Carl Froch vs George Groves

Johner

Wembley Stadium will be the venue for Carl Froch vs George Groves 2 on May 31st.

Nice!

el flaco

Johner wrote: »

Wembley Stadium will be the venue for Carl Froch vs George Groves 2 on May 31st.

Nice!

I imagine it will only be the bottom tier of the stadium being used?
While it will allow them to cater for the huge interest (and make more money) I'm not sure I'd be interested in a venue like that as a viewing experience. Unless you're in one of the first few rows your view would likely either be obscured or distant.
Carpentier v Dempsey seemed more fan-friendly and that was 90 years ago.

nocoverart

el flaco wrote: »

I imagine it will only be the bottom tier of the stadium being used?
While it will allow them to cater for the huge interest (and make more money) I'm not sure I'd be interested in a venue like that as a viewing experience. Unless you're in one of the first few rows your view would likely either be obscured or distant.
Carpentier v Dempsey seemed more fan-friendly and that was 90 years ago.

Doubt that very much, if that was the case they would of opted for somewhere smaller like Carl's home stadium The City Ground. Wembley will be used from top to bottom for this one.

Hopefully Matchroom will have the undercard this venue (and the boxoffice price tag for this rematch) deserves.

el flaco

nocoverart wrote: »

Doubt that very much, if that was the case they would of opted for somewhere smaller like Carl's home stadium The City Ground. Wembley will be used from top to bottom for this one.

Yeah, I suppose if they want to get more than 70,000 in they'll have to extend into the top tier.

Maybe they will fill it. I'd be impressed if they do. But I'd hate to be the lad at the top that forgot to bring his binoculars.

I saw Bernard Dunne at the o2. We weren't at the top and even still it was a bit of a strain. When I watched it back on TV it looked like a different fight.

Jimmy Iovine

What do you think the price will be for the decent and affordable tickets (as unlikely as that is)?

el flaco

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

What do you think the price will be for the decent and affordable tickets (as unlikely as that is)?

Just had a look at the pricing for the first fight and it was:
"£30, £40 and £60 (upper tier), £80, £100, £150 and £200 (lower tier), £200, £300 and £500 (floor)"

Not to say the prices will be the same this time round, but I'd imagine that is probably a reasonable guide.
I'd rather pay the £200 for a lower tier seat than a floor seat anyway. I imagine you'd be sacrificing a little bit of distance for a much more comfortable view.
I think anything more than £30 for the upper tier would be a bit scabby. They should follow the Golden Boy approach and have tickets for as little $10 or even £10.

but1er

Anyone thinking of going over?? Whats the plan

rekcaks

Im thinking of travelling for it. Any tips on hotels nearby Wembley? Ive checked a few hotel sites but not sure on the logistics on getting to the stadium from them

FTA69

I'm definitely getting tickets for it anyway. A good idea for ye non-London residents would be getting accommodation around Harrow which is only a stone's throw away. There's loads of old-Irish guesthouses and sh*te hotels ye can get for a song.

yourdeadwright

I'll be heading over myself,
We go to quite a few of the boxing events in the england and most of the time lately we dont even bother with a hotel,
we Fly out go to the event and then hit the local night spots after and get a taxi straight to the airport, Its not for everyone but worsk for me

Jimmy Iovine

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm definitely getting tickets for it anyway. A good idea for ye non-London residents would be getting accommodation around Harrow which is only a stone's throw away. There's loads of old-Irish guesthouses and sh*te hotels ye can get for a song.

My best friend lives there. I'll be looking at a ticket when they're released.

I don't think I'll be going for one of the very expensive ones though.

FTA69

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

My best friend lives there. I'll be looking at a ticket when they're released.

I don't think I'll be going for one of the very expensive ones though.

I was thinking one of the £80 ones. That's a fair whack of coin too to be fair like but it's going to be a belter though if they get a good card together.

el flaco

FTA69 wrote: »

I was thinking one of the £80 ones. That's a fair whack of coin too to be fair like but it's going to be a belter though if they get a good card together.

Yeah I wonder what kind if card they will able to produce?
With the likes of Brook, Quigg, Bellew, Paul Smith, Crolla (and last week Ricky Burns) all fighting prior to this event it will take some of the bigger Matchroom names out.
Maybe Selby, Rees & the younger Smiths in smaller matches with Campbell and Joshua in there too?

Dick phelan

FTA69 wrote: »

I was thinking one of the £80 ones. That's a fair whack of coin too to be fair like but it's going to be a belter though if they get a good card together.

Your better off going for the more expensive ticket, buying the 30 or 40 quid ones would be a total waste of money IMO be like watching 2 ants fight, better off watching at home in that case, 80 isn't cheap but if Hearn gets his act together an puts on a quality undercard then its well worth it, I hear Mitchell World Title fight will apparently be on the card, (only rumors but strong ones it seems) Wonder about Brian Rose isn't he in line for a title shot now maybe himself and Andrade on the card, i assume Joshua, Campbell ect will be on. Selby another possibility to be on the card, Was wondering about Hall vs McDonnell but doubt it seen as the rival channel situation no way Boxnation allow a big domestic fight like that be on Sky when Hall is champion.

el flaco

Ticket prices announced anyway.
All tiers are indeed open. £30-100 in the 'bowl'. £60-500 on the floor and £1500 VIP ringside.

12gauge dave

What website is selling tickets or where do I find them lads?

Jimmy Iovine

12gauge dave wrote: »

What website is selling tickets or where do I find them lads?

This one I think.

http://www.seetickets.com/event/froch-vs-groves-2/wembley-stadium-london/774444/?aff=id1seenews

EDIT:

These guys are worse than Ticketmaster for their 'transaction fees'. Some load of bull****.

theteal

Anybody get tickets?

I wasn't really planning on going but some of the lads want to use it as an excuse to finally come over for a visit. The site was a shambles this morning and I'm seeing a lot of unhappy reports on some of the uk boxing forums. Seatwave etc had loads of tickets up within minutes of going on sale. Anyway, happy enough here, 5th row upper tier near halfway line - in such a hurry due to the site crashing I accidentally bought the poxy ticket insurance

walshb

Staged?

http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/9206538/george-groves-questions-carl-frochs-mental-state-after-he-was-shoved-by-his-bitter-rival

wandatowell

Froch looked a bit stressed out on Sky today. He didnt look comfortable with Groves being in his face.

DuckHook

froch didn't come off the best really...

Pedro K

DuckHook wrote: »

froch didn't come off the best really...

He came off like an ass really. He's a thoroughly unlikable guy.

DuckHook

Pedro K wrote: »

He came off like an ass really. He's a thoroughly unlikable guy.

Yeah and what's the brother doing sticking his oar in?

Joeseph Balls

DuckHook wrote: »

Yeah and what's the brother doing sticking his oar in?

Living off him, getting his 5 mins:pac:

Pighead

walshb wrote: »

Staged?

http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/9206538/george-groves-questions-carl-frochs-mental-state-after-he-was-shoved-by-his-bitter-rival

Usually I'd say yeah but with these two there seems to be a genuine animosity between them so don't think it's staged. (although Groves seems a bit more chilled out about things)

coronaextra

Lads is this sold out completely or will there be another batch of tickets released closer to the date?

el flaco

coronaextra wrote: »

Lads is this sold out completely or will there be another batch of tickets released closer to the date?

They're due to release another batch. Not sure when exactly. They had to talk to transport for London to make sure they can cope with the crowds.

Edward9

Froch is an old man and I hope Groves knocks him out this time

Andrew Flexing

Edward9 wrote: »

Froch is an old man and I hope Groves knocks him out this time

Ageist!

Lucy and Harry

Never bet against a ginger in a fight.They have rage power.

TheNap

Groves annoyed me in the 1st fight . Had the fight wrapped up but then refused to fight with any brains whatsoever .

I think the occasion will get them him again , he will get too excited and not think about his defence half way through the fight , Froch will stop him in the 7/8/9 round

Lucy and Harry

I will watch this live stream. I hope Farl Crotch wins

walshb

TheNap wrote: »

Groves annoyed me in the 1st fight . Had the fight wrapped up but then refused to fight with any brains whatsoever .

I think the occasion will get them him again , he will get too excited and not think about his defence half way through the fight , Froch will stop him in the 7/8/9 round

I don't think he had anything wrapped up. He was winning and staying ahead, but it's 12 rds, not7/8 or 9 rds. Froch was coming on strong and seemed to have absorbed the best that Groves had. Froch was landing more consistently in the last few rds and both men were tiring. The fight was definitely in the balance regardless of the scores.

Lucy and Harry

I wonder though if a ref now lets a fight go on and does not step in will a person end up dead.I hope if Groves gets into trouble the ref lets him get smashed.His crying on twitter and sky tv is shame full he should accept defeat.He was not fighting back.He looked out of it.What if he gets brain damaged next time and the ref is afraid to stop it in case he gets called bias or a cheat.Yes people wanted to see the knock out.Yes it could have gone on but we have had serious brain damaged people in sport.A ref has to judge it.

walshb

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

I wonder though if a ref now lets a fight go on and does not step in will a person end up dead.I hope if Groves gets into trouble the ref lets him get smashed.His crying on twitter and sky tv is shame full he should accept defeat.He was not fighting back.He looked out of it.What if he gets brain damaged next time and the ref is afraid to stop it in case he gets called bias or a cheat.Yes people wanted to see the knock out.Yes it could have gone on but we have had serious brain damaged people in sport.A ref has to judge it.

I agree. Refs have very difficult decisions to make. Foster may have been a fraction early, but it's fractions that can result in life and death.

willmunny1990

walshb wrote: »

I agree. Refs have very difficult decisions to make. Foster may have been a fraction early, but it's fractions that can result in life and death.

A bit dramatic IMO. I watched it several times over at this stage and Groves wasn't that badly hurt at all and was no where near the life and death line.

Fosters decision was wrong and it robbed Groves and everyone else of a conclusive finish, it was the first bit of trouble he was in all night and all of a sudden Foster decides to jump in and wrestle Groves away and stop it for some obscure reason.

willmunny1990

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

I wonder though if a ref now lets a fight go on and does not step in will a person end up dead.I hope if Groves gets into trouble the ref lets him get smashed.His crying on twitter and sky tv is shame full he should accept defeat.He was not fighting back.He looked out of it.What if he gets brain damaged next time and the ref is afraid to stop it in case he gets called bias or a cheat.Yes people wanted to see the knock out.Yes it could have gone on but we have had serious brain damaged people in sport.A ref has to judge it.

Overly dramatic.

People ending up dead or brain damaged is very rare and its ridiculous to use that as an excuse for Foster. Groves was no where near that badly hurt.

Ive seen armatures take more punishment that Groves in that fight.

gene_tunney

Stoppage was premature but Groves would have been stopped later anyway

el flaco

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Overly dramatic.

People ending up dead or brain damaged is very rare and its ridiculous to use that as an excuse for Foster. Groves was no where near that badly hurt.

Ive seen armatures take more punishment that Groves in that fight.

While death and brain damage are quite rare there is also the possibility of longer-term health implications.
Many people view the fact that a fighter has walked away as a sign that everything is OK, but sometimes cumulative effects aren't felt for several years - such as 'CTE' in NFL players. Unfortunately this is much harder to quantify. You can possibly trace brain damage or death back to a particular barrage of punches in a specific fight but it's practically impossible to link a condition that develops several years later to a specific incident. Had the referee not stepped in and Groves took several big shots who's to say that those shots wouldn't have led to health issues down the road?
It is impossible to applaud or admonish a referee in such situations because we never truly know how it has helped or hindered a boxers later life.

There is of course an inherent risk in boxing and the boxers know this, but with a rise in expectation of much higher levels of health and safety it is (to me at least) completely understandable that referees might err on the side of caution. It is easier to be responsible for your own demise than for someone elses.

Lucy and Harry

Michael Watson was the fight that brought these rules in to protect boxers.Without rules you would have damaged fighters.

walshb

willmunny1990 wrote: »

A bit dramatic IMO. I watched it several times over at this stage and Groves wasn't that badly hurt at all and was no where near the life and death line.
.

There is no life or death line. You don't have to be smashed to pieces in the ring to suffer a serious head injury. Foster made the best call he thought. In his expert view he must have felt that George was in serious trouble.

He stepped in. Maybe that was a little early, but he cannot know that leaving it a little longer will be fine and ok. Nobody can know what would have happened had he not jumped in. Froch could have delivered some more heavy blows. That is why referees have to makes these kinds of calls. It's not an exact science.

walshb

willmunny1990 wrote: »

stop it for some obscure reason.

What obscure reason? What's wrong with it being stopped because the referee thought that George was in real danger? What's obscure about that?

fsfg

walshb wrote: »

I agree. Refs have very difficult decisions to make. Foster may have been a fraction early, but it's fractions that can result in life and death.

He was not early, he was just wrong to stop it.

fsfg

walshb wrote: »

There is no life or death line. You don't have to be smashed to pieces in the ring to suffer a serious head injury. Foster made the best call he thought. In his expert view he must have felt that George was in serious trouble.

He stepped in. Maybe that was a little early, but he cannot know that leaving it a little longer will be fine and ok. Nobody can know what would have happened had he not jumped in. Froch could have delivered some more heavy blows. That is why referees have to makes these kinds of calls. It's not an exact science.

Best not to allow boxing then, everyone is a punch away from trouble. The ref should stop a fight if a boxer can't defend himself

walshb

fsfg wrote: »

Best not to allow boxing then, everyone is a punch away from trouble. The ref should stop a fight if a boxer can't defend himself

Far too simplistic a solution. Some people do want it banned for your reason. Foster stopped the fight. He must have thought that George was hurt, and was going to get more hurt from not being able to defend himself. So, he most likely did stop it for the self defence example you have given.

Halloween Jack

For my money it was a bad stoppage, I thought groves had covered up from taking the worst of the onslaught, he did take a fairly big right hand toward the end but I his legs weren't gone and I don't think he looked too bad.

It's not something you can have a real go at the ref for though, those guys safety is in his hands and I'm sure he sleeps fine knowing both got out unharmed.

I do find it bizarre though that we have stoppages like this to protect fighters but people keep passing toney/jones/Holyfield to fight, surely those guys even getting in the ring anymore presents a real danger to their health

gene_tunney

el flaco wrote: »

While death and brain damage are quite rare there is also the possibility of longer-term health implications.
Many people view the fact that a fighter has walked away as a sign that everything is OK, but sometimes cumulative effects aren't felt for several years - such as 'CTE' in NFL players. Unfortunately this is much harder to quantify. You can possibly trace brain damage or death back to a particular barrage of punches in a specific fight but it's practically impossible to link a condition that develops several years later to a specific incident. Had the referee not stepped in and Groves took several big shots who's to say that those shots wouldn't have led to health issues down the road?
It is impossible to applaud or admonish a referee in such situations because we never truly know how it has helped or hindered a boxers later life.

There is of course an inherent risk in boxing and the boxers know this, but with a rise in expectation of much higher levels of health and safety it is (to me at least) completely understandable that referees might err on the side of caution. It is easier to be responsible for your own demise than for someone elses.

"Brain damage" occurs every time you get punched in the head. The goal of boxing is to punch each other in the head. The objective for referees is to stop a fight when the punishment becomes overwhelming. This was not the case in the Froch fight, and your long-winded pseudoscientific diatribe sidestepped this. Yes, caution must be exercised, but a fight is still a fight, and at the top level of the sport you do not stop a fight without undue reason. You do not stop a fight in anticipation of a fighter receiving punishment, you stop it when he has already been hurt and is giving nothing or very little back, and the context of the fight has to be considered.

el flaco

gene_tunney wrote: »

"Brain damage" occurs every time you get punched in the head. The goal of boxing is to punch each other in the head. The objective for referees is to stop a fight when the punishment becomes overwhelming. This was not the case in the Froch fight, and your long-winded pseudoscientific diatribe sidestepped this. Yes, caution must be exercised, but a fight is still a fight, and at the top level of the sport you do not stop a fight without undue reason. You do not stop a fight in anticipation of a fighter receiving punishment, you stop it when he has already been hurt and is giving nothing or very little back, and the context of the fight has to be considered.

Ok it may have been pseudoscientific but saying all punches to the head cause brain damage is hardly true. While brain injuries are a result of head injuries, head injuries don't necessarily result in brain injuries.
concussions are being increasingly linked to brain conditions in later life. A boxer can take punches to the head and not necessarily be concussed.

Agreed you don't stop a fight in anticipation of serious punishment but there are strong signs when the tide has turned and probably won't stop and I still think foster prevented what would have been more serious punishment. Even though there is disagreement I'm 100% of the belief that Groves had hit the wall and was very likely about to be beaten anyway. For me this had become the context of the fight and for this reason I completely understand why foster stepped in. Was it an optimal stoppage? Probably not. Was there some logic to it? Yes.
If groves carried on and he waited til his head was being rocked around would that have been better? For some people, yes. For others, no. Personally I'm glad it didn't come to that.
Froch got knocked down early and was allowed to continue, mainly I believe, because he wasn't tired. I don't think there was necessarily a bias because had groves been knocked down in the first I'm sure the ref would have allowed him to continue.

As walshb said, calling stoppages is not an exact science and I just wish people would stop judging the referees performance as though it was definitively good or bad.

willmunny1990

walshb wrote: »

What obscure reason? What's wrong with it being stopped because the referee thought that George was in real danger? What's obscure about that?

Why not stop Froch then? Froch was getting pounded with hard clean shots for the majority of the fight and Foster had no problem allowing him take it...first bit of trouble Groves got into and Foster wades in like a mad man.

And Groves was defending himself, his hands were up, he was on his feet and moving and all of a sudden forster jumps in and wrestles him away WWE style.

laughable really.

walshb

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Why not stop Froch then? Froch was getting pounded with hard clean shots for the majority of the fight and Foster had no problem allowing him take it...first bit of trouble Groves got into and Foster wades in like a mad man.

And Groves was defending himself, his hands were up, he was on his feet and moving and all of a sudden forster jumps in and wrestles him away WWE style.

laughable really.

Froch's final attack(s) on Groves seemed to me to be a little more one sided. Groves was looking shaky, hurt and wobbled. Whilst Froch (earlier on) was receiving some damaging attacks from Groves, Froch was also landing and returning fire in a more controlled and poised and comfortable manner. And, Foster knew this and Foster saw this. No reason for him to jump in to save Froch. It was Groves that was the one in worse shape in rd 9. That is why Foster stopped the fight.