Round by Round Scorecard for Froch v Groves

I know you've said it's a bad stoppage. But why are you alluding to the fact that Groves took punishment if you're not trying to justify or at least give reason for the stoppage then? What's the point in pointing out that he took punishment? The only reason I ever stated that Groves took punishment was because someone said; "Froch should have been stopped in Round 1" To which I replied; "The difference is Groves had taken a lot of punishment by Round 9 as opposed to Round 1 when both were still fresh" So, again, I've not once said or even implied that the stoppage is to be justified. Nothing but sheer fabrication on your part. Denying it is not ridiculous. Froch's only sustained assault came in round 9. When else was he putting shots together that had an effect on Groves? At the end of round 6 Groves put his hands by his side and looked a bit tired, but still Froch couldn't hit him. It is ridiculous when there's two photo's on this very page showing his face to be very damaged. Then replying with "It's not that damaged" "He looked like a poster boy" which is just beyond stupid. You don't need to have a sustained attack to inflict punishment. How many sustained attacks did Chavez have on Taylor on the first 8 rounds of their fight? Did he inflict no punishment either? Froch landed solid, heavy punches pretty much in every single round and the accumaltion of which was clearly adding up round after round as his face was showing. He's never fought at world level before. His face was also considerably marked up with cuts and bruises after Degale. Did he also take punishment in that fight? He took his share, yes. Certainly not as damaging as Froch inflicted. But he still took some punishment of course. The cuts and bruising was mainly due to the headbutt that landed but he landed some good punches too. That said, his face after that fight was no where near as bad as it was after the Froch fight and never has been. And you keep bringing up the fact that Groves took punishment, but to what cause? What's the point you are trying to make? I said swollen/partially broken. I saw some rumours about it, and I don't know what to think I'm not a doctor. But it most certainly didn't look good. He looked worse than Ali after the first Frazier fight. You're the one who brought it up in this thread :lol1: The point I'm trying to make is....he took punishment? You're the one that's ridiculously denying it and have done since I first said it. There's pretty much no one who considers Groves to have not taken punishment because it's pretty obvious that he did. "You saw some rumours about it?" which means......absolutey nothing. Froch and his team have confirmed his jaw is not broken. Or "Partially broken". Or damaged at all despite the swelling on his mouth. So this was on Sky Sports news 8 am. 8 hours after the fight, not 24 hours. And yes it does make a difference. You should have a look at the interview he did later on where there was barely anything to see. It was 10 am and where's this "poster boy" interview where I'm supposing his face was completey clean just hours later after looking a mess. The article that picture was taken from was headlined "Battered and Bruised" :lol1: No punishment!! I disagree. His jab was his main weapon in May against Kessler - something he pointed out to everyone in the post fight interview. He's often said "I've got a long stiff jab" - and he does. Just not against Groves - it was thrown lazily and without purpose at all. whether that was what Jim Watt said or not, I don't know. I do remember him saying Froch didn't throw his jab with confidence and I remember I agreed with him. Kessler didn't take his jab away that's the different and even in that fight, like always, he alternated between pawing for a distance maker and snapped it authoritively like he always does. That's what he always does. He does have a long stiff jab, he doesn't always use it that way though like I just said. He snapped it toward Groves at times as well and had some success with it at seldom times. Why are you acting like you don't know what Jim Watt said :lol1: You've said in this thread you know what he said and that's abundantly clear when you copied him word for word.

Erm, no I am not. Show me one post where I have said that it wasn't a bad stoppage. Infact, show me one post where I've even implied it wasn't a bad stoppage Yes it did. Denying it is just ridiculous. I know you've said it's a bad stoppage. But why are you alluding to the fact that Groves took punishment if you're not trying to justify or at least give reason for the stoppage then? What's the point in pointing out that he took punishment? Denying it is not ridiculous. Froch's only sustained assault came in round 9. When else was he putting shots together that had an effect on Groves? At the end of round 6 Groves put his hands by his side and looked a bit tired, but still Froch couldn't hit him. He's never, ever looked anywhere near close to that bad ever in his career because he's never taken that kind of punishment before. He's never fought at world level before. His face was also considerably marked up with cuts and bruises after Degale. Did he also take punishment in that fight? You keep brining up Froch's face like that means something. No one has disputied Froch's face was a damn sight worse. Doesn't change the fact Grove's face is also a mess. Why lie about Froch's Jaw? His Jaw wasn't "partially broken" at all. And you keep bringing up the fact that Groves took punishment, but to what cause? What's the point you are trying to make? I said swollen/partially broken. I saw some rumours about it, and I don't know what to think I'm not a doctor. But it most certainly didn't look good. He looked worse than Ali after the first Frazier fight. To say "Groves looked like a poster boy 24 hours later" is yet another completely baffling observation. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/24/article-0-199C898F00000578-69_634x458.jpg Yes, that's really a "Poster boy" there :lol1: So this was on Sky Sports news 8 am. 8 hours after the fight, not 24 hours. And yes it does make a difference. You should have a look at the interview he did later on where there was barely anything to see. Perhaps you should watch closer and see his jab was no different in this fight. Groves did a good job of taking it away at times like others have done before. Well you copied what he said word for word so I'm not so sure. It was stupid when he said and the same when you repeat it word for word. I disagree. His jab was his main weapon in May against Kessler - something he pointed out to everyone in the post fight interview. He's often said "I've got a long stiff jab" - and he does. Just not against Groves - it was thrown lazily and without purpose at all. whether that was what Jim Watt said or not, I don't know. I do remember him saying Froch didn't throw his jab with confidence and I remember I agreed with him.

All fair enough, but are you saying he's the best UK fighter ever? Because that's all I'm questioning. And the poster said EVER, so let's not divide things into years or last whatever. Is he the best UK fighter ever? I probably wouldn't say he's the best EVER no. But it's not as far-fetched as it sounds. IF, and that's a big if, he beats Andre Ward in a rematch I might revise my ranking. It shouldn't be forgotten that he's dominated one of boxings strongest divisions for half a decade and fought anyone who was anyone. there are a few fighters that are given a legendary status because they are retired and people like to build up the past to be better than what it is, but Froch is doing something special with his career. in terms of fighting ability he's not up there imo technically etc. but his resume is very very strong.

It matters plenty, because you are using it to justify what was clearly a bad stoppage - to which you admitted yourself you'd be pissed if the roles were reversed. Or at least a stoppage you said would have come naturally had the fight gone on for 5-10 more seconds - something I don't agree with. Erm, no I am not. Show me one post where I have said that it wasn't a bad stoppage. Infact, show me one post where I've even implied it wasn't a bad stoppage. I have no justified the stoppage once, not once. I have stated, black and white, on numerous occasions the stoppage was horrible and very premature. So what you're saying is nothing but complete lies as is the second part about the "fight naturally being stopped in the next 5 seconds" show me where I've said that aswell. I've never said that. I said, IMO, I wouldn't be surprised if he was stopped later in the 9th and if not most likely in one of the next 3. I've never justified the stoppage or said he'd get stopped immediately after if the ref didn't jump in. Nothing but fabrication on your part. His face didn't look like a complete mess, he had a couple of black eyes. It's an insult to Groves not to give him a couple of black eyes, even in sparring. Now, Froch who sat in the press conference with bruises all over his face and a swollen/partially broken jaw - his face was a mess. Groves looked like a poster boy 24 hours after the fight - which is exactly how you could tell the "punishment" wasn't severe enough to have done any particular damage. Yes it did. Denying it is just ridiculous. Yeah, his face is fine :lol1: That's definitely a man who took no punishment at all. "Couple black eyes" :lol1: He has two huge black eyes and a swelling and marks above his left eye. He's never, ever looked anywhere near close to that bad ever in his career because he's never taken that kind of punishment before. You keep brining up Froch's face like that means something. No one has disputied Froch's face was a damn sight worse. Doesn't change the fact Grove's face is also a mess. Why lie about Froch's Jaw? His Jaw wasn't "partially broken" at all. To say "Groves looked like a poster boy 24 hours later" is yet another completely baffling observation. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/24/article-0-199C898F00000578-69_634x458.jpg Yes, that's really a "Poster boy" there :lol1: I have watched all those fights plenty enough, and there was a difference in this fight. Against Taylor he didn't even lead with the jab most of the time as he was in stalking mode - he was going for the KO. The situation was similar to the Dirrell fight in that he couldn't really get it off - but he was stalking Dirrell all night as he was running for the hills. In the fight against Groves, Froch was on the back foot, lazily throwing out his jab and clinching his face often as he was afraid of what was coming. It was clear as day, and McCracken even told him between rounds to stay off the jab and hold back as he was getting countered with the right hand too easily. Perhaps you should watch closer and see his jab was no different in this fight. Groves did a good job of taking it away at times like others have done before. Jim Watt did say it, and he was right. That doesn't mean I don't know how to think for myself and see when a guy has confidence in his jab or not. I have seen all of Froch's fights more or less so I know how he fights. Well you copied what he said word for word so I'm not so sure. It was stupid when he said and the same when you repeat it word for word.

I think Froch is most certainly one of Britain's greatest ever tbh. He's got the best resume of any fighter in Britain relative to his division in the past 30 years, maybe apart from Lewis - but not definitely imo. All fair enough, but are you saying he's the best UK fighter ever? Because that's all I'm questioning. And the poster said EVER, so let's not divide things into years or last whatever. Is he the best UK fighter ever?

Because the guy is clearly one of the biggest idiots in Boxing and seems like he has barely been educated. He called it well? He clearly changed his tune by nothing but the interviewer's questions :lol1: He doesn't even know what he thinks. I think it was more him being led into the answer Kugan Cassius was looking for. He was just taking it easy - I mean I was never his biggest fan for a couple of reasons, but he seemed to call it like he saw it in fairness to him.

I thought he called it well tbh. Why is it worthless? It's not like he'll be biased in favour of Groves. Because the guy is clearly one of the biggest idiots in Boxing and seems like he has barely been educated. He called it well? He clearly changed his tune by nothing but the interviewer's questions :lol1: He doesn't even know what he thinks.

He started with "He won none!" to "Yeah Froch was coming on strong in those rounds, could say he won those rounds" :lol1: 7 was pretty clear for Groves but that's Degales opinion which was a worthless thing to cite from the get go. I thought he called it well tbh. Why is it worthless? It's not like he'll be biased in favour of Groves.

No, punishment indicates taking plenty of solid shots across 9 rounds and having a face that looks like a complete mess after the fight. Which is exactly what happened to Groves. How can a guy take "no punishment" and have a face like Groves? Literally doesn't make sense. Why does it matter how much punches Froch took? What difference does that make to the punishment Groves took? Go and watch Froch's fight with Taylor, Dirrell, Ward, and any fact actually including the ones you mentioned. He varies his jab, he doesn't throw it with authority every time. He threw his jab like he always does against Groves. The only reason you're saying it is because Jim Watt said it and you're actually repeating what he said word for word. Groves did a good job at taking away his jab at times by countering it, he also got tagged quite abit with it aswell. Much like Dirrell, Taylor and Ward, Froch's jab looked poor at times in the fight because Groves did a good job of taking it away. It matters plenty, because you are using it to justify what was clearly a bad stoppage - to which you admitted yourself you'd be pissed if the roles were reversed. Or at least a stoppage you said would have come naturally had the fight gone on for 5-10 more seconds - something I don't agree with. His face didn't look like a complete mess, he had a couple of black eyes. It's an insult to Groves not to give him a couple of black eyes, even in sparring. Now, Froch who sat in the press conference with bruises all over his face and a swollen/partially broken jaw - his face was a mess. Groves looked like a poster boy 24 hours after the fight - which is exactly how you could tell the "punishment" wasn't severe enough to have done any particular damage. I have watched all those fights plenty enough, and there was a difference in this fight. Against Taylor he didn't even lead with the jab most of the time as he was in stalking mode - he was going for the KO. The situation was similar to the Dirrell fight in that he couldn't really get it off - but he was stalking Dirrell all night as he was running for the hills. In the fight against Groves, Froch was on the back foot, lazily throwing out his jab and clinching his face often as he was afraid of what was coming. It was clear as day, and McCracken even told him between rounds to stay off the jab and hold back as he was getting countered with the right hand too easily. Jim Watt did say it, and he was right. That doesn't mean I don't know how to think for myself and see when a guy has confidence in his jab or not. I have seen all of Froch's fights more or less so I know how he fights.

I believe he said he could have given them to Froch. But round 7 was clearly Groves' anyway. Clearly. He started with "He won none!" to "Yeah Froch was coming on strong in those rounds, could say he won those rounds" :lol1: 7 was pretty clear for Groves but that's Degales opinion which was a worthless thing to cite from the get go.

Taking punishment indicates that he took more punches that you would expect in a world title fight against an established champion. How many clean punches did he take? How many clean punches did Froch take? That's just absolutely not true. Froch has a great long jab. Abraham, Kessler fights - you see how he can dominate a fight with his jab. He didn't throw it with confidence against Groves. He just didn't as he knew he'd be countered with a stiff right hand that hurts him. No, punishment indicates taking plenty of solid shots across 9 rounds and having a face that looks like a complete mess after the fight. Which is exactly what happened to Groves. How can a guy take "no punishment" and have a face like Groves? Literally doesn't make sense. Why does it matter how much punches Froch took? What difference does that make to the punishment Groves took? Go and watch Froch's fight with Taylor, Dirrell, Ward, and any fact actually including the ones you mentioned. He varies his jab, he doesn't throw it with authority every time. He threw his jab like he always does against Groves. The only reason you're saying it is because Jim Watt said it and you're actually repeating what he said word for word. Groves did a good job at taking away his jab at times by countering it, he also got tagged quite abit with it aswell. Much like Dirrell, Taylor and Ward, Froch's jab looked poor at times in the fight because Groves did a good job of taking it away.

I agree with you about Jim Watt - which is why I didn't score the fight live & I watched it again without Jim Watt's commentary. My score of 78-73 to Groves is based on my own opinion. And if you really think that Froch is the greatest UK boxer ever then you really don't know very much about boxing. Froch is an excellent fighter & I' chuffed to be able to watch him but.... well, anyone with even a little bit of boxing knowledge will tell you he's not the best, or ever close to it. I truly don't mean this as one of those petty "I've forgotten more than you etc etc blah blah" posts but please learn about British Boxing history before stating stuff like that. It detracts from your posts. I think Froch is most certainly one of Britain's greatest ever tbh. He's got the best resume of any fighter in Britain relative to his division in the past 30 years, maybe apart from Lewis - but not definitely imo.

Then proceeded to say he gave him the 7th and 8th in the very same interview :lol1: I believe he said he could have given them to Froch. But round 7 was clearly Groves' anyway. Clearly.

Groves "not taking any punishment" is pretty much only what you see :lol1: Even people who think Groves dominated the fight adknowledge he took plenty of punishment. His face after the fight, again, is pretty solid evidence. Funny you used Jim Watt's favourite line of the fight about his jab. That's the first time I've seen that echo'd on here. Froch's jab is always like that, he paws with it then snaps it, alternating. Groves did a good job of taking it away at times that's the difference. Taking punishment indicates that he took more punches that you would expect in a world title fight against an established champion. How many clean punches did he take? How many clean punches did Froch take? That's just absolutely not true. Froch has a great long jab. Abraham, Kessler fights - you see how he can dominate a fight with his jab. He didn't throw it with confidence against Groves. He just didn't as he knew he'd be countered with a stiff right hand that hurts him.

I agree with you about Jim Watt - which is why I didn't score the fight live & I watched it again without Jim Watt's commentary. My score of 78-73 to Groves is based on my own opinion. And if you really think that Froch is the greatest UK boxer ever then you really don't know very much about boxing. Froch is an excellent fighter & I' chuffed to be able to watch him but.... well, anyone with even a little bit of boxing knowledge will tell you he's not the best, or ever close to it. I truly don't mean this as one of those petty "I've forgotten more than you etc etc blah blah" posts but please learn about British Boxing history before stating stuff like that. It detracts from your posts. I'd say Froch is up there somewhere with the best of Britain.

James Degale said he didn't give Froch any rounds at all. Then proceeded to say he gave him the 7th and 8th in the very same interview :lol1:

Groves 1,2,3,4,6,7 froch 5,8 78-73 Froch threw his jab with no confidence at all. He seemed scared of Groves at times I'm sorry to say. I know the Froch diehards will have a hard time agreeing with this as apparently he was dishing out "punishment" to Groves. Something only they can see. Groves "not taking any punishment" is pretty much only what you see :lol1: Even people who think Groves dominated the fight adknowledge he took plenty of punishment. His face after the fight, again, is pretty solid evidence. Funny you used Jim Watt's favourite line of the fight about his jab. That's the first time I've seen that echo'd on here. Froch's jab is always like that, he paws with it then snaps it, alternating. Groves did a good job of taking it away at times that's the difference.

James Degale said he didn't give Froch any rounds at all.

Groves 1,2,3,4,6,7 froch 5,8 78-73 Froch threw his jab with no confidence at all. He seemed scared of Groves at times I'm sorry to say. I know the Froch diehards will have a hard time agreeing with this as apparently he was dishing out "punishment" to Groves. Something only they can see.

I was there live and gave Froch way more than rounds than some of these ridiculous groves 1-7 rounds. Watched the TV version and I blame Jim Watt for these over inflated Groves scorecards. I agree with you about Jim Watt - which is why I didn't score the fight live & I watched it again without Jim Watt's commentary. My score of 78-73 to Groves is based on my own opinion. And if you really think that Froch is the greatest UK boxer ever then you really don't know very much about boxing. Froch is an excellent fighter & I' chuffed to be able to watch him but.... well, anyone with even a little bit of boxing knowledge will tell you he's not the best, or ever close to it. I truly don't mean this as one of those petty "I've forgotten more than you etc etc blah blah" posts but please learn about British Boxing history before stating stuff like that. It detracts from your posts.