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!

Can you prove your claims of corruption or not, nothing else really matters, you have to deal in facts.

Derbymanc wrote:A hometown stoppage does not make it corruption, just incompetent

'hometown decision' are dishonest (corrupt) decisions in favour of the hometown fighter. Who in their right mind would claim that saturday's decision was not a hometown decision?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Can you prove your claims of corruption or not, nothing else really matters, you have to deal in facts.

Yeah, I have witnesses. 20 000 Froch fans who saw it happen live.

Actual evidence of corruption not incompetence, you do realise your comments are libelous and can get the website into a whole heap of trouble right?

There aren't enough courts in the land to prosecute everyone who called last weekends fight a hometown decision.

Let's see how they get on with George Groves first.

So what evidence of corruption do you have because the opinions of fans isn't proof at all, calling it a hometown decision is completely different to calling it corrupt.

Hometown decision = dishonest (corrupt) decision in favour of the home fighter.

What did you think corrupt meant?

A hometown decision can be a result of outside influences like the crowd, it is not necessarily a dishonest or deliberate action. Corruption would be a deliberate ploy as the result of a bribe, it does not mean poor judgement.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A hometown decision can be a result of outside influences like the crowd, it is not necessarily a dishonest or deliberate action. Corruption would be a deliberate ploy as the result of a bribe, it does not mean poor judgement.

you either don't watch much boxing or you are deluded. you really think boxing is not full of corruption? promoters book refs, governing bodies book judges. they all want to make as much money as possible. you probably believe the x-factor is a load of people who have been plucked from obscurity too and that the public choose the winner

I have no opinion either way until I have definitive proof in front of me to sway me one way or the other.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A hometown decision can be a result of outside influences like the crowd, it is not necessarily a dishonest or deliberate action. Corruption would be a deliberate ploy as the result of a bribe, it does not mean poor judgement.

No, 'the crowd' is sometimes used as an excuse for giving a hometown decision, it is not a reason for it, as the crowd could affect decisions toward either fighter, a hometown decision ALWAYS goes in favour of the hometown fighter. Anyway I think it's safe to say 'the crowd' were not an excuse for Saturdays hometown decision don't you think?

Corruption does not necessarily have anything to do with bribery.

Lance wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A hometown decision can be a result of outside influences like the crowd, it is not necessarily a dishonest or deliberate action. Corruption would be a deliberate ploy as the result of a bribe, it does not mean poor judgement.

you either don't watch much boxing or you are deluded. you really think boxing is not full of corruption? promoters book refs, governing bodies book judges. they all want to make as much money as possible. you probably believe the x-factor is a load of people who have been plucked from obscurity too and that the public choose the winner

shhhhh....don't say that, you'll be facing libel action like me.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I have no opinion either way until I have definitive proof in front of me to sway me one way or the other.

So what you're saying is that last weekends fight could well have been a fix?

I've seen no proof that it is a fix so no.

Have you seen proof that it was not a fix?

There's no such thing, innocent until proven guilty.

Only in a court of law

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I have no opinion either way until I have definitive proof in front of me to sway me one way or the other.

....but you know it's not a fix.

Accusations of corruption fall under the law and I do not need to prove something hasn't happened, you on the other hand need to come up with substantial evidence to back up your libelous claims.

No actual prof exists, I'm sure nobody is denying that...

But what doesn't sit right with me is that the ref and 2 of the judges served up blatantly one sided and shambolic performances, on the same night and same fight. That goes a little beyond incompetence for me.

There is a point where believing in a bunch of coincidences is less likely than something underhand. Boxing crosses that point with plenty to spare quite often. There is clear cut cases of favouritism for certain fighters, promoters, organisations and so on. The organisations in charge of actually running the world titles are an absolute shambles. The way the operate, the way the run, the way the rank. Its blatantly corrupt. They dont answer to anyone and promoters and managers play the game with them. There will obviously be poor decisions and judging in boxing due to incompetence but trying to make out the sport isnt heavily influenced by corruption and skullduggery is incredibly naive. Blatant cases of favouritism is not poor judgement or incomptence. Its wanton cheating and corruption. When officials engage in such activity they deserve to have their morals and impartiality questioned.

Watched the fight again last night...only gave Froch rounds five and eight and the stoppage STILL stinks to high Heaven. Also managed to sit through his entire post fight interview....I still think he's a tool.

DAVE667 wrote:Watched the fight again last night...only gave Froch rounds five and eight and the stoppage STILL stinks to high Heaven. Also managed to sit through his entire post fight interview....I still think he's a tool.

What kind?

Like a Hammer or Drill?

Id personally have him as a Chainsaw.

I think guilty until proven innocent is WAYYYYYY more fun!!

Dave's made of tougher stuff than me. Couldn't listen to any more of carl 'the cobblers' froch.

Mm8 chainsaws do make an irritating buzzing noise I suppose.

In terms of tools, I see him as a vice. Listening to his self proclamations of warriorness is like putting your head in a vice, and turning it notch by notch until it explodes.

milkyboy wrote:Dave's made of tougher stuff than me. Couldn't listen to any more of carl 'the cobblers' froch.

Mm8 chainsaws do make an irritating buzzing noise I suppose.

In terms of tools, I see him as a vice. Listening to his self proclamations of warriorness is like putting your head in a vice, and turning it notch by notch until it explodes.

      

Like the band N-I-N (Nine Inch Nails)

Carl Froch N-I-N.....(Nine Inch Nose)

"Have you seen proof It's not fixed !!!!!!"      

Like asking someone If they can prove they didn't kill somebody..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Have you seen proof It's not fixed !!!!!!"      

Like asking someone If they can prove they didn't kill somebody..

"Yeah, he's still alive!" Ya can't get much more proofier that that, mate!

Have you seen proof it's not fixed? Yeah, there are no pictures of George Groves holding World title belts

Corruption, in the context of this discussion, obviously means a person or persons acting dishonestly in return for personal gain (in this instance, money or future career opportunities).

Foster is only corrupt if this is the case, which it might well be, but obviously it hasn't been proven;

"Have you seen proof It's not fixed !!!!!!" i.e. this is true because there is no proof that it is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then it's not a credible argument. The default position here is that an assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true.

Everyone is free to believe what they want. However, it's pretty clear that the assertion that Foster and the judges were corrupt is unproven and just an opinion.

Terrible stoppage, to be sure. But I'll wait for evidence before screaming about a fix.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Have you seen proof It's not fixed !!!!!!"      

Like asking someone If they can prove they didn't kill somebody..

As funny as it sounds slander does have to be proven. If Eddie Hearn/BBBoC took Groves to court they'd have to prove what he said was false. Innocent until proven guilty remember.

No he wouldn't.......

Groves would have to back up his statement..

He's innocent until proven guilty.

"In order to win a civil lawsuit for libel or slander, you will need to be able to prove that the statement (either written or spoken) was false. In other words, you have to demonstrate in court that the statement has no element of truth."

Where's C_S when you need him..........??

So If I call Rowley gay.........I'm innocent until proven guilty..........

Rowley would have to prove he isn't.........

Interesting..

In that example, you still have the photos to prove it truss.

milkyboy wrote:In that example, you still have the photos to prove it truss.

Aye and they could match the teeth marks on your nipples from his dental records

milkyboy wrote:In that example, you still have the photos to prove it truss.

Like Nicholson at the end of the shining..He has pride of place on the Oyster gallery !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So If I call Rowley gay.........I'm innocent until proven guilty..........

Rowley would have to prove he isn't.........

Interesting..

Yes.

He could use testimony from his family to help prove he isn't gay, and you could counter this by showing the jury his teeth marks on your knob.

Rowley is unfairly getting e-violated in a situation not of his own making

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So If I call Rowley gay.........I'm innocent until proven guilty..........

Rowley would have to prove he isn't.........

Interesting..

Yes.

He could use testimony from his family to help prove he isn't gay, and you could counter this by showing the jury his teeth marks on your knob.

You work for Lawyers4U ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So If I call Rowley gay.........I'm innocent until proven guilty..........

Rowley would have to prove he isn't.........

Interesting..

Yes.

He could use testimony from his family to help prove he isn't gay, and you could counter this by showing the jury his teeth marks on your knob.

You work for Lawyers4U ??

Yes, no win no fee. Need some help?

BoxingFan88 wrote:All I know is the ref was a joke, Froch was fouling constantly and no points were deducted.

I don't think the Reff was THAT bad. Froch did foul a few times, but it was not always deliberate and Groves him self was rabbit punching and hitting after the bell, but again not always deliberate... and the reff did warn Froch.

For me the most outrageous thing on the night and more so than the stoppage which was early but not unfounded... Was the two judges score cards up until the stoppage!? I think was a joke... after the 8th round I had Groves winning 78 - 73 maybe 77 - 74, if you wanted to lean more to Froch... But to say that Groves was only one point ahead suggests it was just the knock down which had him ahead, which is crazy!, and those judges should never judge again, simple as that.

That being said people also talk about if Groves would have seen out the round or not. I dont think he would have but lets asume the reff did not stop it but let him fall, and gave him a 10 count or a standing count.

Lets say Groves at the time was 78 - 73 up which I think most people had, had Froch taken the 9th with a 10-8 which would have more than likely been the case, it would have then been 86 - 83
looking at how Groves was visibly losing his speed and power and looking tired and taking into account how Froch was looking better and is known for having great stamina in the later rounds, It was not out of the question that he would have also won the last 3 rounds which would have brought it to a fair 113 - 113... So interestingly despite the stoppage Carl could have still saved the fight, and if he managed to floor Groves again could have even won it on points fairly..

But going by the judges score cards (well 2 of them), if my possible scenario did play out then Carl would have coasted it even with out a second knock down... infact he would have been in the lead after round 9!  

tunes666 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:All I know is the ref was a joke, Froch was fouling constantly and no points were deducted.

I don't think the Reff was THAT bad. Froch did foul a few times, but it was not always deliberate and Groves him self was rabbit punching and hitting after the bell, but again not always deliberate...  and the reff did warn Froch.

For me the most outrageous thing on the night and more so than the stoppage which was early but not unfounded...  Was the two judges score cards up until the stoppage!? I think was a joke...   after the 8th round I had Groves winning 78 - 73 maybe 77 - 74, if you wanted to lean more to Froch... But to say that Groves was only one point ahead suggests it was just the knock down which had him ahead, which is crazy!, and those judges should never judge again, simple as that.

That being said people also talk about if Groves would have seen out the round or not. I dont think he would have but lets asume the reff did not stop it but let him fall, and gave him a 10 count or a standing count.

Lets say Groves at the time was 78 - 73 up which I think most people had, had Froch taken the 9th with a 10-8 which would have more than likely been the case,  it would have then been 86 - 83
looking at how Groves was visibly losing his speed and power and looking tired and taking into account how Froch was looking better and is known for having great stamina in the later rounds, It was not out of the question that he would have also won the last 3 rounds which would have brought it to a fair 113 - 113... So interestingly despite the stoppage Carl could have still saved the fight, and if he managed to floor Groves again could have even won it on points fairly..

But going by the judges score cards (well 2 of them), if my possible scenario did play out then Carl would have coasted it even with out a second knock down...  infact he would have been in the lead after round 9!  

If I was you I would send a message to froch on twitter showing him your messages on here, he might send you a signed picture for all your support.

... Actually thought that was tunes' most balanced piece on the subject

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:All I know is the ref was a joke, Froch was fouling constantly and no points were deducted.

I don't think the Reff was THAT bad. Froch did foul a few times, but it was not always deliberate and Groves him self was rabbit punching and hitting after the bell, but again not always deliberate...  and the reff did warn Froch.

For me the most outrageous thing on the night and more so than the stoppage which was early but not unfounded...  Was the two judges score cards up until the stoppage!? I think was a joke...   after the 8th round I had Groves winning 78 - 73 maybe 77 - 74, if you wanted to lean more to Froch... But to say that Groves was only one point ahead suggests it was just the knock down which had him ahead, which is crazy!, and those judges should never judge again, simple as that.

That being said people also talk about if Groves would have seen out the round or not. I dont think he would have but lets asume the reff did not stop it but let him fall, and gave him a 10 count or a standing count.

Lets say Groves at the time was 78 - 73 up which I think most people had, had Froch taken the 9th with a 10-8 which would have more than likely been the case,  it would have then been 86 - 83
looking at how Groves was visibly losing his speed and power and looking tired and taking into account how Froch was looking better and is known for having great stamina in the later rounds, It was not out of the question that he would have also won the last 3 rounds which would have brought it to a fair 113 - 113... So interestingly despite the stoppage Carl could have still saved the fight, and if he managed to floor Groves again could have even won it on points fairly..

But going by the judges score cards (well 2 of them), if my possible scenario did play out then Carl would have coasted it even with out a second knock down...  infact he would have been in the lead after round 9!  

If I was you I would send a message to froch on twitter showing him your messages on here, he might send you a signed picture for all your support.

Why? did you get a signed glove off of Groves from doing it or something?

Not sure what I said that was not true...  Just saying it how it is.