My View on the Groves Stoppage.

[Sane Man]

If you read my initial post you would know my problem is with this

"Having said that probably a few seconds later it would have been time to stop it. Probably."

So ??????

Apologies. It's just that your posts don't make a lot of coherant sense. It's just agnry rambling for the most part.

Okay, so now I am aware of what you take issue with I will respond.

So? So what? What is wrong with me saying that?

I didn't say it was a sure thing. I qualified my opinion by saying PROBABLY I didn't state it as a fact.

I'm admitting that nobody will know what would have happened in the next few seconds.

For sake of argument let's say Groves wasn't badly hurt. But having your arms at your sides while you turn away sets off alarm bells in the referee's mind. It's that simple.

[NorvernRob]

I'm not even a groves fan until after this fight so calm down son.

You just make the most ******ed posts ever and just to clarify my 2nd post wasn't aimed at you which validates my point of you being a ******.

Because I have two eyes and can see a robbery it makes me a fanboy....ok buddy. Go **** yourself.

I knew groves was going to win so i backed him with money on skybet, I'm annoyed as a fan & a gambler because I have been robbed in broad daylight.

He was nowhere near getting stopped, free punches etc etc etc......you don't know what would of happened. Froch was in a worse position and got to continue. The only thing groves looked to me was tired, he was lucid and able to defend himself and never looked in trouble. The tide was turning but if you don't have a chance to weather the storm might aswell hang up your gloves before you get in the ring. The announcers said the same thing, all twitter and facebook are clogged up with the same opinion. Guess we're all fanboys though.

You and your logic stink of idiocy & that is the reason I'm wasting another second on you ....

Yet you are claiming robbery despite not knowing what would have happened either?

Please explain who was robbed, and of what. Groves was around 4 points up and just about to lose an almost certain 10-8 round even if he wasn't stopped. There were still 3 rounds after that and he was fading while Froch was starting to walk through him, he wasn't even clinching anymore.

The way I see it Groves was only robbed of the chance to carry on, not of the actual fight. Froch was robbed of the chance to finish him properly and the public were robbed of a satisfactory end to the fight.

Nobody is happy about how the fight ended but in no way was Groves robbed of a clear win.

For what it's worth I put money on Groves too.

[Bodyshot3]

Let's get back to the boxing and a good thread.....

I am not a fan of Jim Watt's punditry on Sky Sports because Jim tends to come down far too heavily and early in favour of a fighter who is on top at the time and builds a case for it being one-way traffic and a beatdown.

He got it wrong again for a fair few rounds last night with Froch-Groves, failing to see that Froch was clawing his way his way back into the fight and that Froch is the master of turning bad situations around and pulling things out of the proverbial bag. It's exactly what Carl does!!

But I did agree with Watt's view that Groves was stopped way too early and that the correct time to call off the fight was if/when George got put down.

If he got dropped and staggered to his feet and could not defend himself, then stop fight. But he was still seeing punches, a mile ahead on points and clearly not needing the assistance of the ropes to keep himself upright.

It was a piss-poor call by Howard Foster.

[Curtiz]

Apologies. It's just that your posts don't make a lot of coherant sense. It's just agnry rambling for the most part.

Okay, so now I am aware of what you take issue with I will respond.

So? So what? What is wrong with me saying that?

I didn't say it was a sure thing. I qualified my opinion by saying PROBABLY I didn't state it as a fact.

I'm admitting that nobody will know what would have happened in the next few seconds.

For sake of argument let's say Groves wasn't badly hurt. But having your arms at your sides while you turn away sets off alarm bells in the referee's mind. It's that simple.

Listen because you choose to soak up my posts as drivel doesn't make it so.

You actually sound like my maths teacher, sounded like he knew what he was talking about but in all honestly knew **** all.

Everybody has an opinion, but in this case yours is wrong( and before you qualify me on the fact that an opinion can never be wrong, understand that thats how ****** i believe you are).

I've already realised that if we go further into this debate the more annoyed with you I will get, you're not smart, you obviously don't understand boxing & you most certainly need to get a grip of yourself .

[Curtiz]

Yet you are claiming robbery despite not knowing what would have happened either?

Please explain who was robbed, and of what. Groves was around 4 points up and just about to lose an almost certain 10-8 round even if he wasn't stopped. There were still 3 rounds after that and he was fading while Froch was starting to walk through him, he wasn't even clinching anymore.

The way I see it Groves was only robbed of the chance to carry on, not of the actual fight. Froch was robbed of the chance to finish him properly and the public were robbed of a satisfactory end to the fight.

Nobody is happy about how the fight ended but in no way was Groves robbed of a clear win.

For what it's worth I put money on Groves too.

He was robbed of the chance.

He may have been stopped a couple rounds later, who knows.

Froch was getting stronger and groves was tiring.

But he was never in danger to me.

And thats why i feel for the guy.

I do agree with you though for what it's worth.

[Sane Man]

Groves admitted he was hurt at the time of the stoppage. The way he reacted to being hurt was probably what prompted the stoppage, although obviously only the referee could definitively corroborate that.

[Curtiz]

Groves admitted he was hurt at the time of the stoppage. The way he reacted to being hurt was probably what prompted the stoppage, although obviously only the referee could definitively corroborate that.

Thats funny you say that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/box...-stoppage.html

Watch the 1st video and apologise for lieing.

[billeau2]

The mere fact that there is so much "predictive" hearesay shows a bad decision. There are criteria for stopping a fight and while judgement figures into it these judgements should never take the form of the ref "predicting" what will happen next.

The ref should see if a guy is hurt but the real issue should be "is the guy defending himself?"...if the guy is not the ref has a duty to immediately run in and stop the fight....at this point the ref earns the big bucks because it his duty to not let the guy get hit with any punches the ref can prevent.

Good refs often run in front of a punch, why? because the ref has given the fighter every opportunity and the split second that guy is unable to act in his own defense, the ref shields him.

My point is that bad decision making from a ref is when a ref predicts in some fashion what a fighter's ability to defend oneself will be. The criteria is really simple: when a guy is not throwing punches, not getting out of the way of punches and not defending in any way against punches. Any one of these reactions can occur in a split second though so it is easy for a ref to predict rather than stand by and do his job properly.

yet another way for a ref to get involved in the fight....make his presence known...Being a good ref should be like being a good waiter in a romantic restaurant....guy comes in with the date he wants to impress, the waiter shuts up, says "exellent choice" and quietly serves the meal making his presence known as little as possible.

[Curtiz]

The mere fact that there is so much "predictive" hearesay shows a bad decision. There are criteria for stopping a fight and while judgement figures into it these judgements should never take the form of the ref "predicting" what will happen next.

The ref should see if a guy is hurt but the real issue should be "is the guy defending himself?"...if the guy is not the ref has a duty to immediately run in and stop the fight....at this point the ref earns the big bucks because it his duty to not let the guy get hit with any punches the ref can prevent.

Good refs often run in front of a punch, why? because the ref has given the fighter every opportunity and the split second that guy is unable to act in his own defense, the ref shields him.

My point is that bad decision making from a ref is when a ref predicts in some fashion what a fighter's ability to defend oneself will be. The criteria is really simple: when a guy is not throwing punches, not getting out of the way of punches and not defending in any way against punches. Any one of these reactions can occur in a split second though so it is easy for a ref to predict rather than stand by and do his job properly.

yet another way for a ref to get involved in the fight....make his presence known...Being a good ref should be like being a good waiter in a romantic restaurant....guy comes in with the date he wants to impress, the waiter shuts up, says "exellent choice" and quietly serves the meal making his presence known as little as possible.

Great post.

[thebowtod]

Few seconds later?

The stoppage was pathetic.

Was groves hurt. NO

So how would he be seriously hurt after a few seconds more.

It was a ***ing bull**** call and obviously rigged.

I'm disgusted ......

Froch is a piece of **** aswell.

groves admitted he was hurt in the post fight