Wrapped up in this accusation was the suggestion that Foster had given Froch the benefit of the doubt on occasions when he was hurt due to his reputation for durability and his past record of turning losing positions into winning ones. In addition, Groves and his team felt that in round nine Groves had been the victim of his opponent’s reputation – “Well, it was only going to end one way…” – and also his own. After all, Groves, in stark contrast to Froch, had been considered vulnerable ever since he almost unravelled against Kenny Anderson in a 2010 Commonwealth title fight. Since then, many had believed that for all Groves’ wonderful attributes – his world-class jab, his excellent footwork, his big heart – there would come a time when his chin would let him down or he would need protection from himself. This belief, or fear, made his fights not only fraught with tension, but also left Groves and Fitzpatrick wondering whether Howard Foster’s intervention in round nine might have owed to perception rather than reality. That is to say, was the perception of Groves being vulnerable, combined with the perception of Froch as powerful/immovable/relentless, the trigger for Foster to bat away his uncertainty and move between them in round nine? Groves would say yes, while Foster of course would say no. In fact, when later asked about it, the referee was adamant that every boxer is merely a silhouette on fight night and that no past results or performances, or even their reputation, has any bearing on decisions made once the first bell rings.
