By JVance: On the lead up to Saturday’s all-British clash between George Groves and Carl Froch, I wrote an article predicting a George Groves victory. The piece outlined that, in his fights leading up to Saturday Night, Groves had displayed the necessary attributes to capitalize on the many technical flaws and shortcomings that Froch had shown in his long and illustrious careers.
From round one it seemed that the underdog was well on his way to an emphatic victory, however the controversial circumstances in which the fight ended and the poor officiating ringside, has left a far from definitive outcome to the ‘Battle of Britain’.
The article explained that “the extra speed in which Groves shoots his left, coupled with his natural head movement means he would likely win the battle of the jabs.” From the start of the fight Groves took the centre of the ring and established his jab, something he told Froch he would do in the final press -conference. The article also pointed out Groves’ use of the feint: “George Groves’ variety of attack is demonstrated by how often he feints the lead hand and upper-body to not only draw leads from his opponent, but as a method of distance control. Groves will employ this often neglected tactic, particularly in the early rounds and it may prove to keep his opponent at range and bring him on to the end of some sharp counters.” This tactic, coupled with Froch’s justified hesitancy to commit, allowed Groves to dictate the distance and pace of the fight early on.
The Right hand that heavily dropped Froch at the end of the first round showcased the long-standing technical flaws in Froch’s style. The article picked up on this stating that, “The ‘Cobra’ is particularly rigid in his movement. As Froch throws a right hand his right leg often follows, meaning he gets caught square and leaves himself in a somewhat indefensible position to a counter right hand and short left hook.” The article also pointed out that Groves’ accomplished footwork would allow him to exploit this technical flaw and “pivot on his lead leg and get out of range sideways.” The ‘Cobra’ had never been dropped that heavily and considering he took two more clean right hands on the bell, if there had been a few more seconds left in the round, we may be discussing a first round blow out. However, Froch once again showed his remarkable powers of recovery and admirable fitness levels to continue the fight.
The piece also predicted that “against a fighter who slips punches, moves in and out of range very well and lands heavy counters, the ‘Cobra’ will be reluctant, and perhaps unable, to reach the level of work rate shown in his last fight.” This proved to be the case and after feeling the power of the challenger, Froch was not only outworked but consistently beaten to the punch. The ‘Saint’ persistently landed the right hand, backing up Froch and hurting him on regular occasions. The champion had the odd success when he chose to neglect single shots or 1-2’s for fear of being countered, and resorted to high volume combinations. However even in this case Groves did well to keep a high guard, tie up and often use his footwork to get out of range
Mid-way through the fight there seemed to be only one winner, however as Groves’ work rate dropped, and Froch’s resilience came to the fore, it brought about an ending that was surrounded in controversy. The inept performance of the referee was consolidated by a staggeringly poor stoppage and the subsequent disclosure of the score cards only added to the sense of incompetence and injustice
After the fight, Amir Khan, a Sky Sports pundit for the night, said that, “the referee was always favouring Carl,” and that “points would have been taken off in America.” Howard Foster issued a number of warnings to Carl Froch, yet failed to deduct him a point. The champion was hitting on the break numerous times and after unloading a combination that sent Groves to the ropes, he shoved his forearms into the face of the challenger. Froch was allowed to get away with repeated offences. Furthermore, Howard Foster’s instructions throughout the fight were far from clear, with one fighter understanding the unclear instructions to break and the other choosing not to. On top of this, as Groves established his dominance, there seemed to be a number of instances of abnormally long inside work, which suited Froch. Allowing the boxers to fight out is fine, but when it is becoming untidy the referee should step in and break it up. George Groves looked to be very much the ‘away fighter’.
The referee’s decision to stop the fight in round 9 has been widely criticised and it seems with good reason. As Froch resorted to long lead right hands, followed up by a typical barrage of punches, Groves retreated to the ropes to avoid the ‘Cobra’s’ momentum filled combinations. In throwing back, a sure sign of a fighter not in trouble, Groves was caught with a left hand and straight right that seemed to daze the Londoner. Despite this Groves was still relatively strong on his feet and as he moved forward to tie up and get off the ropes, the referee stepped in and instead of restraining the attacking fighter he grabbed Groves in a head lock, allowing Froch to throw a few more punches to the body of the challenger.
A number of reasons have been suggested as to why Howard Foster chose to stop the fight at the first sign of Groves being in trouble. Throughout the build-up, Carl Froch was being labelled as a ‘Warrior’ with an ‘iron chin’, and rightly so. Throughout his career he has showcased an unbelievable resistance to heavy shots and a remarkable level of fitness. George Groves, on the other hand, had been continuously associated with a sense of vulnerability with some labeling him ‘chinny’ and claiming he would be unable to take Froch’s best shots. Considering this, it is hard to rule out, that the referee was influenced by the sense of inevitability that consumed the majority of fight fans and indeed the ringside audience before the match-up
The fact that the fight was stopped in such controversial circumstances detracted from the incredible score cards of two of the judges. One judge had it 78-73, an accurate representation of how the fight had played out. However the two remaining judges had George Groves ahead by only a single point. It seems that the only rounds that could have gone the Champion’s way were round 5 and round 8. The other 6 rounds were dominated by the challenger, with the opening round a 10-08 one. Indeed, Boxing News, the leading trade magazine, published online the average score of 46 ringside pundits, the results mirroring the competent judge’s scorecard.
This issue is perhaps of greater importance than the referee’s poor performance, particularly in the backdrop of some highly dubious scorecards in recent years. If this issue is not addressed, and the sanctioning body regard these scorecards as an accurate representation of the fight, then bad ringside judging will continue, with possible connotations on a likely rematch. If the issue is not accounted for, and a possible rematch pans out in a similar manner to the first fight, then George Groves may end up the victim of poor judging. However the perception of injustice associated with the early stoppage would make this unlikely, further questioning what mitigating factors influence the ringside judges.
The demand for a rematch has continued since Saturday night, and George Groves has said the only way for Carl Froch to avoid damage to his credibility is to agree to a rematch – or retire. Indeed Paddy Fitzpatrick, George Groves’ trainer, has said he will only be part of a rematch if Carl Froch is medically cleared, considering the amount of damage he took during the fight. Every fight fan will be eager to see the return, and if it is agreed upon then it may prove to ease the sense of injustice associated with the fight. However, until then, it is hard to ignore the poor officiating both in and outside the ropes and one cannot help feel that this thrilling contest was stopped on reputation.
Comments are closed.