shocking! !

First topic message reminder :

Last night I was so angry and disappointed but thought after the dust had settled and a sleep I might see things differently ! Wel after watching the whole thing over and over again I dont . I can't remember the last time I saw such a masterclass in boxing in a high profile fight than George groves last night . there is no way it should have been stopped . Hes hands were up and was walking forward it is a disgrace and a rematch should be ordered .
I have lost all respect for froch and sick of hes bs . He said groves was turning hes back on him and not defending himself? Is the guy for real! And he gave everyone a great nights entertainment ! No groves was the star of the show until the ref decided to steel it!

Who said Wheeler wasn't in trouble or wasn't hurt? Not me. That would be fanciful to say the least. Just as fanciful as saying that Groves wasn't at all hurt the other night, when he was clearly buzzed and shaken up (and no, I'm not justifying the stoppage).

Seems you're just being obtuse for argument's sake. I've already outlined more than once why the referee ruling a stoppage in that situation was unwarranted and a break from the rule, and why it was a worse piece of officiating than Foster's clanger the other night.

As for your line about nobody able to provide you with anything worse, well it's a bit tricky to do that when you then tell us that is can only be from a top level fight (which rules out Marquez-Wheeler, as well as the other Ian John Lewis shockers that I mentioned), has to be recent (which rules out Dokes-Weaver, which I also offered up) etc. You may as well just say that you're willing to listen to any possible examples as long as they're the Froch-Groves fight from the other night.

Remind me what Halling said when Froch was spreadeagled across the canvas in the 1st?

What is your opinion anyway? Do you think it was all some honest mistake? Maybe Foster was having some sort of hallucination of Groves being out on his feet.

At least 88CHRIS05 attempted to produce a comparable example of corrupt officiating, even if it was discounted after viewing the video link.

Appreciate that you've discounted my opinion, fella, but just to clear things up, I don't think the referee in the Marquez fight was corrupt. Merely incompetent. Same as Foster the other night. Cheers.

The biggest issue for me is that I dont think the clanger was an honest mistake. A clear cut case of the ref and judges favouring one fighter from the off. If the ref had stopped the fight but up to then had deducted Froch points for fouling or the judges card were a reflection of general consensus then you could more easily put it down to human error, which is always possible. But the whole thing stank and in the past Foster has been happy to send out fighters in far worse condition than Groves when they are only journeymen there to receive a beating and make the house fighter look good. Groves was really going to need to knock Froch out to win that fight in hindsight.

88Chris05 wrote:Who said Wheeler wasn't in trouble or wasn't hurt? Not me. That would be fanciful to say the least. Just as fanciful as saying that Groves wasn't at all hurt the other night, when he was clearly buzzed and shaken up (and no, I'm not justifying the stoppage).

Seems you're just being obtuse for argument's sake. I've already outlined more than once why the referee ruling a stoppage in that situation was unwarranted and a break from the rule, and why it was a worse piece of officiating than Foster's clanger the other night.

As for your line about nobody able to provide you with anything worse, well it's a bit tricky to do that when you then tell us that is can only be from a top level fight (which rules out Marquez-Wheeler, as well as the other Ian John Lewis shockers that I mentioned), has to be recent (which rules out Dokes-Weaver, which I also offered up) etc. You may as well just say that you're willing to listen to any possible examples as long as they're the Froch-Groves fight from the other night.

For a full 60 seconds Weaver was badly hurt, threw not a single shot back, and constantly hung on. That was why the ref stopped the fight.

How in any stretch of the imagination can that be worse than the Groves stoppage? Where Groves wasn't badly hurt, was throwing back, had his guard up, and wasn't hanging on?

Dokes-Weaver??? You mean where Weaver was knocked down heavily, and then received about 50 unanswered punches along the ropes. Come on. You can do better.

88Chris05 wrote:Appreciate that you've discounted my opinion, fella, but just to clear things up, I don't think the referee in the Marquez fight was corrupt. Merely incompetent. Same as Foster the other night. Cheers.

Well OK. I do think it was corrupt. What would be your explanation for the stoppage? baring in mind Foster allowed a heavily knocked down Froch to continue fighting in the first.

Groves did everything a fighter needs to do to warrant the benefit of the doubt in that situation. He was on his feet, defending himself and firing punches back. Basically as soon as Froch manage to apply a bit of sustained pressure to him the ref ended the fight. It was a disgraceful stoppage.

I suspect you know, deep down, that what Weaver was doing during those thirty seconds, while risky, was no different to what Ali did against Foreman and Frazier. You say that Groves had his gloves up - so too did Weaver. You say Groves wasn't hanging on - nor was Weaver.

Granted, Weaver ran the risk by not throwing back himself, but even then Dokes didn't land a punch as dangerous within that finishing flurry as the ones which had Groves hurt the other night (and yes, he was hurt). Weaver caught the majority of them on his gloves and was clearly in control of his senses.

But again, as I said, you've decided that Foster's performance was the worst and most corrupt of them all, and nowt will change your mind.

As for your question, I've said it before, but I agree with what Groves said after the fight; Foster was officiating with preconceived ideas of each man, based on Froch being battle-hardened many times over and Groves being painted as this wet behind the ears figure who can't take his lumps.

Poor, yes. Referees should be able to resist those kind of urges at the highest level. But not, for me, corrupt.

I don't see it that Foster took a brown envelop but I do think he was conscious of what side his bread is buttered on when he made the decision.

Yep, what Strongy said. Influenced heavily I'd say. The more I think about it the worse it gets and, his fault or not, I find myself disliking Froch as a result. His post fight antics have done him no favours there and I think his ego is struggling big time with all of this.

My vitriol though would be aimed at the judges. No excuses for that sham at all whereas the ref gets a touch of sympathy for me. Pantomime villain he is not but he let himself down big time.

Maccarinelli vs Mckenzie was a much worse stoppage in the 2nd round from IJL, I think thats the worst I've seen.

catchweight wrote:The biggest issue for me is that I dont think the clanger was an honest mistake. A clear cut case of the ref and judges favouring one fighter from the off. If the ref had stopped the fight but up to then had deducted Froch points for fouling or the judges card were a reflection of general consensus then you could more easily put it down to human error, which is always possible. But the whole thing stank and in the past Foster has been happy to send out fighters in far worse condition than Groves when they are only journeymen there to receive a beating and make the house fighter look good. Groves was really going to need to knock Froch out to win that fight in hindsight.

Exactly. A top level ref like Howard Foster cannot simply make such a big mistake honestly.

88Chris05 wrote:I suspect you know, deep down, that what Weaver was doing during those thirty seconds, while risky, was no different to what Ali did against Foreman and Frazier. You say that Groves had his gloves up - so too did Weaver. You say Groves wasn't hanging on - nor was Weaver.

Granted, Weaver ran the risk by not throwing back himself, but even then Dokes didn't land a punch as dangerous within that finishing flurry as the ones which had Groves hurt the other night (and yes, he was hurt). Weaver caught the majority of them on his gloves and was clearly in control of his senses.

But again, as I said, you've decided that Foster's performance was the worst and most corrupt of them all, and nowt will change your mind.

As for your question, I've said it before, but I agree with what Groves said after the fight; Foster was officiating with preconceived ideas of each man, based on Froch being battle-hardened many times over and Groves being painted as this wet behind the ears figure who can't take his lumps.

Poor, yes. Referees should be able to resist those kind of urges at the highest level. But not, for me, corrupt.

If Groves had been knocked down heavily earlier in the round then there would be some parallels with the Weaver stoppage, but he simply hadn't been.

I asked for top level examples as top fights are reffed by top refs, so incompetence cannot be used as a defence - like for example the ref in Williams v Ulrich. Saying Foster bought, bought being the right word, into the hype of Froch being some sort of Warrior and Groves being weak and that influenced his decision, is a defence of incompetence from such a high-level ref. Especially so after seeing the 'warrior' smashed up so badly in the first round. Corruption can be the only explanation, and for me it was the worst stoppage in top level boxing and by some margin. I can't believe some seem happy to gloss over such a massive blot on British boxing.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:I'm fixated by the stoppage because it was the method the corrupt officials used to rob Groves of the fight. Other than the stoppage what happened? Froch got a pasting.....

The fact that there isn't a comparable, let alone worse, stoppage in recentish boxing history must have alarm bells ringing in your head, yes?

How are you defining comparable? Why isn't Taylor-Chavez comparable??

I asked for top level examples as top fights are reffed by top refs, so incompetence cannot be used as a defence

So by extension, you are saying that any incorrect decision by a top level referee in any sport is as a result of corruption rather than incompetence.

Refs are human, humans make mistakes, ergo you're a consipracy nut!

Wow. Came back to have a browse about some boxing debates/news etc............and low and behold, we still have this tedious argument.

Ill come back in a few days.........hopefully the tune has changed!!

 

Mc, no-one is glossing over anything - well, no-one but a few die-hard Froch fanatics, who have their partiality to excuse them. The fact that we're still discussing it three days later to the exclusion of almost anything else underlines that.

The thing is that you take one view of proceedings - that the fight was not only wrongly stopped, but that there was also a giant conspiracy before it even started to rob Groves of his due. That's fair enough, but you need to accept that a large percentage of people totally agree with the first part of your assertion, but don't buy the second at all. I don't, either - boxing has its share of twisters, no doubt, but to suggest that promoter, supervisors, Board of control, judges and referee are all bent in this case is a) unlikely b) unprovable and not least c) pretty close to slanderous, by most definitions.

I just feel that your disappointment at the ending of the fight has led you (and catchweight to some extent) to form a theory that has become a mantra of sorts and that you won't even consider an alternative possibility (incompetence the most  obvious one). It was clearly a poor stoppage, but as an overall injustice, it doesn't come close to the scorecards for Whitaker-Ramirez I, for example (Williams-Lara, if you want a more recent equivalent).

I guess that I'm at the point that I feel we're running around in circles with this one a little bit now. The fight itself was so good that I'd value a bit more analysis of it and what it might mean in the event of a rematch.

I think the middle ground theory is credible and been mentioned a few times... Ie the judges know who the house fighter is, the ref does. They know the result that makes business sense for the promoter. There is a crowd supporting the 'home' fighter.

In essence all the things that stop visiting teams from getting a penalty at old Trafford, exaggerated further if Man U were paying and picking the ref. Groves was to all intents and purposes the away fighter. It doesn't have to be directly bent to be directly biased.

So, more than just an innocent mistake, less than corrupt. Just a grey area Inbetween that is inherent to the system and process of putting a fight together.

The issue I have with buying into the conspiracy theory is much the same as I have with most conspiracy theories and that is that to believe them you have to buy into far too many things, usually far more than is the case with the less interesting but normally true real story.

To believe corruption in this we have to believe Hearn paid off both the referees and judges. Now it stands to reason not all judges would be amenable to such skullduggery, probably a very small number would, which would suggest Hearn had some influence within the BBBC to ensure they appointed just the right judges for his purposes. So that is senior judges and board officials he has had to pay off thus far, all at a sufficient level to ensure their compliance, silence and to persuade them to risk their professional career and reputation.

He is going to all this risk in a fight where the beneficiary of this largesse was perceived beforehand to be unlikely to be troubled. A lot of risk and expense for what was seen as a relatively routine defence.

Is all of the above more plausible than the idea that the ref just acted too hastily?

Totally agree milky, think that is the whole problem. Refs and judges are on the whole working stiffs like the rest of us and so an all expenses weekend away with top hotels and front row tickets to a fight is pretty attractive to them, even more so if they can ensure that when Hearn takes his fighters to Vegas they are getting the call for that one.

Have said it before but do think be it subconsciously or otherwise the refs and judges want to some extent to protect that status, personally I believe they do this by little things like giving a house fighter a little more recovery time or by marking the close rounds in the right way. Like you say is the grey area just this side of corruption.

All true rowley.

But if its all just a toss of the coin, why is it 9 times out of 10 the house fighter that's the beneficiary. As per my earlier comment, it takes just as big a leap of faith to believe 2 out of 3 judges had just a point in it, when on only 1 out of 40+ journos had it that close.

Unless you believe that judges are experts and writers and fans are all idiots.

Sorry rowley, I must hit the refresh button before I post! Now I know you agree with me please discount the last post:laugh:

If anything, believing that collective groups of officials get things badly wrong on a regular basis in boxing is far more difficult to believe than there is simply corruption going on. The sport is plagued by it. Not just boxing, but lots of sports. The Five Families would run a more honest ship than FIFA for example. The bribery and corruption running through that organisation is outrageous.

Officials favouring the big time promoters and house fighters is standard practice and dismissing it as constant incompetence is naive. If you looked up the definition of corrupt in a dictionary in the 1980s and 1990s you would probably find a picture of Don King. He wasnt even subtle in his methods. Look at how the supposed World Championship bodies are run. Completely corruptly. The IBF, for example. How long did Froch go without fighting a mandatory? At least a year or more. I think Groves was his first. Then they stripped McDonnell for going what? 6 months without a madatory if even that? And you had the cheat that Khan fought who wasnt even stripped at all while BANNED FOR CHEATING. I suppose its a conspiracy theory to think these guys arent above board and are merely incompetent running their organisations. Corruption, cheating and politics are at the heart of boxing in varying degrees. The last fight was fairly obviously set up against Groves. The performance of the officials over the entire course of the fight suggests it. It wasnt just one isolated moment from Howard Foster and nor is it just one isolated fight. In a few weeks there will another case of "gross incompetence" Im sure.

superflyweight wrote:

I asked for top level examples as top fights are reffed by top refs, so incompetence cannot be used as a defence

So by extension, you are saying that any incorrect decision by a top level referee in any sport is as a result of corruption rather than incompetence.  

Refs are human, humans make mistakes, ergo you're a consipracy nut!

So you think it was an honest mistake and nothing to do with the ref helping the 'hometown' fighter out?

When a top level ref makes a decision that is that bad corruption is the only explanation.

Chavez Taylor was a debatable stoppage that is still argued about to this day. There is nothing debatable about the Groves stoppage. Even Froch's biggest nut-huggers haven't the stupidity to say otherwise. That is why it is not comparable.

Only one other credible example has been put forward which is as bad and that was McKenzie Maccarinelli, although it was not a top level fight of course.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

I asked for top level examples as top fights are reffed by top refs, so incompetence cannot be used as a defence

So by extension, you are saying that any incorrect decision by a top level referee in any sport is as a result of corruption rather than incompetence.  

Refs are human, humans make mistakes, ergo you're a consipracy nut!

So you think it was an honest mistake and nothing to do with the ref helping the 'hometown' fighter out?

When a top level ref makes a decision that is that bad corruption is the only explanation.

Chavez Taylor was a debatable stoppage that is still argued about to this day.  There is nothing debatable about the Groves stoppage. Even Froch's biggest nut-huggers haven't the stupidity to say otherwise. That is why it is not comparable.

Only one other credible example has been put forward which is as bad and that was McKenzie Maccarinelli, although it was not a top level fight of course.

Think Jeff and Milky have just about summed it up perfectly for me. Not everything is as blak and white as you make it out to be. Shades of grey. Poor stoppage but not part of some eleborate conspiracy.

It's not an elaborate conspiracy, it was the officials helping out the hometown fighter. If you think that doesn't go on in boxing then it's you with the conspiracy theory.

Can you not read? I agree that homer decisions happen - but as Jeff and Milky have said, they likely happen because refs and judges are human and can be influenced by certain factors. It's not an overt act of conspiracy.

superflyweight wrote:Can you not read? I agree that homer decisions happen - but as Jeff and Milky have said, they likely happen because refs and judges are human and can be influenced by certain factors.  It's not an overt act of conspiracy.  

Money?...... If refs deliberately favour hometown fighters then they are corrupt. Simple as that. I don't know why you keep going on about a conspiracy, no one has mentioned that.

You can't have been following boxing long if you think there is no corruption in it.

It's not necessarily deliberate that's the point several on here are trying to make. I'm a Froch fan and every close round he has I give to him, it's not a conscious decision but just something that happens, it's subconscious. It's the same with judges and refs who make mistakes because of the home town factor, they can be swayed by the cheers of the crowd.

Is the reward of a Froch win really big enough to pay off around 10 people in various positions when you're also the promoter of the other younger fighter?

Rowley wrote:The issue I have with buying into the conspiracy theory is much the same as I have with most conspiracy theories and that is that to believe them you have to buy into far too many things, usually far more than is the case with the less interesting but normally true real story.

To believe corruption in this we have to believe Hearn paid off both the referees and judges. Now it stands to reason not all judges would be amenable to such skullduggery, probably a very small number would, which would suggest Hearn had some influence within the BBBC to ensure they appointed just the right judges for his purposes. So that is senior judges and board officials he has had to pay off thus far, all at a sufficient level to ensure their compliance, silence and to persuade them to risk their professional career and reputation.

He is going to all this risk in a fight where the beneficiary of this largesse was perceived beforehand to be unlikely to be troubled. A lot of risk and expense for what was seen as a relatively routine defence.

Is all of the above more plausible than the idea that the ref just acted too hastily?

I think it's a lot more subtle than that.

Foster knew on Saturday night that if he didn't do everything possible to stop Hearns' golden cow losing then he would never get another high profile Matchroom fight, and all the wining and dining (brown envelopes?) that goes with it. Remember Micky Vann reffing nearly all of Ricky Hatton's home fights, coincidence?

What control do Matchroom have over who the BBBofC choose to ref their fights?

Ultimate control. If Matchroom don't like the ref they won't accept him, same with the judges.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not necessarily deliberate that's the point several on here are trying to make. I'm a Froch fan and every close round he has I give to him, it's not a conscious decision but just something that happens, it's subconscious. It's the same with judges and refs who make mistakes because of the home town factor, they can be swayed by the cheers of the crowd.

Is the reward of a Froch win really big enough to pay off around 10 people in various positions when you're also the promoter of the other younger fighter?

Froch is/was Hearns' Golden Cow are you seriously suggesting Hearns wouldn't do everything in his power to maintain that?

I am seriously suggesting that, when that golden cow is 36 and nearing the end of the career, I see no benefit to Hearn paying to have him protected when he could be knocked out, cut or injured.

What Hearn's payed was probably peanuts. Froch has/had two mega fights left. Hearns did everything he could to ensure they would happen.

Interestingly Groves has officially called last weekends proceedings "corrupt", knowing that the BBBoC won't dare call him up on it because of the obviously huge level of public support he has. Good on you George.

Of course the BBBofC will call him up on it, unless you or anyone else has any prove to back up what you're saying it's slanderous.

You now think a judge or referee would accept peanuts when if found out would cost their livelihood?

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Can you not read? I agree that homer decisions happen - but as Jeff and Milky have said, they likely happen because refs and judges are human and can be influenced by certain factors.  It's not an overt act of conspiracy.  

Money?...... If refs deliberately favour hometown fighters then they are corrupt. Simple as that. I don't know why you keep going on about a conspiracy, no one has mentioned that.

You can't have been following boxing long if you think there is no corruption in it.

With respect to the last statement - f**k off.

With respect to the rest - corruption in boxing is as old as boxing itself, but that doesn't mean that every decision you don't agree with is as a result of corruption.  You seem to suggest that top level refs don't make incompetent decisions.  That implies that you think that every bad decision by a top level ref is a corrupt one.  If that's not a conspiracy theory then I don't know what is.  

Foster may have favoured Froch but that doesn't mean there's any overt corruption.  When a ref gives a soft penalty at Old Trafford is it always a corrupt decision?  Or is it human fallibility brought about by a number of external pressures?

Foster deliberately favoured Froch with his decisions = corrupt.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Of course the BBBofC will call him up on it, unless you or anyone else has any prove to back up what you're saying it's slanderous.

You now think a judge or referee would accept peanuts when if found out would cost their livelihood?

Relative peanuts. What does a top level ref get for a big fight - £5k maybe. Foster wasn't going to risk not getting that next time was he.

The BBBoC won't dare take on Groves over the corruption comments because their reputation will take a worse hiding than Froch if the public think they are siding with corruption. They will huff and puff and then do nothing. In fact the only action taken will be behind closed doors where it will be decided Foster is never allowed to ref another high profile fight.

Your opinion on this subject isn't the norm so I don't think the BBBofC are going to care what the minority think not that they would anyway. They have to be seen to be challenging the corruption claims and I would wager we'll see Foster reffing a high profile fight very soon. Your two points are very contradictory, Foster accepts a bribe to get more high profile fights for Matchroom then in the next paragraph you say you'll think he'll be banned from reffing said fights.

I think you'll find my opinion is very reflective of the average boxing fan, you only have to look on this forum/TV/media to see that. Did you not hear 20 000 people booing Froch as he left the ring, the same 20 000 who all cheered him too the ring. Everyone knows it stinks.

Problem here is you can't differentiate between bribery, corruption and conspiracy. Foster knows that if he favours Hearn's fighter then he'll get more big Matchroom fights. Foster therefore made a dishonest decision to help out the guy who pays his wages and possible future wages, that is corruption. No brown envelopes need to be handed out. Problem is his decision was so ridiculously bad they can't be seen doing business with him anymore. He has essentially shot himself in the foot with the mother of bent calls.

Right that makes perfect sense, I don't see how he could have made Froch win without it looking ridiculous. Fans thinking it was a bad decision doesn't mean they think it's corrupt, you're tripping all over your own argument here.

When 20000 Froch fans boo Froch it really does say something.

If you think it was an innocent mistake by the ref then OK, but you're very much in the minority.

Who else thinks it's the work of corruption then because i've not seen many think that, most on here seem think it was an innocent mistake. Booing a decision doesn't give any indication into what they think.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Right that makes perfect sense, I don't see how he could have made Froch win without it looking ridiculous. Fans thinking it was a bad decision doesn't mean they think it's corrupt, you're tripping all over your own argument here.

How about by not taking points off Froch for obvious infringements?

Groves was infringing as well so should he have taken points off both of them?

Everybody, excusing those on the WUM and yourself, are calling it a hometown stoppage just look through this thread, or any of the multiple other threads deriding the decision.

Groves was doing nothing wrong. Froch was continually hitting on the break and not even a warning from Foster.

Simply can't believe you think it was some honest mistake.

Was the judging in Holyfield/Lewis 1 an honest mistake too?

A hometown stoppage does not make it corruption, just incompetent

Nobody is disputing it was a bad decision but what many are disputing is your libelous claims of corruption.

superflyweight wrote:Can you not read? I agree that homer decisions happen - but as Jeff and Milky have said, they likely happen because refs and judges are human and can be influenced by certain factors.  It's not an overt act of conspiracy.  

So was it a "homer" decision or not?