Where now for George Groves?

Can't really argue the decision last night, 116-111 perhaps slightly wide, but was nothing like a robbery, so where does he go now?

He comes across as having unbelievable confidence and self belief, but I am starting to think those defeats to Carl Froch might have taken something away from him mentally, 1 more defeat in a world title fight I'd be worried for him, especially if it was to be against Degale.

Would like to see him back with Adam Booth too, I think he would have won the first fight with Froch had Booth been in charge, and last night I think Booth would have changed things in the fight that PF just allowed to continue.

What way will his career go now, and do people think he's good enough to win a world title, because despite one contreversial attempt, he's of course had 3 world title fights and lost them all...

He is a good fighter but allways a tad over rated, maybe a fight with Degale but now Degale holds all the cards, and if he loses which I think he would, then it would be over, I think his best chance of a title is the Arthur Abraham root, of he can pinch that of Abraham and then have a unification with Dagale and get a pay day.. I think Groves is all about explosivness than boxing skill, and he can't do it for 12 rounds..

I thought the advice from Fitzpatrick was sound last night. Keep the left hand up, double the jab to keep Jack on the back foot and set up the right hand behind the jab.

I just dont think Groves was good enough to win once it transpired that Jack could keep his defence tight and absorb his best shots. Dont think Booth would have made much of difference.

There are still loads of fights out there for Groves if he is happy to box below world title level.

Still fights for him callum smith?

Degale probably won't be interested now

Still a big fan though but jack the deserved winner

Degale may offer a defence to catch Groves at the right time but Groves would be a fool to accept. He needs to regroup. Another failed title and its curtains for him at world level.

There are lots of fights out there for Groves to start building a case for another title shot, and work on his defence and stamina.

Groves has always had a tenancy to enjoy a scrap and leave himself open. He needs to show more control and discipline. We know he has the power etc. He needs to apply it more intelligently.

Sorry, Fitzpatrick may have had a point about double jabbing etc. And Groves did keep 'getting involved' but Fitzpatrick can't escape the fact that Groves, if anything, has gone backwards under his tutorship. His defence has probably got worse and so has his jab.

Further, it's fine to say 'double up the jab' but Fitzpatrick would never have been astute enough to say 'box and run' was the way to best Degale etc. Even his training for Froch I was largely under booth.

Booth's a bit hit and miss with tactics but he has implemented tactics that have won fights.

Groves needs another trainer. One that will work on his defence and stamina and that can get through to him to produce more discipline.

Groves is another fighter whose natural attributes have got him through fights despite bad tactics. Since he's stepped up in class with others with similar attributes it's got harder.

He has a future but he needs to fight a few domestic/euro fights, then a fringe contender to build up confidence and make the case.

Thought Groves applied himself well. He did not fold away from home against a pro Jack crowd.

but he gassed quite early and had lost his zip in his punches.

I think Degale would destroy him but that fight would have been huge had Groves won. Was really rooting for Groves and then to go onto a huge unification fight.

Groves best performance under Booth was the Degale win which could have gone either way back when Degale was pretty inexperienced.

His performances against Froch and Jack werent much worse that that. He was just in with a higher calibre of opponent who could soak up up his best shots. I dont think any of performances under Booth would have got the job done against Froch or Jack. Maybe he has just found his level. The plan Fitzpatrick was giving Groves was sound but Jack was employing a solid gameplan himself.

Booths analysis of the first Froch fight told me enough to speculate that if Booth were working the corner that night he would have chewed Groves ear off between the latter rounds to get him back on course. Fitzpatrick just doesn't have that personality. Groves is like a spoilt kid at times and needs straight talking.

I guess Booth being there would have meant Howard Foster didnt stop the fight early either.

Booth being there means there less chance of Foster needing to make such a decision, he would have kept him calm and in control.

Of course he would.

Groves DeGale will happen again. It's a PPV for Hearn and I can't see him missing out on it

I couldn't say for sure what booth would or wouldn't have done but we know what happened under Fitzpatrick.

All I can do is speculate that, as booth managed to produce a controlled performance out of Groves against Degale it's not unreasonable to believe he could do it again.

Groves and Degale were at the same stage in their career. Degale, arguably has progressed further.

I don't necessarily believe Groves should go back to booth, just it's clear Fitzpatrick is not improving his charge. That is a statement of fact rather than conjecture.

I dont think that is a statement of fact neccessarily. Under Booth, Groves fought at a lower level. Hes lost 3 world title fights with under Fitzpatrick but he boxed well in them. His best career performance was probably the first Froch fight and I dont think there was a lot in it between his performances against Jack and Degale. Both close enough fights. One he nicked a decision, the other he didnt. Its probable the Jack he fought for a title against was a better fighter than the Degale he fought at domestic level against. I think Groves has maybe found his level now. I wouldnt expect major improvements from a different trainer. There is only so much a trainer can do.

I think it is. Unless you're saying his performances against Rebrasse and Douglin showed progress over the performances against Sierra or Johnson.

You seem to start from the assumption that this is Groves 'level' without objective assessment of his performances.

You seem to be agreeing that Groves hasn't shown progress since joining Fitzpatrick but saying you believe it's purely because Groves has hit his level. But you don't acknowledge the fact that Groves has always had technical and temperament faults and that Fitzpatrick has failed to address these. That if solved this would elevate Groves above this 'level'.

For example, Groves has better natural attributes than jack, more power, better hand speed etc. Yet jack being more disciplined and showing better defensive technique, won the fight.

I wasn't stating it meant Booth + Groves = a win against Froch, Catchy. What I am saying is Groves and Fitzpatrick were both focusing happily on the 'robbery' angle and largely ignoring what Groves was blatantly doing wrong. Booth was far more concerned with what Groves was playing as the fight progressed. I know which trainer would have been better to have in the corner given Fitzpatrick wasn't overly concerned. Stopped early, yes. Warning signs it could have ended 10 seconds later anyway, yes.

No I just dont think things would be any different under Booth. You say its a fact he hasnt progressed. I dont agree. Arguably some of the best performances of his career came under Fitzpatrick - they just happened to be losing efforts against fighters that were better than anyone he fought under Booth.

I think you can see areas he has improved in (punch volume for example). Areas he is still weak in (and always has been).

He boxed good gameplans against Froch and Jack. He landed good shots. He arguably upped his level and performances from anything under Booth.

The Doughlin fight he was below par in without a doubt. Not sure that was anything to do with lack of progress or regression as much as just performing within himself in a pointless fight. The Rebrasse fight I didnt think he was that bad at all.

I dont agree with the assessment of the Jack fight. Jack had advantages over Groves in areas as well as Groves having advantages over Jack. If Groves had more speed and power, Jack was stronger and more durable. Groves noticeably upped his level of activity in that for example, than anything under Booth. He landed the jab, he landed the over hand right. Things Booth would have no doubt worked on. Was Groves undisciplined? Not especially for me. He was caught in the first round but he was clearly boxing to an organised gameplan. Where he lost the fight was that Jack was able to absorb his shots and slow win down to the body, look stronger in the exchanges and was stronger inside fighting (where groves has been weak under both Booth and Fitzpatrick). I really dont see what Booth would have done to change much of this at all. I dont really see any drastic changes to style. The most significant change has been Groves is fighting a level above what he was fighting under Booth.

Groves was poor before this title fight, he should sit and have a long hard look at himself, because he is going backwards, if this is down to his training or discipline then her needs to change to a trainer who will get the best out of him.

Groves has always looked a decent boxer, apart from the Froch Ko and the last 2 fights  he's won pretty comfortable,and boxed well against Degale so its in him.

We can talk Jack up as much as we like but this is a bad result for Groves in a fight most (including myself)thought he would win comfortably.

Change trainers or be a nearly man, because somethings clearly not working with Fitzpatrick.

DuransHorse wrote:I wasn't stating it meant Booth + Groves = a win against Froch, Catchy. What I am saying is Groves and Fitzpatrick were both focusing happily on the 'robbery' angle and largely ignoring what Groves was blatantly doing wrong. Booth was far more concerned with what Groves was playing as the fight progressed. I know which trainer would have been better to have in the corner given Fitzpatrick wasn't overly concerned. Stopped early, yes. Warning signs it could have ended 10 seconds later anyway, yes.

Like what? Would Booth being there have made Froch come on the stronger in the later rounds any less?

In the rematch it looked to me like they made a concious decision to box more measured to conserve energy, indicating they wanted to avoid flagging down the stretch.

What do you think would have happened differently under Booth?

I think Booth would have given Groves a bollocking after the 6th, a round he dominated but ended on the ropes trying to be overly macho, Fitzpatrick however did nothing despite it being a pivotal point in the fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I think Booth would have given Groves a bollocking after the 6th, a round he dominated but ended on the ropes trying to be overly macho, Fitzpatrick however did nothing despite it being a pivotal point in the fight.

I think you wee right yesterday when you pointed out he'd been cobra'd...............

Fact is he was on the verge of collapse in the first fight and was taking big shots................Then he got completely destroyed by a right hand in the second.........

I think he's on the slide...............Seen it before where a big ko kills a career..................Curry looked sensational against Mccallum and then was crap after !!..

I honestly wouldn't have him more than 60/40 to beat Fielding and I'd pick Callum and Degale comfortably....

The kid left something at Wembley..

OK, let's all agree a good trainer and corner don't do anything worthwhile for boxers.

Bottom line is, I can be impartial and say I think Froch would have gotten to him in the end... bit with Booth I think he stood a better chance of that not happening.

I think he believed his own hype after the first Froch fight. Was over confident in the second and outright cocky and careless against Rebrasse

He was crap against Douglin and under performed last night....

Can't just be cockiness can it ??

I agree with you truss

Don't say that you'll be called an alias.

I don't agree Truss!

To be honest with being involved in politics ive been called far worse

DuransHorse wrote:OK, let's all agree a good trainer and corner don't do anything worthwhile for boxers.

Bottom line is, I can be impartial and say I think Froch would have gotten to him in the end... bit with Booth I think he stood a better chance of that not happening.

There is only so much a corner can do in between rounds in a fight. I think you are taking a fight where Groves put in the best performance of his career and was stopped unfairly and saying if Booth was there it might have been all different? Based on what? Giving Groves a bollicking? Asking to him to stop exchanging with Froch? Easy to say in the corner. Harder to pull off when your fighter is tiring and in against an opponent coming on stronger in the late rounds. I dont think Booth being there would have made a difference in any of Groves losses. He didnt lose the fights due to bad gameplans, advice or tactics.

wheelchair1991 wrote:To be honest with being involved in politics ive been called far worse

... But nothing quite as insulting

Groves lost the first froch fight due to terrible refereeing, but he opened the door himself by getting into a tear up he didn't need to get into. Would booth have had a different game plan in the first place for him? (Who really knows if it was booth's plan anyway) and would he have reined him in when he started going toe to toe? I guess he'd likely have tried, but who knows if he'd have succeeded.

Groves' jab was amazing last night, best I've seen in a long time. Shame he doesn't seem to have the strength to keep physically strong opponents like Froch and Jack off him. Degale would be a completely different type of fight.

Groves boxed pretty well last night. I think Jack was a lot better than most expected. They were pretty evenly matched. I certainly didnt see any major regression from Groves. I think people are assuming because he didnt win he must be going backwards. This was a fight where both boxers performed well.

I thought he performed as well as ive seen him last night , Jack was just a little better than many anticipated. The problem with George he is far too easy to tag cleanly and makes him vulnerable. He'd give all (bar Ward) a competitive tussle at the weight.

Cheers, Rodders

He scored with some very stiff jabs and some huge right hands on Jack. He threw more punches and was busier than I think I have ever seen from him before. Used the double jab to good effect and threw some sneaky hooks. The problem was Jack was able to take them and give some back. I was surprised how tough he was. Jack worked well to the body and on the inside where Groves is vulnerable. He looked the sturdier of the two in the exchanges. Certainly not sure what Booth could have done to change any of this.

Agreed mate.

Cheers, Rodders

It's a tad harsh blaming fitzpatrick when his relative demise coincides with a step up in class.

I just looked it up and found out that Groves is only 27, a year younger than Kell Brook was when Brook won his belt. On top of that, Groves has only had 24 fights. No way should he be on the slide already. Just needs to like someone said earlier "regroup", get some more wins under his belt to build his confidence back up and then maybe target DeGale or whoever holds a belt.

Too early to write him off.

I woke up for the 2nd round and watched it from then. I thought he was going to win until either his stamina let him down or Jack's body shots slowed him from around the 8th. Jack seemed to box at the same pace throughout but Groves can't do that. That's not to say his stamina hasn't improved, as it has, but he won't win a world title on the cards unless he improves it.

As I said Jacks bodywork was very good and there was one point around the 9th where I thought Jack could stop Groves. That would have put an end to his world level career.

Someone said that Groves looked flat last night and i have to agree. He's looked that way since losing to Froch. There was clearly something missing from him in the Rebrasse fight but he can get away with it at that level but not at world.
Have to agree with Hammers 'Cobra'd' quip. It does seem that way. It's a shame as before Froch he was coming on nicely but he probably took the fight too soon. He might well never be what he could have been because of it.

Catchy, Groves is cocky, confident and defiant. As soon as he started the macho stuff anyone who knows anything about Froch was thinking 'very... bad... move!!'

As a Froch fan and as a person who scored the Groves v Degale fight to Degale, I'm not deluded about Groves abilities. I think Froch was always going to come on strong later and probably turn the tide... but Groves made it easier for him than it had to be. Poor discipline was clearly evident. It was a cracking fight I wanted to continue and thought it could have, but oddly I also had a feeling Groves cut it short as much as Foster. In honestly I do believe that Booth had a far better chance of getting Groves back to plan, therfore a better chance of winning. The keyword there though is chance. Groves lost the Degale fight (in my view of course) as he flagged, despite showing discipline under Booth, and you could see Froch gaining ground anyway. To give Groves his best chance he needed a strong character in his corner and Booth would have been sterner than Fitzpatrick. almost certain it would have been the same outcome, just a couple of rounds later. It's not blaming Fitzpatrick, it's horses for courses.

I'm not deluded, the writing was on the wall and Groves was never favourite when Froch was still there coming forward after the midway point. It was unsatisfactory because I felt Groves made mistakes that he didn't need to make so the fight concluded a round or two early and left me with a feeling of unfulfilled potential. It was as though Fosters early intervention masked Groves own wasteful inexperience for me.

For whatever reason though, Groves has lost something since the first Froch fight.

I dont really think that is doing Fitzpatrick any justice. I mean Groves put in a career best performance against Froch in the first fight. He was clearly winning the fight, albeit the one tiring more down the stretch. The first real bit of trouble he got into in the fight, the ref waved it off unfairly without giving Fitzpatrick any chance to do much about anything. I struggle to see what Booth could have done to re-energize a triring Groves, to prevent Froch coming on strong or to stop the ref making a howler. Anyone in the corner could have told Groves to avoid being dragged into a slugfest and to box and move. I thinks its wishful thinking that Booth would have been able to change the dynamics of the fight. The cornering I have seen from Fitzpatrick has been sound and successful for Groves when he has implemented it. I dont think his losses have stemmed from anything related to his corner.

Sorry catchy, looks like you're fighting a lone battle and not seeing what the rest of us are seeing.

As I said, you seem to have decided Groves has hit his level and constructed the argument accordingly.

Even by your argument, Groves peaked in his first fight under Fitzpatrick. Which still hardly makes the argument that Fitzpatrick has had an influence in improving Groves, even if we ignore the fact Groves did most of his training for that fight under booth.

I'm not sure the Froch losses have had a huge influence on a fighter who doesn't lack for confidence. It's his lack of development that's been the issue.

Groves has natural attributes that aren't being harnessed properly. He's always had a tendency to get drawn into wars, his defence suspect and his stamina is poor. These are areas that have always needed working on.

If Groves is really serious about gaining another shot then he needs a new trainer.

Groves fights in straight lines all the time too predictable.

catchweight wrote:I dont really think that is doing Fitzpatrick any justice. I mean Groves put in a career best performance against Froch in the first fight. He was clearly winning the fight, albeit the one tiring more down the stretch. The first real bit of trouble he got into in the fight, the ref waved it off unfairly without giving Fitzpatrick any chance to do much about anything. I struggle to see what Booth could have done to re-energize a triring Groves, to prevent Froch coming on strong or to stop the ref making a howler. Anyone in the corner could have told Groves to avoid being dragged into a slugfest and to box and move. I thinks its wishful thinking that Booth would have been able to change the dynamics of the fight. The cornering I have seen from Fitzpatrick has been sound and successful for Groves when he has implemented it. I dont think his losses have stemmed from anything related to his corner.

90% of the groundwork for that start was surely down to Booth more than Fitzpatrick? I'm not talking about any new skills being taught here, he had all the physical tool he needed. We are talking purely about guidance and tactics. For some boxers Fitzpatrick would be ideal, as I say it's horses for courses. I have a feeling the reason Groves likes him so much is because he doesn't really question him and lets Groves run the show.

I scored the fight 114-113 Jack. And he was comfortably winning the 1st aswell before he got dropped.

As other have already alluded to I think he believes his own hype too much. He needs a strong and respected personality in the corner with him and he just doesn't get that from Paddy. I feel Paddy was giving Groves sound enough advice but he wasn't really taking it on board.

I think back to Booth would be a good move but if you were Adam would you take him back?!

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:I scored the fight 114-113 Jack. And he was comfortably winning the 1st aswell before he got dropped.

As other have already alluded to I think he believes his own hype too much. He needs a strong and respected personality in the corner with him and he just doesn't get that from Paddy. I feel Paddy was giving Groves sound enough advice but he wasn't really taking it on board.

I think back to Booth would be a good move but if you were Adam would you take him back?!

Yes.  With a smug 'I told you so/victorious' grin!

... and a bigger cut!

Bet Hearn is gutted, his big unification with Degale has just gone up in smoke.

Rowley wrote:Bet Hearn is gutted, his big unification with Degale has just gone up in smoke.

The unification angle has gone but the grude match with Groves 2-0 up is still there. Don't think Groves will be willing to play ball as if he looses he will be near the bottom of the pecking order. But if the money is there will he be willing to cash out?

Is still a doable fight, but is tougher to make. Degale brings the belt and the current form to the table so carries most of the cards. Do you see Groves swallowing his ego enough to take the short end of the purse and have to go cap in hand to Degale for the shot?

Rowley wrote:Is still a doable fight, but is tougher to make. Degale brings the belt and the current form to the table so carries most of the cards. Do you see Groves swallowing his ego enough to take the short end of the purse and have to go cap in hand to Degale for the shot?

No. Groves believes Froch I was a corrupt robbery, Froch II was a lucky punch, Jack was a hometown decision and he's already beaten Degale twice anyway. He's the main event.

He's like a defiant kid that knows everything about everything and just thinks the world is against him, no way he gives into Hearn and his demands.