Froch vs Groves

[Rids]

There is a big difference between the way Froch got dropped and the way Groves went down.

They were both good punches, but if you look at when Froch was dropped in the first fight his hands were straight down by his side pushing up off the ground and bouncing back to his feet. Once he was back on his feet his hands were up in a position to defend himself.

If you look at the way Groves went down, when he hits the ground its a good 5 seconds before he even begins to respond. His leg is bent over, his arms are flat behind his head not moving. Froch was dazed by a great shot but not out, Groves was in hibernation.

 

[SlugForAButt]

Groves got up after he got knocked out the other night..

Dear God.
Knocked out is completely different to knocked down and you are grasping at straws there. You seem to be desperately suggesting that Groves could have carried on after wearing his ankle round his neck while he was out cold.
He was outthought in the second fight and outpunched and outclassed in both fights.
And watching him having to bite his lip while Froch stuck it to him in the interview post-fight was priceless.

 

[cheesyboy]

Can anyone explain to me why the below the line comments (particularly the earlier comments) on Telegraph are getting so upset about this Froch article;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...nch-that-felled-George-Groves-at-Wembley.html

They're all getting pretty worked up about some sort of disrespect, but I can't see it. I suspect they are all just a bunch of morons, but I'm just concerned that, actually, I'm the moron

 

[[TW]Sponge]

Can anyone explain to me why the below the line comments (particularly the earlier comments) on Telegraph are getting so upset about this Froch article;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...nch-that-felled-George-Groves-at-Wembley.html

They're all getting pretty worked up about some sort of disrespect, but I can't see it. I suspect they are all just a bunch of morons, but I'm just concerned that, actually, I'm the moron

Christ it's worse than football banter.

 

[G|mp]

Dear God.
Knocked out is completely different to knocked down and you are grasping at straws there. You seem to be desperately suggesting that Groves could have carried on after wearing his ankle round his neck while he was out cold.
He was outthought in the second fight and outpunched and outclassed in both fights.
And watching him having to bite his lip while Froch stuck it to him in the interview post-fight was priceless.

I think your letting your hard on for Froch get in the way of rational thought

 

[atpbx]

Groves got up after he got knocked out the other night.

Froch was struggling for a couple of rounds as I remember it from the first fight. Froch was 'buzzed' as you put it a fair few times in the one round, it depends how far your opinion of being knocked out is, one things for sure, Froch knows Groves can land a decent punch as well.

He was sparked for a couple of seconds, it really isn't safe to carry on fighting after that.
He could have got into all kinds of trouble if he had carried on, so it's probably for the best it was stopped at that point.

 

[SlugForAButt]

Dear God.
Knocked out is completely different to knocked down and you are grasping at straws there. You seem to be desperately suggesting that Groves could have carried on after wearing his ankle round his neck while he was out cold.
He was outthought in the second fight and outpunched and outclassed in both fights.
And watching him having to bite his lip while Froch stuck it to him in the interview post-fight was priceless.

I think your letting your hard on for Froch get in the way of rational thought

Explain how rational thought could possibly have let Groves carry on?

 

[McBain]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...nch-that-felled-George-Groves-at-Wembley.html

Avenging his defeat by Andre Ward is an option

Except it's not really an option, as he wouldn't be avenging anything.

 

[cheesyboy]

Christ it's worse than football banter.

Whilst the mud slinging is pretty much expected (but bloody annoying), I can't understand why they're generally of the opinion that the article is something to take offense at. Do they think the writer is having a go at Froch or boxing in general when he says "awful" regarding the knockout?

 

[rubberduck]

Whilst the mud slinging is pretty much expected (but bloody annoying), I can't understand why they're generally of the opinion that the article is something to take offense at. Do they think the writer is having a go at Froch or boxing in general when he says "awful" regarding the knockout?

The way I interpreted the article is that no matter even if you can't stand a particular fighter (and many felt that way about Groves) seeing them polaxed by such a brutal power shot and going in to rag-doll mode is never a pretty thing. There are plenty of boxers I have disliked strongly over the years and wanted them to get stopped, however if they do get badly KOed my first thoughts are always to hope that there is no lasting damage to their brains... I would guess all other boxing fans feel the same?

 

[One More Solo]

Can anyone explain to me why the below the line comments (particularly the earlier comments) on Telegraph are getting so upset about this Froch article;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...nch-that-felled-George-Groves-at-Wembley.html

They're all getting pretty worked up about some sort of disrespect, but I can't see it. I suspect they are all just a bunch of morons, but I'm just concerned that, actually, I'm the moron

People seem to be misinterpreting the "awful" in the title from what I gather, I think Paul Hayward means it in the older sense which is somewhere between awe inspiring and shocking. The whole article seems to support that.

 

[cheesyboy]

People seem to be misinterpreting the "awful" in the title from what I gather, I think Paul Hayward means it in the older sense which is somewhere between awe inspiring and shocking. The whole article seems to support that.

That was my conclusion too (that they are being thrown by the "awful"). I really can't understand, though, how they could have read the article without realising that Hayward isn't meaning it in the sense they think he is. It just doesn't make sense to read it that way!