To bad they never had the decency to come up with one for Klitschko, either of them. :goodnews: http://news.boxrec.com/news/2011/apology-george-groves I did it. In fact 29 out of 31 'expert' trainers did it in Boxing Monthly. Editor of Boxing News, Tris Dixon did it. So did Barry and Johnny, and Glen and Jim and Ian did it as well. More importantly Frank and James were guilty of it as well. We all got it wrong. We all seriously underestimated George Groves. More fool us all it would seem. In what can be described as a minor upset, Groves did what he said he would do all along and that’s beat his nemesis James DeGale, and fair play to him for doing so. Groves’ win is all the more creditworthy when you consider it was a tight points decision on the other man’s promotion, a feat in this day and age which should not be taken lightly. So what about the fight? Well for me, it was a bit of an anti-climax; the styles did not gel and Groves’ effort, albeit admirable in its dedication to a game plan, was for the most part largely on the back foot. That’s not a criticism at all as he did what he needed to do to win the fight, however as a spectacle it made for an average contest. I suppose if you’re playing Man United away from home you don’t go out all guns blazing, especially if you’re likely to then concede goals. Groves and Adam Booth deserve massive credit here – Booth for coming up (yet again it would seem) with a structured fight plan for his fighter and Groves for diligently sticking to that plan. Booth is fast becoming a mini-legend in the boxing world and more importantly is doing it his way which seems to be rubbing various people’s noses in it as he goes. It was noticeable how he completely outsmarted Jim McDonnell in this fight, a fact that McDonnell will be royally cheesed off about. So what of Degale? Well, for me he fought a poor fight, obviously nothing rocket science in that statement but for a man who promised so much this was really a poor effort. The fight in a way reminded me of a watered down version of Hamed v Barrera (a fight both Booth and Groves studied as preparation - Ed.), where DeGale like Naz, had little idea of how to solve the puzzle in front of him and as a result didn’t throw anywhere near enough punches. Out-thought in a big way. Yes, he hurt Groves on occasions but showed little nous or indeed willing to be able to capitalise on his minor successes. It’s easy to forget sometimes he is still essentially a novice pro and I like many others have been guilty of 'bigging him up' a little too much. DeGale I think could and should have won this fight, the fact he didn’t though says as much about him as a fighter right now as it does about Groves. Where DeGale goes from here will be interesting. I still think he will win a world title and like Khan and Haye who suffered bumps in the road, this could be the making of him. We would be wise, bearing in mind we underestimated Groves before the fight to not make the same error with DeGale after the fight. Rematch? That’s for another conversation and another day. Talking about this so soon is almost disrespectful to Groves. As for Groves, he will undoubtedly feel on top of the world right now and who knows he may get there as a fighter. I hope he does. He has emerged from this episode with a massive amount of credit and respect and more importantly the ‘W’ on his record. Mr Groves – we all owe you a massive apology.
What the fuck is there to apologize about? Was the first time in his career he showed promise of any kind. Not to mention that Chunky was arguably robbed (probably too close of a fight to call it a robbery, but DeGale still deserved to win).
It's the unanimity of the pro-DeGale support, the SKY SPORTS panel were basically announcing before the fight that "we know DeGale is going to win, we just don't know how". Basically the didn't bother to entertain the notion that Groves could win, they talked about DeGale as if he had already won.
Robbed? :: DeGale was supposed to win, if anything the judges were being kind of him. He got outboxed plain and simple. He won no more than 4 rounds. It was largely ineffective aggression. Put it this way, you could tell 100% that even Frunk Werren himself didn't think James won. He's being all coy about it like "Yes I think James won, but it was very close and I can see why the judges favoured Groves". The fight was competitive, but George was a clear winner, he was fighting his fight and was in control of most of the rounds. Plus quite simply, he landed more punches.
Thread isn't really about who did or did not win.....its about how preconceived the press were about it. Johnny Nelson did say that DeGale had it won, it was only a matter of how. DeGale didn't even really discomfit the chap until the very late rounds, when the cuts were beginning to play a part. They could not have been more wrong.
It wasn't just the press, it was everyone. Does fightbeat owe him an apology too? It's just a way of structuring an article to emphasise how big a surprise it was, not an actual apology.
I think, no matter how favoured one fighter is to win, that the fight-writers are under a general obligation to give both guys a write up and act as if both men have the same chance of winning, up to a point. Groves was treated as if he had absolutely no chance of winning, it was all a pre-coronation. You could see when Jimmy Lennon Jr announced the winner as being "still undefeated" and Chunky started to celebrate...thats how badly Groves was regarded. People had forgotten he was yet to lose.
No offence bro, you know I respect your opinions, but giving DeGale just four rounds? Crazy. He won the fight.
As I say, I think if you were in England, you would be more aware of the sheer "this is a given" nature of the fight. It was only a matter of how Groves would lose, not if he would lose.
Degale is bum and he was exposed. Maybe this defeat will make him wise up, but i doubt it. His attitude stinks and i have no time for him. Put him in with Martinez :shadow:
I respect your opinion too, but I think there's no way he won that fight. Some fights are close and genuinely could have gone either way like Pacman Vs Marquez 2. Don't get me wrong it was competitive all the way through, and fairly close, but I thought despite each round being close, George was in charge most of the time. Fighting his fight, landing more punches, landing cleaner punches. At times DeGale looked like the stronger, more dangerous fighter, but quite simply, he didn't do enough. He plodded forward getting picked off, landing the odd slappy combo. George's punches weren't that explosive, but there were more of them, they were clean, and it was George who was fighting his fight. I thought DeGale won no more than 4 rounds, but there were a couple of rounds that were very close that I have to George only because he was the one fighting his fight. They could have been scored even, so at worst I think it was 6-4-2 to Groves. Even HutHut, a big DeGale believer knew George won before the scores were announced. If DeGale won he would have been given the decision, because let's face it, he was supposed to win, it was meant to be his night. Also if DeGale won Frunk Werren would have kicked up far more of a fuss than his meak "Err, yeah, I kind of think DeGale won" :kidcool:
I'm gonna rewatch the fight some time. It was one of those that are very difficult to score without preconceptions getting in the way (ie the surprise of Groves looking different and so much better than we expected).
You know he did. You didn't expect the fight to be that competitive. But that might of biased people (me included) against De Gale. It's kinda like when a fight develops tactically in a way which people perceived going in as being fighter A's type of fight. It creates a big bias. People interpret the action through that preconception.
should writers have written in-depth analyses of "Tyson/Douglas" where they pretended to think that Buster could actually win the fight? I mean, if Manny Pacquiao were scheduled to fight Paulie Malinaggi tomorrow, would you be in here simply saying "well, it should be a good fight... good luck to both men... either man could win it"? there have been a hundred "this is a given" fights where sometimes the unexpected has happened... you don't need to write formal apologies for making an educated guess beforehand, what are we, a bunch of filthy hippies?
Tyson vs Douglas is an extreme example. In that case, Tyson was undefeated, and the hottest thing in boxng, right or wrong. Douglas for his end had already been beaten in pretty uninspiring circumstances. In this case, both DeGale and Groves were undefeated, Groves had beaten him in the amateurs and both men had displayed fallibility in their very short pro careers.. Its not quite apples and apples, is it.???? Again, I stress, if an educated guess had been made, there would have been no need for an apology. Instead, the press in the UK, especially the TV guys, acted as if Groves was headed to the Guillotine.
I agree, it's not exactly Tyson Vs Douglas. In retrospect I guess it was pretty stupid for everyone to completely write off Groves' chances - me included - despite not thinking DeGale was anything special. We're talking about 2 undefeated fighters, the same sort of age, same stage in their careers, with Groves having beaten DeGale as an amateur (doesn't usually mean much, but still) - and yet Groves was seen as having absolutely no chance? Why? ::
I think people get swayed by Olympic Golds and all manner of stuff. Groves had shown fallibility but its possible he fought better guys. People bought in a lot to the Smith win, but Smith was a terrible fighter.
Who cares? Hype is part of the sport, it happens all the time... Why are you always so passionate about unimportant things like this?
