George Groves - How much has his stock dropped and where does he go??

First topic message reminder :

Where are we with this guy now ???....Just been in the biggest fight in the UK for years......Almost say he's a superfighter.....

But he fought a mainly negative fight... acted like an a-hole beforehand....and was comprehensively beaten with a seriously punishing knockout punch......

The rematch validates the result of the first fight....So Groves has been stopped twice in a row....

He can't go from a "Superfight participant" to a Chief Support that is an insult.....He can't go back to being a small venue fighter........The British belt is a step back and is a pointless exercise ..........and yet he needs to gain confidence by learning to win again so a quick alphabet shot is out one would think !!.....One would think as a headline act he'd have to fight someone decent...

Just glad I'm not managing this guy at the moment because I don't know..

A. How popular he is.....

B. What to do with him....and when to do it...

Groves is an interesting phenomenon.............

I think the biggest problem with it Catchy is that most people (me included) expected Groves to come out banging like last time and before we realised what he was doing we'd thought Froch had complete control.

Looking back it was a more even fight but I think both fighters were fighting the fight they wanted with neither forcing the issue (till the 8th), but I would put Froch slightly ahead (as did the missus and my buddy)

Answer to Truss
I don't disagree with your scoring as a lot of people had it either way, Think your digging a hole though with your reasons though as with regards to Mayweather you are a bit of a fanboy (not a bad thing, ask D4 ;-) and think you'd find a reason to have him winning if he got knocked out   

  

Derbymanc wrote:I think it's your reasoning Truss.

Your judging Froch ahead for doing the same as Maidana yet have him behind, doesn't make sense   

Because they are 'different fights', apparently. Basically a perfect get-out clause so you can score whatever you want with no need for a consistent approach.

Calm down dear ..  

It's fanboyitis Toppy, just have fun with it, makes the day go quicker if your sitting around bored :-D

I think some are struggling to see that just because I gave Froch the non descript rounds for wanting a fight.......Means I didn't think it was a competitive fight..

Some also seem to struggle with the fact that Mayweather-Maidana isn't the same fight..

But there you go..........

I'm such a Mayweather fanboy..I thought the Oscar fight could have gone either way and Hatton was ahead after 5 against him..

Derbymanc wrote:It's fanboyitis Toppy, just have fun with it, makes the day go quicker if your sitting around bored :-D

You want to decide If you want to debate or you want to be a wum..

Not Wummng just being honest big fella, you are a massive fanboy of Mayweather and judge him by different standards to everyone else. Therefore you give Froch points for doing things that May's opponent did but because it's not him involved it's okay.

It's double standards and you know it.

You tell me which rounds in the May-Maidana fight were exact carbon copies of the Froch one and I'll take you seriously.....

I gave Maidana four rounds and If you check out Alex thread it's pretty much in line with everyone else..

So much for my bias..

But prey do continue...

Don't be ridiculous and get your panties out of that knot.

Your judging two fighters that fought similar styles completely different because one opponent was named Mayweather and the other wasn't.

In fairness, I have to say I agree with Truss here. Using the 'How can you say you had fighter A winning this fight when you had fighter B losing that one?' argument doesn't really hold any water for me. At least not in this context.

We've all got inclinations towards certain styles and tactics, no matter how small, but beefster is right when he says that you can't just apply it to all fights. It's perfectly valid for someone to say that they had Froch edging it the other week (5-2 a bit too much for me, but that's besides the point) but that they also had Mayweather winning a close fight against Maidana as far as I'm concerned.

Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result. Mayweather and Groves may both have set their stalls out tentatively, but Mayweather's defence obviously held up better. In the case of Froch-Groves, Truss obviously feels that one man's aggression, which he usually favours, was more impressive than the other's defence. But that doesn't mean he has to apply that rule to every single fight he scores. Even if you're a guy who prefers the aggressor, if you're being fair and honest then you have to concede that now and then the defender in the fight will show enough superior defence, ring generalship, punch accuracy etc to offset that. Likewise, if you generally prefer the more technical, defence-minded fighter who goes for quality rather than quantity, if you're being fair you'll still come across instances where the ring general just allows himself to get outworked or smothered by his opponent.

Saying that no two fights are the same ain't fanboyism, lads. I can't argue with it, for one!

I think we're all guilty sometimes of seeing things how we want to in close fights, if you have a favourite or a preconceived idea about the fight. Its human nature. Scoring fights is subjective and we've had the 10 point must debate and effective aggression arguments countless times. Most if us have used punch stats to support our arguments when it suits us, and rubbished them when it doesn't!

I saw the fight pretty much as catchy did, but recognise that you could see it as truss did... If you give all the benefit of the doubt to froch. Likewise there were people who had groves way out in front, doing the opposite.

Any thread that has haz and hammer in agreement, and truss complimenting haz, has such novelty value, it would be all wrong to get into a spat over who was winning a fight that ended with a conclusive ko.

Let's have a group hug instead.

Gotta say I disagree Chris,

If you score a fight different for 2 different fights that are fought similarly then your obviously favouring a certain fighter.

I thought the stats had been put up for the Groves fight which showed Groves hitting more of the punches.

As stated I have no issues with Truss's scoring (of either fight tbh) but he is a Mayweather fan (again not an issue).

 for all x2 for Truss    

I'm down on record on here as having Hatton ahead after five against Floyd and for commenting If Oscar won their fight I wouldn't have had a problem with it...

Also down as having Honey 5-1 against Curry..

So where is your evidence that I can't score a fight objectively despite being a fanboy...

Haz, Hammer and others had Froch three  or so rounds ahead..........and 90% of posters on here scored the Mayweather-Maidana for Floyd..

Now that's what I call rebuttal..  

By the way derby....Toppy thinks by me saying Provo is a poor man's Chuvalo ...It means I rate him...

Am I supposed to take him seriously ?? You tell me !!  

You are a bit of a hatton and Oscar fanboy too truss.

And I've long suspected that under all the vitriol you've spouted about Lloyd down the years that actually, you're a bit sweet on honey. The curry love is just a smokescreen.

Regardless, I'm not taking a guy, who scored the Leonard hagler fight so accurately, to task on a few idiosyncrasies here and there.

Chill Truss, Just remember in the personality stakes he's no better than Chisora ;-)

Your scoring's fine bud, i'm just playing devils advocate and I won't pay too watch Mayweather (or Manny) as I think the sport will be better when they both foxtrot oscar (He is an amazing talent though.)

I don't think either of you take each other seriously and it's all fun and games as long as we're not at each others throats.

Still don't think Froch was that far in front though ;-)

Derbymanc wrote:Gotta say I disagree Chris,

If you score a fight different for 2 different fights that are fought similarly then your obviously favouring a certain fighter.

I thought the stats had been put up for the Groves fight which showed Groves hitting more of the punches.

As stated I have no issues with Truss's scoring (of either fight tbh) but he is a Mayweather fanboy (again not an issue).

He's a Mayweather fanboy, but you don't have to be a Floyd obsessive to score the Maidana fight in favour of him even if you're a guy who prefers the aggressor who is carrying the fight.

Fights can be similar in how the action unfolds, how each man has shaped their approach etc, but if they're both close then it only takes the odd little different here and there to sway them in different directions and give them different outcomes (ie, aggressive fighter gets the nod in one, defensive one gets it in the other). Fights can be similar....But not indentical.

I think if you set your judging stall out as ridgidly as you, Toppy etc seem to do then if you go back for enough you'll eventually come across a fight where you've contradicted yourself the way Truss supposedly has here. I think we all would, in fact.

I don't tend to favour one particular style over another, at least not to too much of a degree (well, I'd like to think anyway!), so I'll put a question to those who are a bit more partial to the outright aggressor / defender. Some fights below that are all those super-close, small margin either way kind of deals.

Dirrell-Froch; Leonard-Hagler; Groves-Degale; De la Hoya-Whitaker; Kalambay-McCallum I; Pacquiao-Marquez II; Lewis-Mercer; Mayweather-Castillo I

All of these fights had one guy who was primarily attacking and forcing the issue for the majority of the time, with the other fighter looking for quality over quantity and often on the back foot looking to win by doing cleaner work going away.

Surely even those guys who emphatically prefer aggression / defence haven’t scored every one of these fights in favour of the style they normally prefer? If you have, then fair enough, I must be talking cobblers....But I'd find it hard to believe that in at least one case you haven't had to go against those inclinations towards certain styles we all have?

You tell me what two fights are the same.....Chris ??

The boys don't understand that If you nick the round you nick it..and that If your work is comparable the aggressor should get it !!

I'm not a Floyd fan boy either...........Just comes across that way because I'm the only one on here who sticks up for the guy..

If possible would someone be able to do (as a new article) a guide on scoring a fight?

I know it would be a rough guide but might help some of us less knowledgable posters out, I'm pretty bad at scoring fights and tend to go with my gut.

I tend to try and watch the fighters and see what they're doing, if someones throwing a lot but missing then it's the other guys round and vice versa (very simplified)

88Chris05 wrote:Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result.

Hate to disagree with you Chris, but are you sure about this comment? Groves was landing at Mayweather-esque rates of 40-45% per round. Did Floyd really land a significanty higher percentage versus Maidana?

So is it the quality or the quantity....

F**K me..

Like I said why not give Leonard every round against Hagler.....If punches landed matters.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You tell me what two fights are the same.....Chris ??

The boys don't understand that If you nick the round you nick it..and that If your work is comparable the aggressor should get it !!

I'm not a Floyd fan boy either...........Just comes across that way because I'm the only one on here who sticks up for the guy..

But how are you defining 'comparable'?

If one guy is throwing loads but connecting little, and the other guy is connecting with almost half the punches he throws, one being on the front foot, the other being on the back - how are they 'comparable' enough to use your method to split them?

As with derbymanc, I don't neccesarily have an issue with your approach here Truss, it's in your application.

You're above your pay grade..

and you know it !!

When I argue with Haz at least I can respect is knowledge..

This where I get a bit stuck Truss, is it better to throw 3 connecting scruffy punches or 1 decent shot that connects (from a scoring point of view) ?

Derbymanc wrote:If possible would someone be able to do (as a new article) a guide on scoring a fight?

I know it would be a rough guide but might help some of us less knowledgable posters out, I'm pretty bad at scoring fights and tend to go with my gut.

I tend to try and watch the fighters and see what they're doing, if someones throwing a lot but missing then it's the other guys round and vice versa (very simplified)

Don’t worry fella, a lot of the time judging comes down to what the individual prefers….So no matter how many fights you watch / judge and how many styles you’ve seen, there’ll always be people who disagree.

I just try to keep in mind the four main outlined criteria, which are clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence. In some rounds one guy’s clean punching will be the highlight, in others it might be the other’s ability to evade shots and counter – but if his fifteen counters are tip-tap shots as opposed to the less frequent but more hurtful bombs of his opponent, interpretation comes in to play, hence why I personally feel that it’s a dangerous thing to hang your hat on one style too much.

For instance, you say that if you see one guy (fighter A) throwing a lot but not landing, you’d give it to the other guy. Fair enough, so would a lot of people. But while making the other bloke miss is great, if he (fighter B) isn’t mounting any attack of his own and has become too keen on just evading shots, then a lot of others will say “well, some offence even if it’s not effective is better than no offence at all. Can’t win a round without throwing shots, even if you block, parry and slip every one that comes your way.”

Most of the time, in the kind of fights I listed above, there’s never really a “wrong” or “right” answer, to be honest.

Easy formula.....Who does the better work and If you can't decide give it to the guy that wants a fight..

Leonard won because he did enough to nick rounds...Groves didn't in my opinion.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result.

Hate to disagree with you Chris, but are you sure about this comment? Groves was landing at Mayweather-esque rates of 40-45% per round.  Did Floyd really land a significanty higher percentage versus Maidana?

Not a great fan of punchstat / compubox numbers really, Toppy. I see what you're saying, but the countring shots that Mayweather landed on Maidana (and remember, many of them came in the late rounds which Froch-Groves never made it to) to me were a lot crisper and accurate than the ones Groves landed on Carl in general. Groves perhaps had comparable quantity in terms of percentage, but not the same quality. Again I'll stress, some are looking more for one, some more for the other.

88Chris05 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result.

Hate to disagree with you Chris, but are you sure about this comment? Groves was landing at Mayweather-esque rates of 40-45% per round.  Did Floyd really land a significanty higher percentage versus Maidana?

Not a great fan of punchstat / compubox numbers really, Toppy. I see what you're saying, but the countring shots that Mayweather landed on Maidana (and remember, many of them came in the late rounds which Froch-Groves never made it to) to me were a lot crisper and accurate than the ones Groves landed on Carl in general. Groves perhaps had comparable quantity in terms of percentage, but not the same quality. Again I'll stress, some are looking more for one, some more for the other.

Absolutely right............

No two fights are the same.... but some just don't get it !!...............

Cheers Chris   

Fair do's Truss I had Froch ahead myself but thought Groves gameplan hinged on him upping the workrate in the final quarter.

Maybe the wrong tactic in hindsight but not sure how many of us seen that punch coming

Derby, you're not on your own with your scoring system. Just look at the official cards. Its a minefield. I prefer one clean shot over 3 scruffy ones, as you could argue that glancing blows are a draw between offence and defence.  But, then there's degrees of 'glancing' and any blow is better than no blow at all. In boxing as in life. 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So is it the quality or the quantity....

F**K me..

Like I said why not give Leonard every round against Hagler.....If punches landed matters.

Point is Truss. If someone were charging forwards at Mayweather, landing hardly anything they threw whilst the great one was counter-punching their head off with almost 50% hit rate - you'd score that to Mayweather. As would I.

Except that is how I essentially saw the early rounds of Froch-Groves - one charging forwards landing little, the other on the backfoot countering with landing both MORE and higher %. Therefore my scoring approach is consistent.

If they'd both landed similar numbers & percentages than, most likely, I'd be with you and giving the close round to the aggressor.

88Chris05 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result.

Hate to disagree with you Chris, but are you sure about this comment? Groves was landing at Mayweather-esque rates of 40-45% per round.  Did Floyd really land a significanty higher percentage versus Maidana?

Not a great fan of punchstat / compubox numbers really, Toppy. I see what you're saying, but the countring shots that Mayweather landed on Maidana (and remember, many of them came in the late rounds which Froch-Groves never made it to) to me were a lot crisper and accurate than the ones Groves landed on Carl in general. Groves perhaps had comparable quantity in terms of percentage, but not the same quality. Again I'll stress, some are looking more for one, some more for the other.

Not surprised, you are the one the managed to score Manny-Bradley I to Tim afterall.......

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result.

Hate to disagree with you Chris, but are you sure about this comment? Groves was landing at Mayweather-esque rates of 40-45% per round.  Did Floyd really land a significanty higher percentage versus Maidana?

Not a great fan of punchstat / compubox numbers really, Toppy. I see what you're saying, but the countring shots that Mayweather landed on Maidana (and remember, many of them came in the late rounds which Froch-Groves never made it to) to me were a lot crisper and accurate than the ones Groves landed on Carl in general. Groves perhaps had comparable quantity in terms of percentage, but not the same quality. Again I'll stress, some are looking more for one, some more for the other.

Not surprised, you are the one the managed to score Manny-Bradley I to Tim afterall.......  

Very good...Now run a long....

I get abused for having a certain opinion but when Chris shares it this guy licks his butt..

Well Toppy, I could have just tried to save face and pretend that I was lashed when I watched it live, but it's just a fight that, for whatever reason, it appears I'll always see differently to the rest of the world. No idea why, and I've never been as out of step with the overwhelming majority on any other fight as I am with that one (and as I said from the off, that does imply that it's me who is barking up the wrong tree).....But I just can't see that fight as the super robbery that everyone else saw it as.

115-114 Bradley on the night, got a rollocking off everyone so have watched it back three times since, very mindful of how much of a kicking I got for my scoring first time out and watching intently for whatever I clearly missed....But overall my initial view hasn't really changed that much. Pacquiao 115-113 on second viewing. 115-114 to Manny third time out. Just before the rematch I watched it again, and was back to Bradley just edging it, 115-114 again. I'm clearly mental or have some kind of mental block when it comes to that fight, evidently, but I just see it as a close, close fight which could have gone either way.

Bit of a mystery to me as usually my scoring ain't too far out of leftfield.....But that's life!

Thought it was contentious rather than a robbery.....

Did score it for Manny though.

You've been a bit left field with a few toney fights too Chris. Pitched a shut out against nunn .  Granted, not as left field as my view that Alexander matthysse wasn't a complete robbery.

I thought manny won the first Bradley fight, but i wasn't as outraged as most by it.

DAVE667 wrote:If the likes of Murray, Barker and Macklin can get two/three world title shots then why not Groves? He's as good as them and a KO loss shouldn't be a reason to dismiss a fighter completely out of hand but sadly it seems to be the way. Lewis relocated to the USA as most people dismissed him as over-rated garbage after being KO'd by McCall.

Don't blame Groves and think Sauerland are smart enough to know that Groves is a better fighter than people will give him credit for. He'll get back to winning ways quick enough but no doubt it will fly under the radar for the majority of the public and when Groves is back in the UK, it'll be,

"Didn't he lose to Carl Froch the other week?"
"No mate, that was over a year ago, he's had three fights since then."
"I've not heard about them."
"Says it all really!"

Not sure anyone thinks groves is undeserving of future shots.............Certainly no one here thinks he's anything but a quality fighter..

milkyboy wrote:You've been a bit left field with a few toney fights too Chris. Pitched a shut out against nunn .  Granted, not as left field as my view that Alexander matthysse wasn't a complete robbery.

I thought manny won the first Bradley fight, but i wasn't as outraged as most by it.

You thought Manny got a quiet beating on the sly !!  

milkyboy wrote:You've been a bit left field with a few toney fights too Chris. Pitched a shut out against nunn

You're mistaken, Milky. Just said that Toney wasn't anywhere near as far behind as the myth tells us....

It was the Tiberi fight which was a shut out for Toney! Get it right!

I remember Chris scoring the first Whittaker-Ramirez fight a draw..

Yeh truss. Poster of the year my arse!

Nothing like having a favourite fighter or a boxer that’s there has been some dosh stuck on involved to help someone score a fight either.

catchweight wrote:Nothing like having a favourite fighter or a boxer that’s there has been some dosh stuck on involved to help someone score a fight either.

Could someone translate this for me....

Come to think of it ...Where is Izzi these days ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Maidana was more aggressive against Mayweather than Froch was against Groves, but at the same time he also took a higher percentage of shots as a result.

Hate to disagree with you Chris, but are you sure about this comment? Groves was landing at Mayweather-esque rates of 40-45% per round.  Did Floyd really land a significanty higher percentage versus Maidana?

Not a great fan of punchstat / compubox numbers really, Toppy. I see what you're saying, but the countring shots that Mayweather landed on Maidana (and remember, many of them came in the late rounds which Froch-Groves never made it to) to me were a lot crisper and accurate than the ones Groves landed on Carl in general. Groves perhaps had comparable quantity in terms of percentage, but not the same quality. Again I'll stress, some are looking more for one, some more for the other.

Not surprised, you are the one the managed to score Manny-Bradley I to Tim afterall.......  

Very good...Now run a long....

I get abused for having a certain opinion but when Chris shares it this guy licks his butt..

Chris isn't pompous with it.....

Plus he backs up his arguments better and is more consistent/unbiaised.

Let's agree to disagree Mate..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:If the likes of Murray, Barker and Macklin can get two/three world title shots then why not Groves? He's as good as them and a KO loss shouldn't be a reason to dismiss a fighter completely out of hand but sadly it seems to be the way. Lewis relocated to the USA as most people dismissed him as over-rated garbage after being KO'd by McCall.

Don't blame Groves and think Sauerland are smart enough to know that Groves is a better fighter than people will give him credit for. He'll get back to winning ways quick enough but no doubt it will fly under the radar for the majority of the public and when Groves is back in the UK, it'll be,

"Didn't he lose to Carl Froch the other week?"
"No mate, that was over a year ago, he's had three fights since then."
"I've not heard about them."
"Says it all really!"

Not sure anyone thinks groves is undeserving of future shots.............Certainly no one here thinks he's anything but a quality fighter..

Try telling that to the casuals who went to the Froch/Groves fight at Wembley with little or no knowledge of the sport. They will dismiss him out of hand

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:If the likes of Murray, Barker and Macklin can get two/three world title shots then why not Groves? He's as good as them and a KO loss shouldn't be a reason to dismiss a fighter completely out of hand but sadly it seems to be the way. Lewis relocated to the USA as most people dismissed him as over-rated garbage after being KO'd by McCall.

Don't blame Groves and think Sauerland are smart enough to know that Groves is a better fighter than people will give him credit for. He'll get back to winning ways quick enough but no doubt it will fly under the radar for the majority of the public and when Groves is back in the UK, it'll be,

"Didn't he lose to Carl Froch the other week?"
"No mate, that was over a year ago, he's had three fights since then."
"I've not heard about them."
"Says it all really!"

Not sure anyone thinks groves is undeserving of future shots.............Certainly no one here thinks he's anything but a quality fighter..

Try telling that to the casuals who went to the Froch/Groves fight at Wembley with little or no knowledge of the sport. They will dismiss him out of hand

Only the Bradley Pryce fans..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:If the likes of Murray, Barker and Macklin can get two/three world title shots then why not Groves? He's as good as them and a KO loss shouldn't be a reason to dismiss a fighter completely out of hand but sadly it seems to be the way. Lewis relocated to the USA as most people dismissed him as over-rated garbage after being KO'd by McCall.

Don't blame Groves and think Sauerland are smart enough to know that Groves is a better fighter than people will give him credit for. He'll get back to winning ways quick enough but no doubt it will fly under the radar for the majority of the public and when Groves is back in the UK, it'll be,

"Didn't he lose to Carl Froch the other week?"
"No mate, that was over a year ago, he's had three fights since then."
"I've not heard about them."
"Says it all really!"

Not sure anyone thinks groves is undeserving of future shots.............Certainly no one here thinks he's anything but a quality fighter..

Try telling that to the casuals who went to the Froch/Groves fight at Wembley with little or no knowledge of the sport. They will dismiss him out of hand

Only the Bradley Pryce fans..

QUITE RIGHTLY, THEY KNOW A STAR WHEN THEY SEE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Booth had allot to do with Groves doing well. He is explosive and powerful but it takes up allot of energy. for me against smart skilled fighters he will come unstuck, but he may still win a world title while the likes of Bika are out there.

I allways felt the first fight it was Froch who was robbed of his glory... Groves was no longer hurting Froch and was running from him and Froch was hurting him, two more punches and Groves was done IMO, Even when Groves was KOed in the second fight you saw the same reaction when he was first waved out.... Loads of heart, cant take that away from him, which is of course a big asset in boxing.

In the second fight I dont think it was a coincidence that in the 8th round Groves leaves him self open to that big punch, as he was getting tired, yes he was landing better shots at that time but I still think he looked tired and Froch was still walking him down...

I allways see Groves as like a Cat in a corner, He will scratch your eyes out if you try get him, but if you get a hold of him, its good night.

Predictable post from the board's #1 Froch & DeGale fanboy.....