Comments Thread For: Groves Loses Appeal, IBF Stands By 85-15 Split For Froch

[uncommon]

85/15 is harsh, but at least the IBF is sticking to their guns and not bending their rules. I think this whole situation could have been avoided and Groves offered more money if he should a more humble and amiable side instead of just running his mouth off.

Groves reportedly refused Matchroom's initial offer because they wanted options on Groves' future fights. Why would Groves sell his soul to Matchroom when they have already - and blatantly - robbed him? IF I were Groves I would have done the same, it's the principle. Of course the money matters, too. It's prizefighting. But sometimes you have to take losses in life to make a point. Groves put a middle finger up at Matchroom, and he should be even more motivated to put an end to Froch.

This guy "freethinkersam" seems to get it. A lot of you posters don't for some reason. A smart fighter needs to learn to fight strictly on a fight per fight basis. These multiple fight contracts favour the few.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Is there something on God's earth that these two must fight under "IBF" rules? Do you think somehow "IBF" has jurisdiction over every venue on this planet?

Groves lobbied the IBF to get the rematch. Have you followed any of this story or are you just talking utter bollox?

[FrankieBruno]

15% is fine

had he taken dodgy herns offer he would have to give Froch a immediate rematch and stay with matchroom for 3 fights

Hern should have taken the immediate rematch stipulation away

[Dirk Diggler UK]

15% is fine

had he taken dodgy herns offer he would have to give Froch a immediate rematch and stay with matchroom for 3 fights

Hern should have taken the immediate rematch stipulation away

Why? You do realise that damn near every fighter in the world asks for a rematch clause/options if they are the champion and the challenger is not the mandatory.

[techliam]

Groves is getting what he wanted though, the fight being handed over to the organisation instead of the hands of Hearn.

I'm sure his appeal for 25% was just to see how far he could push it, as I don't believe he would be ****** enough to think he'd get the exact same money

As far as I see it, if Groves feels unhappy with the monetary arrangement he has two options:

Accept Hearns original offer (if still on the table)

or

Lodge a further appeal with the WBA and see if they enforce another ruling on Froch's WBA belt. Some argue that Froch would just drop this minor belt, but it is Froch's key to another Ward fight - playing politics between sanctioning bodies might benefit Groves in the short term

[KingTito]

Well that backfired.

[FrankieBruno]

Why? You do realise that damn near every fighter in the world asks for a rematch clause/options if they are the champion and the challenger is not the mandatory.

fighting the same guy 3 times in a row is enough for anyone

this fight should be the decider

froch obviously isnt confident that he'll win after the beating he recieved

[Dirk Diggler UK]

fighting the same guy 3 times in a row is enough for anyone

this fight should be the decider

froch obviously isnt confident that he'll win after the beating he recieved

It's standard procedure. When a fighter makes a voluntary defence of their title, a rematch clause is standard. A champion doesn't have to fight a voluntary so they are doing them a favour. A rematch clause is what they get in return.

For example...Froch had to sign a rematch clause with Bute because he was not the mandatory challenger.

It's like saying Groves should just accept whatever terms were offered if he's so confident. Don't be ******.

[techliam]

It's standard procedure. When a fighter makes a voluntary defence of their title, a rematch clause is standard. A champion doesn't have to fight a voluntary so they are doing them a favour. A rematch clause is what they get in return.

For example...Froch had to sign a rematch clause with Bute because he was not the mandatory challenger.

It's like saying Groves should just accept whatever terms were offered if he's so confident. Don't be ******.

Voluntary/Mandatory doesn't matter ... champions often have rematch clause, because as you say, it is standard procedure. Cases where the rematch clause don't exist, is where the challenger is the bigger draw and can negotiate better at the table

Froch was the mandatory for Bute too

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Voluntary/Mandatory doesn't matter ... champions often have rematch clause, because as you say, it is standard procedure. Cases where the rematch clause don't exist, is where the challenger is the bigger draw and can negotiate better at the table

Froch was the mandatory for Bute too

No he wasn't. How could he be the mandatory coming off a loss?

If you're the mandatory challenger, then you get the fight with no rematch clause or no options.

That's what Groves is now getting because the IBF reinstated him as mandatory. But of course, he is getting less money.