DeGale interested in Groves bout if he can’t get Kessler-Stieglitz winner

By Boxing News - 10/10/2011 - Comments

Image: DeGale interested in Groves bout if he can't get Kessler-Stieglitz winnerBy Scott Gilfoid: James DeGale’s main goal after he faces – and beats – EBU super middleweight champion Piotr Wilczewski this Saturday night is to face thew winner of the championship bout between WBO super middleweight champion Robert Stieglitz and Mikkel Kessler in November.

However, if the winner of that fight decides to sidestep the dangerous DeGale, which is very likely, then DeGale wants to avenge his earlier defeat to British and Commonwealth super middleweight champion George Groves in early 2012 if he can get Groves to agree to the rematch. That might be easier said then done because Groves appears to want no part of fighting DeGale again.

DeGale said to espn.co.uk, “If I win this [the Wilczewski fight] in style and if Groves beats Paul Smith – that’s a big if – the early part of next year I think we’ll definitely get it on. He [Groves] can’t run for much longer. You’d think we’d have had a rematch straight away but he’s gone for someone that I stopped in nine rounds.”

DeGale has a good point. Why on earth did Groves take a fight against Smith, a fighter that DeGale easily stopped in the 9th round last year when a much bigger money fight was there for him to face DeGale in a rematch. What’s that about? Is it fear? Does Groves not want to get back in the ring against DeGale for fear that he’s already solved the fighting style that Groves used to beat him?

It just doesn’t make sense to me. I’d much prefer for DeGale to move on to face one of the champions, but I can understand the need for this fight to happen if the champions are reluctant to fight DeGale. But why isn’t Groves jumping at the chance to fight DeGale again? Hopefully that’ll change once DeGale has the EBU title in his possession to try and lure Groves into taking the fight. It may take some bait in the way of a title for Groves to agree to a rematch.



Comments are closed.