14 thoughts on “Full Fight Video – Badou Jack vs. George Groves

  1. Tough road loss for Groves who gave it everything.

    To give the winner some credit: the springy Jack usually dictated where and at what pace the fight would be fought and Groves, having problems with closing range, often was off-balance. Haven’t seen a match won so largely on footwork in a while. I gave Groves five rounds.

    Your thoughts?

    Thanks for posting this, Jeremy!

    • Very tough loss, although he can be proud of his efforts. From the precipice of stardom against froch, to defeat here is a bad retrograde step though, and now one must question his split from trainer Adam Booth & lingering stamina problems.

      Full credit to Jack, a much improved talent. I felt groves had his success and outboxedJack when he could maintain distance and claim centre ring. Jack can’t fight going backwards, but dominated inside and down the stretch. I had it 114 to 113.

  2. Much closer than I had it, but I wouldn’t swear by my score. I think Jack’s style and size gave Grove problems too. Grove hit him on the temple repeatedly where Jack once suffered a first-round TKO, only seeming to affect Jack once (if that is what it was and not a stumble) in the 11th or 12th.

    Btw, here’s an article worth looking at w/r/t our recent exchange on the struggle between art and commerce in Hollywood. I liked the Amis novel in question here, while what’s being shopped in Toronto sounds like it’s gone through a serious case of, ahem, genre reassignment surgery:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/business/media/london-fields-premiere-toronto-troubled-by-creative-rift.html

    • Thanks for the link.

      Sounds identical to the conflict that erupted surrounding the last Schrader film, recut without his permission, and he received support from Nicholas Cage & other participants, ultimately to no avail.

      Very rare is the case in Hollywood that a director has full creative control or final cut.

      • From what I can tell, Schrader suffered the usual suits-know-better formulaic recutting. No? Schrader had it happen to him three times before calling it quits (he’s off to make web movies, I hear). As you know, I feel Martin Scorsese has very deeply internalized this dominant Hollywood mode.

        In the case here of Cullen (d.) and Hanley (prod.), for a change I’m not sure whose side to be on. This may be the first time I’ve heard of a linear narrative film being unceremoniously recut to make it suit the producer’s taste in the avant garde. Is there another case? The closest thing I can recall is Gore Vidal’s fairly conventional Caligula being taken over by porn magnate Bob Guccione — much to the horror of its A-list cast who found themselves intercut with Guccione’s stable of hookers.

        But I liked Hanley’s work with Harmony Korine on Spring Breakers, so I’ll reserve judgment until there’s something I can see. I regard Martin Amis as unfilmable since what made his novels enjoyable was all expository anyway — the wisecracks, wordplay and acid social commentary. Nothing of note ever happens in them. If he has to be adapted, montage and non-sequential elements might just be the way.

      • Yes, you’re correct that the difference here lies in the very unusual instance of the producer striving to make the film less conventional. I recall a story of the producer of early Spielberg film The Sugarland Express asking him to make the film in a less commercial style

        I know of the Exorcist prequel debacle, but what is the third film of his which was interfered with?

  3. I was thinking of his problems finishing The Canyons. He reportedly battled a disappointed collaborator in Brett Easton Ellis who said he’d wildly re-imagined the Ellis script. Then their producer apparently tried to get Steven Soderbergh to re-edit Schrader’s rough cut.

    In truth, it’s probably a different context to what we were discussing. I don’t know for a fact Soderbergh had a more conventional cut in mind. What’s more, as Schrader and others crowd-sourced funding for the film, I’m not sure how it arrives a producer could be interfering, anyway. But see this for more:

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/steven-soderbergh-offered-to-edit-the-canyons-lindsay-lohan-was-fired-the-saga-of-paul-schraders-troubled-film-20130110

    The Canyons spat may have more to do with Schrader not easily compromising. I’ve seen him complain somewhat harshly, for instance, about his dealings with Scorsese.

    • I’ve seen Vasquez box just once before and wasn’t impressed. You liked what u saw?

      Yes, I’d read and enjoyed that NYT article before. I had high hopes for The Canyons given the talent involved and was intrigued further (who can blame me haha) given the disastrous production. However, the finished product mirrored the production and I feel it’s Schrader`s worst film.

  4. Not as impressed as I have been by Errol Spence, but enough to think this fight’s worth seeing. Good lateral movement, angles and speed plus a bit of Mayweatheresque trickery on the ropes too. Promising.

    • Vasquez will certainly get an opportunity anyway with the backing of Haymon and a solid hometown following.

      Spence is probably the best prospect in boxing and looks the future of the welterweight division

      • Agreed on Spence’s future.

        Thurman made a mistake refusing to fight him now, I think, while the going is likely easier than it will be in a year or two. Even today, I wouldn’t be confident of a Thurman win due to his vulnerability to body shots and Spence’s busier work rate. He might be able to wear down the younger man, but he might look awful doing so.

      • Thurman has no say in what fights do and don’t get made. It’s all in Haymon’s hands, and, if his track record is anything to go by, he’s reluctant to match up his perceived A-sides, and will only do so when there is a pot of gold for everybody to split.

        It will be a big fight in 2017 or later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s