Is Groves a legacy defining win???

Really

according to Froch it was. Sorry but I just don't buy it. 80,000 spectators means nothing but a huge payday for 2 fighters who did not deserve it. Should Groves go on to become a great S/M then maybe but to be honest at this stage in their careers it was nothing more then a big domestic fight as Andre Ward stated before hand.

Froch has nothing to prove but this fight does not get him ATG status. If you compare the records then obviously Froch should have beaten Groves in much the same way in the 1st fight.

To the moderate this was a great classic dust up but you can't pull the wool over the eyes of us real boxing fans Carl

Yeah your right

pointless thread

In hindsight then would you agree that this fight was a high risk no reward from Froch?

I don't think it's the win that is career defining, but the fight itself that is defining.

This fight will always be remembered, it was a huge event and rightly so.

Career high earnings for Froch. He bagged over 10 million or this fight so the reward was massive. It was the biggest fight out there for him.

depends what groves goes on to do, if groves goes on to be multi time world champ himself then in hindsight it will look like a great win.

similar to if calzaghe had fought and beat froch early on, at the time it didnt look like a great fight but in hindsight it would look like a great win on his cv even if froch wouldnt have been at his best at the time

Why do people feel the need to belittle this fight, was a fascinating blend of styles and went well above domestic level.

It's time to stop putting down our 'domestic' fights. Why should our boys constantly have to fight in America etc for a fight to be considered worthy?

Everybody complains that there isn't enough interesting in boxing in the UK. Well maybe if we cherished our fighters a bit more and created some tasty domestic rivalries eg what Groves Froch turned into then the sport would thrive over here.

Some people on here seem to have this attitude where if a fighter loses it automatically means he's not as good as was thought. At the end of the day the first fight was epic, and the second ended in a spectacular knockout. It's boxing, had things gone slightly different Groves could hold all the belts.

Just because he lost doesnt automatically discredit everything the guys about.

For me this was one of Froch's best victories. He got put to the sword by a young, hungry talented, unbeaten fighter. People questioned his age etc and he came back to knock him clean out. What more do people want from Froch?

Of course now after everything's over and Groves lost emphatically people just want to brush it all under the carpet and put it all down to Groves not being that good

I'd say it was a legacy win. Headlining Wembley in the capital of your own country against a fellow Brit. 80,000 fans, big time atmosphere, all the works.

Not only that, but he was rematching a guy who had handed him a 6 round beating previously and in many peoples eyes was going to get out boxed or knocked out.

Pundits everywhere we on about his lack of defence, speed, technical ability in comparison to Groves.

He came out and knocked him out cold in a superfight when all the boxes were supposedly ticked against him.

I'd go as far to say that was his best and finest win to be honest.

mobilemaster8 wrote:I'd say it was a legacy win. Headlining Wembley in the capital of your own country against a fellow Brit. 80,000 fans, big time atmosphere, all the works.

Not only that, but he was rematching a guy who had handed him a 6 round beating previously and in many peoples eyes was going to get out boxed or knocked out.

Pundits everywhere we on about his lack of defence, speed, technical ability in comparison to Groves.

He came out and knocked him out cold in a superfight when all the boxes were supposedly ticked against him.

I'd go as far to say that was his best and finest win to be honest.

Don't agree

Pascal was his biggest win and the most impressive. Fighting an unbeaten threat who really was a light heavy even back then Froch went to war and won. Groves was a top euro level fighter at best when they met the first time, Froch just made him look good the same way Holy made Cooper look good, same way Bowe made Golota look good, same way Haglar made Mugabi look great. Fighters have off nights as did Froch in the first fight but second time around Froch did what was expected.

I think history will tell us whether it's legacy defining or not. If Groves now achieves nothing then how could it be defining.

BUT
If Groves goes onto good things then of course it's a defining win.

At the moment it does look like a very good win especially after the first fight, here's hoping Groves does go on to good things, and we really should stop knocking people down just because they've got a few losses. We're always complaining boxers aren't matched properly but why is any promoter going to match his fighters tough if the minute they lose they're branded overrated piles of rubbish.

Froch deserved this big payday as much as any other Brit has i.e. Lewis, Hatton, Calzaghe, Khan has in the last 20 years.

As for legacy, it is too soon to judge how good Groves was but for Froch to rebound off a controversial win with a highlight KO against a monstrous crowd was impressive.

I think Groves will do well and if he does then it will look better for Froch.