World super middleweight champion Carl Froch was well and truly beaten up. He was out boxed, out punched, out worked, some would say well schooled in the art of boxing by the young and hungry up and coming contender George Groves.
The highlight was Froch being sent flat on his back in round 1 and that’s a fact. One would think with those facts Carl had lost the contest, no you guessed wrong. Unbelievably, behind on points on all judges’ scorecards Carl Froch retained his belts controversially as the referee jumped in to stop the fight in round 9 giving Froch the TKO victory.
Some would say that the referee Howard Foster robbed the boxing fans and British public of a fair conclusion. In my view George Groves deserved the benefit of the doubt. To be knocked either clean out or to recover from a tricky situation and then move on to be able to win convincingly as afforded Froch in round 1. Is this a case of one rule for one and one rule for another?
Howard Foster made a pivotal decision that made the whole matter stink. It still, for me smells of a rematch, even for the sake of pro boxing. And if there was a rematch the way I see it Groves is way younger, fresher and can only get better.
As for warrior Froch, he is older still tough but stagnant in progression. At his age Carl could just not get any better than he is right now and he would definitely lose if they should ever meet again, which is highly unlikely with bigger matches with the likes of Andre Ward and other big money contenders for Carl to go back to rematch with George Groves. It would not make financial sense just moral sense.
Froch should consider himself quite fortunate. He got the win that’s for sure. As for Groves, he is young enough and will learn from this and he can definitely come again, that’s for sure.
George, ‘what a fantastic performance’. You have truly proved that you are genuine world class. For a fighter to be booed into the ring and cheered as a hero out it definitely tells a story.
The nation salutes you.