BoxRec

I don't think how common it is should even enter the argument. I seriously doubt this happens in 90% of fights but even if it did there is no defending it.

It was in his autobiography so I not sure why the board have not picked up on this before. Boxing is here to be shouted at after the weekend.

I would like to know what more than one occasion he is refering too. No chance in any of his world title fights.

when I heard it on the radio it defo said 'title fights'. it's all very disappointing really.

Mensa07 wrote:

I would like to know what more than one occasion he is refering too. No chance in any of his world title fights.

when I heard it on the radio it defo said 'title fights'. it's all very disappointing really.

Ruben Groenwald it was. It all in his autobigropahy which has been out a while.

Froch said, on both the Sky and the BBC articles that he did this on more than one occasion... so its not just the Groenwald fight.

I thought he might have got Magee out a bit sooner, maybe Rob Reid also.

stujones wrote:Froch said, on both the Sky and the BBC articles that he did this on more than one occasion... so its not just the Groenwald fight.

I thought he might have got Magee out a bit sooner, maybe Rob Reid also.

Not sure about Magee. That was a very tough fight and I'm sure he would have wanted to finish that as soon as he could. Reid is a definite possibility, as is Rybacki.

I was at the Groenwald fight, with Rhino Senior and Junior by coincidence.

He was poor and clearly going through the motions.

To echo what others have said this is an absolute disgrace. As a punter myself it destroys all confidence in the gambling industry. It is clearly a fix if, to use the example he has given, I have bet money on a Froch KO 1-4 which is in fact an impossible outcome.

This is also going to pour scrutiny in all his previous fights with everyone wondering who could/should have been finished earlier.

Let us not forget David Haye, he clearly could have finished Audley in round 1 - yet he chose not to engage with him until the third round before disclosing that his friends and family had money on this.

BBBoC - look into this immediately.

Carl is discussing this now LIVE on sky news

UpperCrust wrote:Froch finished title fights later than he could of so that family and friends could benefit financially from the bets they had put on.

Thoughts?

http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/7533287/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-17088977

My thoughts are that he must be stupid to have said it !

How much would he get for his autobiography ? - and I am sure he would not have got less if this was not included.

He must be daft - not only could this cause him problems with regards to fighting/fines (?), he also comes across well as a commentator and this kind of thing will do him no favours there.

No defence for this, he should have kept this quiet. There is no need for this info to be given to the public.

If he was just saying that he told friends he would finish in 5 and as he said, stepped on the gas in that round then fine as it could be part of a tactic ie soften him up then slam on the pressure

BUT to say that he actively avoided a stoppage due to bets then that is bang out of line and is a fix

Froch just been on Sky Sports News denying ever pro-longing a fight, and his brother has only ever placed a fiver on him, and lost.

So did he say it or not? Im thinking maybe he did and is backing out now surely, as i doubt the BBC would publish such comments without foundation and fear of a lawsuit.

Silly little boy if it is true, he should be keeping stuff like this to himself, if he was advised to say this then Froch needs to sack his advisors. It will be interesting to see if the boxing board act on this now and what about Sky, are they going to be happy with this? IMO Froch, Haye and Chisora should all be banned as they all are harming the sport we love.

scottyp wrote:Silly little boy if it is true, he should be keeping stuff like this to himself, if he was advised to say this then Froch needs to sack his advisors. It will be interesting to see if the boxing board act on this now and what about Sky, are they going to be happy with this? IMO Froch, Haye and Chisora should all be banned as they all are harming the sport we love.

He said it in his autobiography which was out last year the board should have acted then. He can always say he was making it up in his book.

He is now like an italian tank in WWII

http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/1 ... ay-comment

Bloody idiotic thing to say in the first place

taffytoon wrote:He is now like an italian tank in WWII

http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/1 ... ay-comment

Bloody idiotic thing to say in the first place

Its like Matt Le Tisser kicking the ball out of touch best kept to yourself.

Casio wrote:G0mez is notable by his absense....wonder how long it would've taken him to comment if this was the same story but with Khan as the boxer......

i like gomez generally but agree he would be all over Khan like a cheap suit for this one......

SteveDow wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:

Bob & Weave wrote: Not actually true, theres nothing stopping the opponent from trying to knock Carl out in those rounds, and theres nothing to say that Carl couldn't have been lucky/unlucky by catching him with a peach earlier than the fifth
. I really don't see that much wrong with it, and as you say, it's completely different from taking a dive in a particular round.

But as stated, if I put my mortgage on Froch to win in the fourth, he fixed it so that I could not win that bet. That's a fixed fight in a way.

Completely agree. I don't see how anyone can see it in any other way.

Utter, utter excrement.


By that logic, Muhammad Ali vs. Ernie Terrell was a fix.



Morons.

scottyp wrote:Silly little boy if it is true, he should be keeping stuff like this to himself, if he was advised to say this then Froch needs to sack his advisors. It will be interesting to see if the boxing board act on this now and what about Sky, are they going to be happy with this? IMO Froch, Haye and Chisora should all be banned as they all are harming the sport we love.

Yeah, British boxing would be far better without Froch, Haye and Chisora!


And Hatton and Hamed, too!

nowt wrong to me

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

SteveDow wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:
But as stated, if I put my mortgage on Froch to win in the fourth, he fixed it so that I could not win that bet. That's a fixed fight in a way.

Completely agree. I don't see how anyone can see it in any other way.

Utter, utter excrement.


By that logic, Muhammad Ali vs. Ernie Terrell was a fix.



Morons.

How?

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

SteveDow wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:
But as stated, if I put my mortgage on Froch to win in the fourth, he fixed it so that I could not win that bet. That's a fixed fight in a way.

Completely agree. I don't see how anyone can see it in any other way.

Utter, utter excrement.


By that logic, Muhammad Ali vs. Ernie Terrell was a fix.



Morons.

The only moron on the forum is you if you cannot see why what Froch said he did could not be construed as breaching boxing and gambling regulations. The guy said he delibarately did not finish a fight in the 4th round so that his family could win money by him instead finishing it in the fifth round. He may have subsequently retracted the statement but he did say it.

I don't see the big uproar myself as no fighter is 100% certain he can carry out his 'cunning' plan to KO his opponent in the exact round he's bet on. Plenty of fighters have carried their opponents to points when they could have finished them imo.
The obvious way to prevent it is too stop taking betting on rounds but in no way is this the same as chucking a fight for me.

Final round wrote:I don't see the big uproar myself as no fighter is 100% certain he can carry out his 'cunning' plan to KO his opponent in the exact round he's bet on. Plenty of fighters have carried their opponents to points when they could have finished them imo.
The obvious way to prevent it is too stop taking betting on rounds but in no way is this the same as chucking a fight for me.

The issue is more about him delibarately not trying to finish the fight in the 4th round as this shows that he was intentionally underperforming. It is not much different in my book to the Pakistan players bowling delibarate wides.

SteveDow wrote:

Final round wrote:I don't see the big uproar myself as no fighter is 100% certain he can carry out his 'cunning' plan to KO his opponent in the exact round he's bet on. Plenty of fighters have carried their opponents to points when they could have finished them imo.
The obvious way to prevent it is too stop taking betting on rounds but in no way is this the same as chucking a fight for me.

The issue is more about him delibarately not trying to finish the fight in the 4th round as this shows that he was intentionally underperforming. It is not much different in my book to the Pakistan players bowling delibarate wides.

And it's no different to handing your opponent a frame in a snooker match so you win 5-1 instead of 5-0