Degale...Say Something!

I am very surprised Degale has not said anything yet to the media. I know it must of hit him hard but its a close loss and one which he shouldnt let dishearten him. I do not like his personality in the run up to the fight and like everyone else wanted him to lose. But he has talent. I think he can bounce back and we may see a great return fight in a few years. But he needs to say something. Mcdonnel hasn't even bothered too which just stinks of sore loser. Especially for a trainer, usually they are able to hold up their head. Maybe after the 20k bet nonsense he feels stupid too, he should.

Degale can also wint he British public round if he plays this right. We will sympathise with him more if he just says 'ok, i lost, il beat him next time' I hope he gives some form of interview soon. Because he could not look more sulky and pathetic than he and his camp did after Saturday.

Come on Degale, say something!

He has via an interview for Sky Sports. States his career doesnt revolve around Groves and that is it a "minor blip" amongst other things.

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13273_6950660,00.html

Think that is the one.

nice one, he seemes deflated alright

lads listen to this 5mins 34 seconds. look who this clueless sky reporter moots as a opponent

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13273_6950660,00.html

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13273_6950660,00.html

5mins 34 secs. this reporter is a bufoon

Can't listen at work, who does he say?

I don't think Degale can be too cocky now. I do hope it humbles him slightly, doubt it but it should as he must realise the majority of feedback after the fight was even if they thought Degale won the close fight, people are glad he lost so needs to change his image.

Seanusarrilius wrote:lads listen to this 5mins 34 seconds. look who this clueless sky reporter moots as a opponent

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13273_6950660,00.html

Can't be as bad as Khan for Groves? Or same opponent?

Scottrf wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:lads listen to this 5mins 34 seconds. look who this clueless sky reporter moots as a opponent

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13273_6950660,00.html

Can't be as bad as Khan for Groves? Or same opponent?

Groves face was a picture

what was he thinking asking that question...he just threw out ht eonly name he knoew hahaha

Oh please god no. I prefer when he remains silent. Any more of those childish nonsense he spouts would put me off boxing for life.

haha i liked it when he said he knows what would happen, im sorry James but yeah so do i, he would work you out like an easy maths sum again. James is a quality fighter, no doubt but to move forward he has to shut his fu***ng mouth, show some respect and forget about Groves. I think beating him 2 out of 2 times proves who the better fighter is, i didn't have the fight as close as the judges either i give it to Groves by at least 2 rounds. I must add as well Johnny Nelson and Jim Watt are a bunch of fu**ing idiots, Nelson used to suffer big time with nerves and he assumed Groves was scared and would be iced, i thought he'd lose but you can't come out saying someone's frightened, that's wrong, also Watt for his bogus scoring of fights, how he said DeGale was winning some of the rounds i'll never know, Groves was winning the majority of what he scored in favour of DeGale. DeGale need look no further than Nigel Benn on how to bounce back from defeat

Very clever of you to try and avoid the swear filter by using the asterix. Please try and articulate yourself without the need to swear, or using an asterix. Its not clever..

This goes to all posters.

Az...is self-censorship using asterisks really that bad? It's no different to what we'd expect to see in any newspaper.

BALTIMORA wrote:Az...is self-censorship using asterisks really that bad? It's no different to what we'd expect to see in any newspaper.

You see it in newspapers when they censor what others say.

But is it really neccessary to even say it. Dont get me wrong, I'm no puritan and swaer like a trooper. But really, people should be able to articulate themselves like adults without the need for the asterix. We all know what people mean without the need to be clever. It doesn;t put added emphasis on any point. Its simply boorish, childish and not required.

Degale had a bad night at the office, Groves fought the fight of his life, and he still only lost by a point, and it really could of gone either way. No need for Degale to panic, this defeat certainly isnt the end of the world, and may infact be a good learning experiance both as a boxer and as a man.

I still think he'll have the better career of the two.

alma wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Az...is self-censorship using asterisks really that bad? It's no different to what we'd expect to see in any newspaper.

You see it in newspapers when they censor what others say.

But is it really neccessary to even say it. Dont get me wrong, I'm no puritan and swaer like a trooper. But really, people should be able to articulate themselves like adults without the need for the asterix. We all know what people mean without the need to be clever. It doesn;t put added emphasis on any point. Its simply boorish, childish and not required.

I think you mean asterisk. Asterix was a popular children's cartoon character......

By Toutatis!! He's right, you know!

But yeah, I just thought if someone is self-censoring already, how much further does it have to go? I mean, I know what someone's said if the swear filter throws up 'kumquat' or 'five knuckle shuffle', so should we censor those too because people know what word was meant? Anyways...morning all!

What's kumquat used for? Nuts?

Good morning (afternoon for me at the moment.)

BALTIMORA wrote:

alma wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Az...is self-censorship using asterisks really that bad? It's no different to what we'd expect to see in any newspaper.

You see it in newspapers when they censor what others say.

But is it really neccessary to even say it. Dont get me wrong, I'm no puritan and swaer like a trooper. But really, people should be able to articulate themselves like adults without the need for the asterix. We all know what people mean without the need to be clever. It doesn;t put added emphasis on any point. Its simply boorish, childish and not required.

I think you mean asterisk. Asterix was a popular children's cartoon character......

By Toutatis!! He's right, you know!

But yeah, I just thought if someone is self-censoring already, how much further does it have to go? I mean, I know what someone's said if the swear filter throws up 'kumquat' or 'five knuckle shuffle', so should we censor those too because people know what word was meant? Anyways...morning all!

Its not an issue of deleting posts if someone decides to use astericks (thanks for the spelling). It just looks and reads childish.

Good morning to you and yours.

azania wrote:Its not an issue of deleting posts if someone decides to use astericks (thanks for the spelling).

Don't thank him too much yet.

azania wrote:Very clever of you to try and avoid the swear filter by using the asterix. Please try and articulate yourself without the need to swear, or using an asterix. Its not clever..

This goes to all posters.

Steven, just to pick up on azania's point, here. I've asked you, repeatedly and politely, to stop trying to sidestep the filter. It's there for a purpose, and if you have ever read the threads at East Side Boxing you'll see why we have a filter. Nobody who set this site up, originally, has his head up his backside or is a snob, but the founders decided on certain standards, which most of us accept and probably welcome.

I, for one, am fed up with running around editing posts of those who try to beat the filter. It's a waste of my time and increases ' mod and admin ' presence which, generally, isn't a good thing.

Please play the game with us on this. Thank you.

Degale never lost the fight, he may have lost it in that he drew it... and Groves won it in that he managed the draw..

but even on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

And the main reason he may have only managed the draw was his own making. He under rated Groves and and let too many close rounds go with not enough punches thrown, assuming he would eventually land and hurt Groves, when that did not happen he had to claw out a win, something he has never had to do.

I think he shaded it by 1 or 2 rounds, but the bottom line, the judges gave most of the 50/50 rounds to Groves which won him he fight.

Degale had about 4 dominant rounds where groves had about 2.

Body language is also very important and I think think that along with a pro Groves crowed had allot to do with the judges choices.. As Groves was uplifted by the fact it was a close fight while Degale was deflated that it was.

Degale will go on to bigger things, (Unless Groves really does have allot more in his locker to come)

Degale lost the fight.

tunes666 wrote:Degale never lost the fight, he may have lost it in that he drew it... and Groves won it in that he managed the draw..

but even on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

And the main reason he may have only managed the draw was his own making. He under rated Groves and and let too many close rounds go with not enough punches thrown, assuming he would eventually land and hurt Groves, when that did not happen he had to claw out a win, something he has never had to do.

I think he shaded it by 1 or 2 rounds, but the bottom line, the judges gave most of the 50/50 rounds to Groves which won him he fight.

Degale had about 4 dominant rounds where groves had about 2.

Body language is also very important and I think think that along with a pro Groves crowed had allot to do with the judges choices.. As Groves was uplifted by the fact it was a close fight while Degale was deflated that it was.

Degale will go on to bigger things, (Unless Groves really does have allot more in his locker to come)

BALTIMORA wrote:Degale lost the fight.

And Hopkins Drew his first fight with Pascal?

Hollyfield lost his fight with Valuev?

Yes.

Fists of Fury wrote:

tunes666 wrote:Degale never lost the fight, he may have lost it in that he drew it... and Groves won it in that he managed the draw..

but even on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

And the main reason he may have only managed the draw was his own making. He under rated Groves and and let too many close rounds go with not enough punches thrown, assuming he would eventually land and hurt Groves, when that did not happen he had to claw out a win, something he has never had to do.

I think he shaded it by 1 or 2 rounds, but the bottom line, the judges gave most of the 50/50 rounds to Groves which won him he fight.

Degale had about 4 dominant rounds where groves had about 2.

Body language is also very important and I think think that along with a pro Groves crowed had allot to do with the judges choices.. As Groves was uplifted by the fact it was a close fight while Degale was deflated that it was.

Degale will go on to bigger things, (Unless Groves really does have allot more in his locker to come)

Time will tell me thinks

I also had Degale shading it, but the first words outta my mouth like many others after the 12th round were, 'this could go either way', I'm not suprised he hasnt said too much after, the loser was always gonna take it hard in a grudge match. Degale make take it harder because for the second time against Groves, he really should of won the fight, and has himself to blame.

Its no disaster though, he will hopefully learn from it and be a top fighter, the ability is all there. As Booth said after the Haye v Enzo fight, theres no shame in losing to a risk.

It was a close fight that could of went either way.

To suggest Degale definately won it is just plain stupid.

Can only assume those wanting to hear from Degale have never seen or heard him interviewed before.

tunes666 wrote:Degale never lost the fight, he may have lost it in that he drew it... and Groves won it in that he managed the draw..
but even on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

WTF? Did you watch the fight? Groves actually won by majority decision.
It was a close fight that could have went either way. Personally I had it a draw but would have favoured Groves at a push.
Whether DeGale threw it away or not Groves followed his game plan and got the decision DeGale looked like the occasion got to him.

prettyboykev wrote:

WTF? Did you watch the fight? Groves actually won by majority decision.
It was a close fight that could have went either way. Personally I had it a draw but would have favoured Groves at a push.
Whether DeGale threw it away or not Groves followed his game plan and got the decision DeGale looked like the occasion got to him.

I watched the fight on the night with two mates scoring the fight round by round, 2 of us had Degale by 2 rounds and one Degale by 1 round, with all of us agreeing that a draw would not be a shock as some of Degales rounds could have been given 10-10.

I then watched the fight again on youtube (before it was taken down) and again had Degale up 2 rounds... Groves may have been throwing punches but they were doing nothing and mostly being slipped... because he was too busy running away..

I could understand it being a draw as there were so many rounds that could have gone either way because Degale was too cautious.. But I dont understand how anyone feels Groves should have had those 50/50 rounds when he was on the back foot through all of them and never once had Degale in trouble in the whole fight. I think once he had Degale a bit flustered in the whole fight and that was it. As I said, Degale Dominated about 4 rounds, Groves clearly one about 2 rounds... the rest where all 50/50s and for some reason the judges gave most of them to Groves.

I think because he was delighted with how the3 fight was going and was uplifted, as where the crowd, where Degale was gutted as things went allot harder than he thought... and I believe this made the judges give Groves more 50/50 rounds. Moral of the story is Degale beat him self by putting too much pressure on his own shoulders.

If they had a rematch Degale would Hammer him, and all the Degale haters know it.

I could understand it being a draw as there were so many rounds that could have gone either way because Degale was too cautious.. But I dont understand how anyone feels Groves should have had those 50/50 rounds when he was on the back foot through all of them and never once had Degale in trouble in the whole fight

=================================

Oh god, what utter drivel. I have selected this particularly dreadful passage to make comment on, however.

Being on the back foot does not mean you cannot win rounds. Groves won the ring generalship aspect of most rounds without doubt, and by fighting intelligently off the back foot he manouevred Degale around the ring to his advantage. Groves threw more, landed more, and landed cleaner, so every last drop of your argument is completely flawed.

Degale has not hammered him in 2 fights now, what makes you think a 3rd would be any different?

A close fight? Yes. A deserved win for Groves? Yes.

Don't regurgitate this 'Degale lost that fight, Groves didn't win it' nonsense that you heard from Warren and Nelson, Groves fought the right fight and deservedly won it in a close but fair points decision.

First Comment on this site, so hello all. The Simple truth is that groves had De Gale fighting his fight. As the fight went on you could see groves becoming more confident, just as you could see the confidence draining from De Gale.

De Gale could find no way to marshall groves into range and paid the price with the judges. Hopefully now the Blueprint has been set for how to beat him he'll find a bit of humility and go away and work on an obvious flaw.

As for Groves, he has a touch of the Carl froch about him and while far from the finished article by showing the quality to stick to a fightplan and not just brawl he has suggested that he will definately be stepping up to world level in the not to distance future. Maybe the apprehension everyone(Nelson) saw pre-fight is what he needed.

Saw Abraham mentioned somewhere previously but someone like Green might be a better option?

Welcome aboard, Born is the King.

You're right BITK, it was fought as Groves' fight. That's ring generalship; not merely moving forward, choosing to fight in the way you want to rather than how your opponent wants. Matters little if he's on the back foot IMO.

Fists of Fury wrote:I could understand it being a draw as there were so many rounds that could have gone either way because Degale was too cautious.. But I dont understand how anyone feels Groves should have had those 50/50 rounds when he was on the back foot through all of them and never once had Degale in trouble in the whole fight

=================================

Oh god, what utter drivel. I have selected this particularly dreadful passage to make comment on, however.

Being on the back foot does not mean you cannot win rounds. Groves won the ring generalship aspect of most rounds without doubt, and by fighting intelligently off the back foot he manouevred Degale around the ring to his advantage. Groves threw more, landed more, and landed cleaner, so every last drop of your argument is completely flawed.

Degale has not hammered him in 2 fights now, what makes you think a 3rd would be any different?

A close fight? Yes. A deserved win for Groves? Yes.

Don't regurgitate this 'Degale lost that fight, Groves didn't win it' nonsense that you heard from Warren and Nelson, Groves fought the right fight and deservedly won it in a close but fair points decision.

Groves did not land the cleaner punches, Degale landed the more eye catching snappier punches. It was a close fight and could of gone either way but to in my opinion Groves came to spoil, he didn't commit to any hurtful punches at all. Mayweather on the other may fight of the back foot but he commits to his punches and lands full blown counter punches. Groves tactic won the fight but he was spoiling and if he fights like that in all his big fights he won't gain many more fans.

tunes666 wrote:on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

Tends to be the first look that the decision is made on I believe. In that case, he lost the fight

bhb001 wrote:

tunes666 wrote:on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

Tends to be the first look that the decision is made on I believe. In that case, he lost the fight

True but many people on the night including my self saw Degale edge it. I mean upon seeing the fight twice he edged it. Taking the stronger rounds, being on the front foot for most of the fight and maybe even taking round 9... 10-8.

tunes666 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

tunes666 wrote:on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

Tends to be the first look that the decision is made on I believe. In that case, he lost the fight

True but many people on the night including my self saw Degale edge it. I mean upon seeing the fight twice he edged it. Taking the stronger rounds, being on the front foot for most of the fight and maybe even taking round 9... 10-8.

tunes666 wrote:

bhb001 wrote:

tunes666 wrote:on a second look, Degale did not lost this fight.

Tends to be the first look that the decision is made on I believe. In that case, he lost the fight

True but many people on the night including my self saw Degale edge it. I mean upon seeing the fight twice he edged it. Taking the stronger rounds, being on the front foot for most of the fight and maybe even taking round 9... 10-8.

but if being on the front foot means chasing shadows and becoming increasingly frustatrated does it count for anything. & i think the 10-8 round comment is best left alone???

I think Tunes comments are best left alone, to be honest. Next.

Can't be bothered to go through every comment other than to add there was no round in the whole fight that was anywhere near a 10-8 round in either fighters favour, not even close to being.

I dunno rowley, there were a couple of rounds that could've been 10-8. Namely the rounds where Mr 'Thicky McThick' Degale fouled rather blatantly... Perhaps these are what tunes is on about?

Alma, I'd actually pondered beforehand whether or not a draw would have been the best possible outcome, so the result we had is not too far from that. I think you're right in that in the long term neither fighter is disadvantaged seriously.

Yeah imo I think that this is the best possible outcome the sort of "Peoples Champion" Groves seemed to be that night coupled with the fact that everyone apart from Degales mum hated him it was the nice guy that won. Also Groves would have been written off and Degale would be brought forward as Britains next big boxer, whereas because it was so tight you can still see them both going on with there careers and fighting each other again on a far bigger stage.

tunes666 wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Degale lost the fight.

And Hopkins Drew his first fight with Pascal?

Hollyfield lost his fight with Valuev?

Yes.

Results-wise, yes. Groves beat him because Groves was the marginally better man on the night. Deal with it.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12184_6982449,00.html

Well well well, what an incredibly bitter interview here from Degale. Really disappointed that he fails to accept that he was out-thought and out-boxed.

Thanks Fists, i must say i had a little chuckle to myself, what a bitter little man he is, maybe if he hadn't acted so much of a tool people would have a liitle sympathy for him, but i can't wait for his next opponent to defeat him if i'm honest. I'm all for confidence and belief in one's self, but arrogance and cockiness i can't stand. Especiallly at his age where he thinks he leaves the hood to go to train everyday, he needs to grow up.

Fists of Fury wrote:http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12184_6982449,00.html

Well well well, what an incredibly bitter interview here from Degale. Really disappointed that he fails to accept that he was out-thought and out-boxed.

The guy sounds like a tool.

"But once you realised his tactics, shouldn't you have adapted?
DeGALE: People say James DeGale didn't have a Plan B, but that's bull****. I could've boxed on my back foot - that's what I'm known for - but if I'd have done that, there wouldn't have been a fight."

So you played into his hands. Well done! lol.

Good link Fists although it is doing little to help me warm to Degale. The fight was close but most felt Groves won it, learn to deal with it show some humility and move on. Hate the inference you cannot win a fight on the back foot, is the same old nonsense fans fall into about prizing aggression over all other attributes, there is more to the game than that and as a fighter this is something he would do well to learn. If a fighter does not fight in a manner that allows you to perform to your best it is on your shoulders to impose yourself on them.