BoxRec

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

I hope all his family were on him to lose by UD against Ward! I certainly was!

At a time when boxing has had the worst publicity possible, Froch comes out with this. Great work fella, does the phrase 'keep it to yourself' mean nothing to him?

It's not illegal unless an arrangement is made with the opponent on a particular outcome. I seem to remember David Haye admitted to doing it as well.

Gary Mason once told me he "held up" Tyrell Biggs but nearly came unstuck doing so. By the time the "money round" started he was completely knackered and nearly lost the fight through exhaustion. I remember Harry Carpenter saying Mason was having trouble throwing any punches at all when Biggs suddenly collapsed.

I'm surprised this isn't illegal.
A footballer can't let his family bet on first throw in etc, as he could kick the ball straight out of play and it's cheating. Fair enough, e opposition could try to top it going out, but at the end of the day it is deliberately altering an otherwise honest sporting contest fraudulently for financial gain. It just feels wrong for Froch to say this. Fair enough if he simply tried his hardest to take out the lad in the fifth, but to say he carried him deliberately through the fourth is a bit odd IMO.

This must surely be a contravention of the rules. As a betting man, this cannot be acceptable as there would have been people who, in good faith, had bets on Froch to win in each of the first 4 rounds and those bets effectively stood no chance of winning following this admission. On that basis, it is essentially a fixed event. Clearly it is not as bad as him betting on his opponent to win and then throwing the fight but it is altering the normal course of events in a fight.

Pretty disappointed in Froch here to be honest.

SteveDow wrote:This must surely be a contravention of the rules. As a betting man, this cannot be acceptable as there would have been people who, in good faith, had bets on Froch to win in each of the first 4 rounds and those bets effectively stood no chance of winning following this admission. On that basis, it is essentially a fixed event. Clearly it is not as bad as him betting on his opponent to win and then throwing the fight but it is altering the normal course of events in a fight.

Pretty disappointed in Froch here to be honest.

I reckon many fighters do this but it is not good.

SteveDow wrote:This must surely be a contravention of the rules. As a betting man, this cannot be acceptable as there would have been people who, in good faith, had bets on Froch to win in each of the first 4 rounds and those bets effectively stood no chance of winning following this admission. On that basis, it is essentially a fixed event. Clearly it is not as bad as him betting on his opponent to win and then throwing the fight but it is altering the normal course of events in a fight.

Pretty disappointed in Froch here to be honest.

X2

nobby_nobbins wrote:It's not illegal unless an arrangement is made with the opponent on a particular outcome. I seem to remember David Haye admitted to doing it as well.

Gary Mason once told me he "held up" Tyrell Biggs but nearly came unstuck doing so. By the time the "money round" started he was completely knackered and nearly lost the fight through exhaustion. I remember Harry Carpenter saying Mason was having trouble throwing any punches at all when Biggs suddenly collapsed.

So if a fighter loses a fight in a specific round it's not illegal as long as his opponent knows nothing about it?

SteveDow wrote:This must surely be a contravention of the rules. As a betting man, this cannot be acceptable as there would have been people who, in good faith, had bets on Froch to win in each of the first 4 rounds and those bets effectively stood no chance of winning following this admission. On that basis, it is essentially a fixed event.

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

Clearly it is not as bad as him betting on his opponent to win and then throwing the fight but it is altering the normal course of events in a fight.

Pretty disappointed in Froch here to be honest.

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.

The_Don1 wrote:At a time when boxing has had the worst publicity possible, Froch comes out with this. Great work fella, does the phrase 'keep it to yourself' mean nothing to him?

a good day to bury bad news?

Not sure anyone can really defend Froch here. I appreciate that there is a fine line between tactically slowing an opponent down and not looking for the ko as such until the later rounds and this but when a fighter admits that his performance was hindered in the 4th because of financial interests which relied on him winning in the 5th then in my book it then becomes akin to fixing the fight.

SteveDow wrote:Not sure anyone can really defend Froch here. I appreciate that there is a fine line between tactically slowing an opponent down and not looking for the ko as such until the later rounds and this but when a fighter admits that his performance was hindered in the 4th because of financial interests which relied on him winning in the 5th then in my book it then becomes akin to fixing the fight.

I'd go as far as to say I find it worse than anything Haye or Chisora have done over the last few days. It's a real shame

Bob & Weave wrote:

SteveDow wrote:This must surely be a contravention of the rules. As a betting man, this cannot be acceptable as there would have been people who, in good faith, had bets on Froch to win in each of the first 4 rounds and those bets effectively stood no chance of winning following this admission. On that basis, it is essentially a fixed event.

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

Clearly it is not as bad as him betting on his opponent to win and then throwing the fight but it is altering the normal course of events in a fight.

Pretty disappointed in Froch here to be honest.

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.

sharpei_louis wrote:

Bob & Weave wrote:

SteveDow wrote:This must surely be a contravention of the rules. As a betting man, this cannot be acceptable as there would have been people who, in good faith, had bets on Froch to win in each of the first 4 rounds and those bets effectively stood no chance of winning following this admission. On that basis, it is essentially a fixed event.

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

Clearly it is not as bad as him betting on his opponent to win and then throwing the fight but it is altering the normal course of events in a fight.

Pretty disappointed in Froch here to be honest.

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.

Why isn't this illegal like the cricket spot fixing?

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.

It happens all the time, in the majority of fights. (you just don't hear about it) fighters are making predictions all the time, and with that comes family members betting etc...

The only way to stop this is to outlaw boxing.

Camcas wrote:Why isn't this illegal like the cricket spot fixing?

How can you stop it?

It's a form of spot-fixing in my eyes.

you expect the fighters to go into the sport with honest intentions of winning the fight in every sense.

Not only that, but it undermines the betting industry. An honest punter may have realised the other guy wasn't in Froch's class and make a very good prediction that Froch would finish the fight within 4 rounds, and wager on it.

He'd be spot on, but undone by Froch deliberatly holding the guy out for another round so his family could gain financially.

Big fan of Froch and admire his honesty, but this brings the sport into disrepute worse than the scuffle between chisora and haye.

Bob & Weave wrote:

Camcas wrote:Why isn't this illegal like the cricket spot fixing?

How can you stop it?

By coming down very hard on people who are found guilty of it.

If a striker revealed he'd missed a pen on purpose as his missus had a bet on 2-0 that he didnt wanna ruin, there'd be uproar!!

SteveDow wrote:

Bob & Weave wrote:

Camcas wrote:Why isn't this illegal like the cricket spot fixing?

How can you stop it?

By coming down very hard on people who are found guilty of it.

I understand where you are coming from and feel Froch was stupid to declare that, but on the otherhand I think you'd be stupid not to partake in such action if you was capable of it.

It's rife, it's just that most fighters are sensible/dishonest enough not to admit it.

Bob & Weave wrote:

SteveDow wrote:

Bob & Weave wrote: How can you stop it?

By coming down very hard on people who are found guilty of it.

I understand where you are coming from and feel Froch was stupid to declare that, but on the otherhand I think you'd be stupid not to partake in such action if you was capable of it.

It's rife, it's just that most fighters are sensible/dishonest enough not to admit it.

Yes but the fact that he has admitted it means that stern action needs to be taken.

There is just no place for what he did in either boxing or the gambling industry. For punters to have faith in the sports they bet on they need to know that each event is being competed in in an honest manner and that there are no outside factors such as financial incentives for family etc which operate to dictate how a guy performs (especially where he is not trying his best).

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

Its very naughty, also a dangerous tactic (the Biggs vs Mason fight being a good example - what an odd fight that was). I hope its just something he needs to say too keep his confidence afloat and his name out there.

SteveDow wrote:
There is just no place for what he did in either boxing or the gambling industry. For punters to have faith in the sports they bet on they need to know that each event is being competed in in an honest manner and that there are no outside factors such as financial incentives for family etc which operate to dictate how a guy performs (especially where he is not trying his best).

I know what you're saying but don't you think it's safe to assume this has gone on in 90% of fights.

And by that I mean, that a fighter has told he's wife/mates that he is gonna ko x fighter in x round, they all rush out and put money on it, the fighter does he's best to fulfill he's prophecy, however he isn't in control of all the factors, it's unlikely that the opponent is in agreement, and will do he's best not to be ko'd at any stage of the fight.

I'm not trying to defend what Carl has said, but I am defending what he's done, because I believe it is more common than people would like to think.