Carl Froch-George Groves: Bigger than Benn-Eubank?

By Terence Dooley

When Nottingham's Carl Froch, 31-2 (22), defends his IBF and WBA Super World Super middleweight titles against London's George Groves, 19-0 (15), at Manchester’s Phones 4U Arena on Saturday night “The Cobra” could be forgiven for being a little bit wary about getting stung by the fickle tail of boxing history.  Froch versus Groves has drawn many parallels with the November 1990 grudge match between Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank, in which a world-level campaigner, Benn, offered a title shot to an up-and-coming relatively untested — Jonathan Rendall used this very word when describing Eubank in The Independent’s final pre-fight preview — upstart only to come unstuck.

When Eubank stopped Benn in the ninth round of their WBO middleweight title battle, it was a high water mark for the British middleweight division and planted the seeds for the U.K.’s fiercely competitive, if insular, Super middleweight scene.  Benn, Eubank and Michael Watson all ended up in the 168lb division, and a host of solid fighters followed in their wake.  Although British claims that we possessed a smattering of world-class talents were never truly tested until Benn stepped up against Gerald McClellan in February 1995.

Such is the reverence with which we view Benn-Eubank 1 any attempts to draw parallels between the two contests have either been sneered at or shot down as hyperbolic nonsense, but, on paper, the fight itself is a better prospect than Eubank’s meeting with Benn due to the respective levels of the fighters.

At the time of Benn-Eubank, the tagline “Who’s Fooling Who?” applied to everyone involved in the pre-fight build-up.  Was Barry Hearn fooling the public into buying into a fight that wasn’t even a showdown between the best two middleweights in England?  Had ITV been fooled into investing in a bout that wasn’t a genuine world title fight, due to the WBO’s stature at the time?

John Rodda, writing for The Guardian on November 17 1990, wrote that it was: ‘an intriguing domestic middleweight contest…It is, indeed, little more than that, despite the promotional ghetto-blasting which has generated the hype of a world championship contest.’  The Ring, in their end of year annual, expressed surprise at how doolally British boxing fans had gone over a decent fight between two contenders.  Many fans have echoed Rodda’s words when asked about the hype surrounding this weekend’s fight, despite the fact two genuine world titles are on the line and Froch is in brilliant form.

Like Froch, Benn had performed at world level, but despite some stirring victories there was a sense that “The Dark Destroyer” lived in the shadows of the likes of Michael Nunn and, later, James Toney.  U.S. wins over Sanderline Williams, Doug DeWitt and Iran Barkley had stirred the blood yet Benn was not seen as the best in his division.

Eubank’s position was even starker.  Described by some fans as “a poor relation” of Herol Graham [Srikumar Sen, The Times, September 5 1990], Eubank’s fight with Kid Milo earlier that year was seen as something of a minor step up — and he was booed for his posturing in that one.  Earlier WBC International title wins over Hugo Antonio Corti and Eduardo Domingo Contreras hardly inspired confidence in his world-level aspirations — the International belt was traditionally contested by fighters: ‘from poor countries trying to make their way in the world’ [Sen]. 

Still, Eubank was a salesman, he played the role of cocky challenger to perfection.  This, not to mention Hearn’s decision to offer Benn a cool million for the bout — a benchmark set by Benn when asked about the fight in prospect and what it take to make it in September of that year [Jack Massarik, The Guardian, September 7 1990] — set the two fighters on a collision course that swept up some members of the press, the trade and then casual fans.

Unlike Benn, Froch, 36, has already tangled with the number one fighter in his division, a decision loss to Andre Ward in December 2011, so the Nottingham-based champion has already had a run at the very highest level.  Furthermore, his wins over Andre Dirrell, Arthur Abraham, Lucian Bute and Mikkel Kessler, a revenge win, are arguably better than Benn’s victories over Williams, DeWitt and Barkley — although the Barkley victory has held up well.  A three-time world titlist, Froch is in a much better position than Benn was, and, unlike Nigel, he has never lost at domestic level going into this one — Benn lost to Michael Watson by sixth-round TKO in 1989.

Groves, 25, with his British and Commonwealth title wins, just edges Eubank as well.  “Simply The Best” was still on the rise at the turn of the year that defined his career; he hadn’t vied for the national belt and was ranked fourth in the country by Boxing Weekly — behind Benn, Watson and Graham respectively — so, unlike Saturday’s fight, it was not a meeting between the two top dogs in Britain.

Still, the main difference between that fight and this weekend’s one is the position of boxing itself and its TV exposure.  Benn against Eubank was on ITV, it benefitted from heavy press coverage and came at a time when boxing still impacted on the national consciousness.  Channel surfers were more likely to land on an advert for the fight back in those days than they are in this day and age.  Throw in the fact that we were all younger then, the grass was greener, the world was sweeter and the age on Internet cynicism hadn’t begun; not to mention that even the greyest memory is invested with a touch more colour when we look back on it from a position of nostalgia.

Although Froch-Groves has benefitted from tireless work from Sky TV, who are broadcasting it on Sky Sports Box Office, and Matchroom’s press man Anthony Leaver, it is not going to rack up the same figures that Benn-Eubank did, and it is unlikely that we’ll see those types of numbers or impact on the national consciousness again.  All Froch, Groves, Eddie Hearn and Sky can do is promote what’s on their plate and do this outside of the wider historical context.  If the digital age is chipping away at TV institutions such as Eastenders and Corrie, then what hope does boxing have of keeping pace with the changing modes of access?  Those big, flagpole viewing figures are no longer viable.

So, although the fighters aren’t quite at the same level exposure-wise — the TV situation made Benn-Eubank feel so much bigger and when the fight itself sparked into life the stars aligned to create a cult classic — we as fans are partaking in a bit of reverse engineering when we dismiss this weekend’s fight as being nowhere near that level going in.  On paper it eclipses it, but on canvas the circumstances are a lot different and the sport as a whole is in a different place to where it was back in the early-1990s.

What we have, then, is a fight that will draw some, not all, casuals in and a dust up that could be elevated into a classic if both men bring their best form.  The dust might eventually settle on a fight that’s worth the “New Benn-Eubank” billing.  What’s for sure, though, is that the winner won’t have a claim to being the world number one, which was also the case in 1990.  Therefore the most interesting aspect of the fight, from a purely objective viewpoint, is the question of whether Groves can register an amazing stoppage win.  It would really resonate if he became the first man to halt Froch and used this to press his claims for a showdown with Ward.  It means that Froch has it all to lose and Groves has everything to gain, which is a testament to Froch’s fighting spirit as he could have ditched his IBF belt and waited on a Ward rematch.

In fact, the loss to Ward, an elite level fighter, draws this fight closer to Ken Buchanan against Jim Watt in January 1973.  Buchanan had fallen short when fighting Roberto Duran, but had bounced back with wins over Carlos Ortiz and Chang-Kil Lee before meeting Watt for the British belt, dropping down a level from the elite class to offer a young buck a chance at a prize scalp.  Buchanan was a former world champion, and at a time when there were fewer of them about, and his credentials and pedigree surpassed Benn’s.  Watt was a solid British champion-level fighter whose only previous loss was the result of a cut eye.

Buchanan prevailed on the night, Watt learned some big lessons en route to a decision defeat and later became a world champion.  Groves might find himself in a similar position to Watt, one that Azumah Nelson also found himself in when losing to Salvador Sanchez in July 1982 —although I readily acknowledge that it is a stretch to compare either Froch or Groves to those two.  So we’ll stick with Buchanan-Watt as a point of comparison.

As for the fight itself, the temptation is to go for the cliché of Froch by KO or Groves on points, providing “Saint George” can maintain his discipline.  Groves will have to put Froch on his back foot early to knock some steam from the champion before switching to a hit-and-move approach, to pile up points, then put it on Froch again to prevent the older man from building momentum.

It is an approach that requires the fight of Groves’s life, and he is likely to produce this given the stage and the fact that he’s raised his game once before in a high pressure fight, when beating James DeGale in May 2010, and has shown every indication that he can box with discipline and imagination, to quote Adam Booth, his former trainer, and he looks very comfortable under Paddy Fitzpatrick, his new coach, who has given the impression of calculated calm throughout the build-up.

Froch, though, will definitely come on strong late, so it could be a fight in which Groves takes a clattering for the final two rounds, but has built up enough points to win the contest on the cards, contentiously and with Froch being seen as the moral winner of the fight by most fans.  This scenario would lead to calls for an immediate rematch and, if the fight is good enough, may justify those Benn-Eubank comparisons after all.  That's reverse engineering for you.

Please send news and views to neckodeemus@hotmail.co.uk or Twitter @Terryboxing