Froch himself thought it was, and he's not known for his modesty... in case anyone hadn't noticed.

I had Froch three ahead.........But only because Groves workrate wasn't strong enough in some rounds for me to take them away from the aggressor..

Never said it wasn't competitive..

Would be slightly insulted If anyone thought I'd be swayed by the idiot known as Jim Watt ...............

Only slightly insulted beefster? Its possible to have a guy a clear winner on the cards but to know the rounds were close and could be seen differently. It was that type of fight. The first four rounds in particular.

A lot of people gave froch the first. I haven't rewatched it, or seen the punch stats, but i recall about 5 jabs landing the whole round, 4 of them from groves. So little output you could give it to groves or score it even, but how it can be scored for froch?  

All a bit academic anyway!

Close, Milky.

Froch landed 5/26 jabs in the first whereas Groves landed 9/28 (19% vs 32%). Froch landed 1 'power punch' to GG's 2.

Froch only landed 1, 2, 2, & 4 power punches in the entire first 4 rounds in fact. GG not doing a huge amount better shows what a tentative start it was and why those early rounds were so hard to score!

http://www.boxingscene.com/compubox-groves-too-tentative-froch-rematch--78487

That's the thing with compubox and Also the challenge of watching something on tv.

I based mine on punches that I saw land cleanly, often, depending on the camera angle you can't always tell. But regardless, compubox gives no credence to the quality of the punch, and any kind of glancing blow gets scored.

That's one explanation. The other is that I'm a boss-eyed old fool.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Intersting approach to scoring from a Mayweather fan (and by fan I mean hero-worshipper who thinks PBF is essentially faultless).

GG did what PBF does, hit without getting hit (apart from 'that' punch, onvs), as the above poster showed he threw less but landed more - he accurately counter-punched the busier more aggressive fighter.

This aimed at me I expect..

I'm not biting.

milkyboy wrote:That's the thing with compubox and Also the challenge of watching something on tv.

I based mine on punches that I saw land cleanly, often, depending on the camera angle you can't always tell. But regardless, compubox gives no credence to the quality of the punch, and any kind of glancing blow gets scored.

That's one explanation. The other is that I'm a boss-eyed old fool.

Not even sure Compubox gets it right.................

Remember Kalambay hadn't landed a punch on Nunn according to Compubox...

Could of swore he landed some digs to the body..

Pointless piece of kit.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Intersting approach to scoring from a Mayweather fan (and by fan I mean hero-worshipper who thinks PBF is essentially faultless).

GG did what PBF does, hit without getting hit (apart from 'that' punch, onvs), as the above poster showed he threw less but landed more - he accurately counter-punched the busier more aggressive fighter.

This aimed at me I expect..

I'm not biting.

Not a case of biting.

Thought it a genuinely interesting observation.

I'm trying to remember if you were the one that thought Broner was winning the Maidana fight also......

You have a habit of flip-flopping your opinion or analysis to suit a pre-defined conclusion.

Getting sparked aside, GG was essentially doing a Mayweather, counter-punching, cautious backfoot boxing, making his oppo miss (sub-20% accuracy) whilst landing 40%+ himself, not going gun-ho for the ko etc etc.

Another observation of mine is that Maidana-Mayweather and Groves-Froch were different fights...

No two fights are the same..

I had Leonard beating Hagler..............Leonard did enough to take the play away..Hagler was the aggressor and I wanted Hagler to win....Same with Mayweather.....

But you'll see only what you want to see..

Most people had Mayweather winning...Most on here had Froch ahead..

Maybe you've just got better at spotting quiet beatings as you've got older truss

I missed the quiet beating Groves was giving Froch.....

Less of the old..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another observation of mine is that Maidana-Mayweather and Groves-Froch were different fights...

Very convenient.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I missed the quiet beating Groves was giving Froch.....

Less of the old..

But spotted the one Floyd was handing out, no doubt?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I missed the quiet beating Groves was giving Froch.....

Less of the old..

But spotted the one Floyd was handing out, no doubt?

Yep..

This is where being biased bites you on the butt Truss ;-)

Bias must have a bloody big mouth then

 

I fail to see how anyone could have Froch winning that fight by 3 rounds. He was doing virtually no clean work, he bull rushed Groves several times throwing flurries of punches, most of which landed on gloves - and inevitably took a clean shot for his efforts. The stats back this up. Next day Groves barely had a mark on him, Froch was pictured with Eddie Hearn (naturally) and I've honestly seen healthier looking faces on a pirate flag.

I think the improvement of Froch's tactics from the 1st fight combined with Groves less aggressive approach skewed people into thinking Froch was winning. He didn't get battered for 6 rounds this time, but that doesn't equate to him out boxing Groves, he simply wasn't. Yes some of the rounds were close and some score those rounds based on work rate, but boxing is about hitting & not getting hit which was what GG was doing - just in a less emphatic style than the 1st. Crazy that he has two losses to Froch, as for me he's unquestionably a better boxer, he's just not as hard.

Anyone see the commemorative engraved Rose gold Rolex Oyster Daytona that Hearn got Froch after the fight? 20 grands worth, very nice.

Personally thought Froch was dictating the pace of the fight and up until the 7th was fully in control as far as I could see, the punch stats don't tell any of the real story.

I base that on what I saw at the time, slow motion replays don't factor into my thinking.

You didn't watch the slo-mo replays of the groves fight, and you closed your eyes throughout all 12 rounds of the ward fight... If you don't see those punches land you can't score them 

Got to agree with Truss about the Froch Groves fight.The first bout stoppage was warranted despite Groves saying he could have carried on. The second fight was a lot closer with Groves landing the best punch of the fight up to the knockout and Froch possibly winning rounds with his late flurries.No one could predict a result if it had gone the distance but if I had to I would have picked Froch to win. I still think Groves has a future as a top contender and possible champion in the future.

No the 1st fight stoppage wasn't warranted and if you believe that then never complain about a stoppage again. The sport is being ruined by shoddy judging and terrible stoppages, the people that accept them should be banned from the sport for life as it's part of the reason that fans are watching MMA instead.

Up there amongst the worst stoppages I have seen. No hope journeymen in with top prospects are given less protection.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Personally thought Froch was dictating the pace of the fight and up until the 7th was fully in control as far as I could see, the punch stats don't tell any of the real story.

I base that on what I saw at the time, slow motion replays don't factor into my thinking.

Dictating the pace and acheiving what? Because he wasn't doing any damage. Pacemakers dictate the pace of marathons, but they never win it.

Derbymanc wrote:This is where being biased bites you on the butt Truss ;-)

It's always been a problem...... Being biased has always kept me from seeing the wood from the trees..

I still have Curry up 60-54 against Honey at the time of the stoppage..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Personally thought Froch was dictating the pace of the fight and up until the 7th was fully in control as far as I could see, the punch stats don't tell any of the real story.

I base that on what I saw at the time, slow motion replays don't factor into my thinking.

Dictating the pace and acheiving what? Because he wasn't doing any damage. Pacemakers dictate the pace of marathons, but they never win it.

I'll have to watch it again later to see Groves masterclass.....

Ray Robbo eat your heart out..

I get the feeling you've been away on a zen retreat Truss as you seem very calm the last few days :-D.

BTW I don't have an issue with anyone thinking Froch would have won, justifying the stoppage though is ridiculous and winds me up no end.

Got to admit for the second fight I thought Froch was in control (although not completely one way,) I did think Groves was turning the fight though and if that peach hadn't hit we would have had a corker of a finish.

First 4 rounds were mostly a feeling out process. Nothing major. I though Groves generally got the better of this. He jabbed and moved well, mixing it up between the head and body and landing the occasional good shot. Frochs jab was poor in comparison. He landed a couple of decent ones but mostly it was falling way short and missing clumsily. He wasn’t overly aggressive either. Seemed to be trying to lure Groves in before ambushing him quickly and also wary of committing too much himself lest he get off to another dreadful start. It changed in round 5 and 6 where Froch began to close the space more effectively and clearly won those rounds by bossing some of the exchanges and taking Groves out of his comfort zone. It looked then like he might take control of the fight. But Groves came back with a good round 7 and was doing well in round 8 before the KO.

The point is.........When little of anything happens I tend to give it to the guy who wants a fight...

I imagine Hammer and Haz see it the same way.....

Who said it was a masterclass, flip-flop?

Basically you see what you want to see, in accordance with whatever conclusions you've already made up to fit whatever agenda you're currently running.

Nice Azania style get out clause though, any Floyd fight ever plays out similar and you decide to flip-flop your socring method and whoops, it's 'a different fight' so can't be compared. Nice.

Why don't you just debate properly and calm down !!

That a boy..  

You must have had Valuev beating Haye by a landslide then.

120-108

catchweight wrote:You must have had Valuev beating Haye by a landslide then.

That would require some element on consitency.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Landing more shots is a smokescreen......

You might as well say Leonard won every round against Hagler if that is the criteria...

Froch bossed the fight and the kid didn't engage enough....

Three rounds for me........

I had Froch well up.

Experienced poster makes a good call..  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why don't you just debate properly and calm down !!

That a boy..  

1. I am debating properly, I've put forwards my points and rebutted yours.

2. I am calm, very calm in fact as it's good sport to mock you when you're being a twit.

Hammer, Haz and many others have Froch ahead....

You don't !!....

You aren't in their league Son..

So feel free to think I'm a twit....  

If you break the fight down, I don’t think there is much disagreement in rounds 5,6,7 and 8. They were easy to score. 5 and 6 were clear Froch rounds. 7 was a clear Groves rounds.
The first 4 rounds weren’t hugely eventful and where all the disagreement is centred. A don’t really see where the idea that Froch was bossing, controlling, setting the pace in these rounds comes from. Both fighters fought a controlled fight and a measured strategy. Froch was determined not to get too committed and caught like the first fight and Groves had obviously decided on a slower approach to account for a full 12 round fight. In these 4 rounds Groves was landing more punches and outjabbing Froch albeit not by a huge amount. Froch was clumsy by comparison and missing. I certainly didn’t get the impression Froch was more active or throwing and landing more punches in these rounds. I though Groves was edging a tactical battle between two boxers sticking to a measured strategy. Frochs real success was rounds 5,6 and 8.

Never said they weren't close rounds Catchy........

Just think the guy trying to make the fight should get the nod..

If you disagree fine........

I don't think you are a twit If you do !!  

I think it's your reasoning Truss.

Your judging Froch ahead for doing the same as Maidana yet have him behind, doesn't make sense   

Derbymanc wrote:I think it's your reasoning Truss.

Your judging Froch ahead for doing the same as Maidana yet have him behind, doesn't make sense   

If a fighter nicks a round he nicks it.....

For me Groves didn't do enough to nick some of the rounds.....5-2 for me.

I didn't have Chuvalo beating Ali..