BoxRec

I thought the Scots fighter was a handy winner in his QF, but then he was the fav!
Is it a conflict of interest to have a major bookmaker sponsoring such a subjective event?

Coco wrote:I thought the Scots fighter was a handy winner in his QF, but then he was the fav!
Is it a conflict of interest to have a major bookmaker sponsoring such a subjective event?

Is it a conflict of interest, the referee knowing if he stops a fight, the boxer gets a £2,000 bonus?

gobbles wrote:

Coco wrote:I thought the Scots fighter was a handy winner in his QF, but then he was the fav!
Is it a conflict of interest to have a major bookmaker sponsoring such a subjective event?

Is it a conflict of interest, the referee knowing if he stops a fight, the boxer gets a £2,000 bonus?

2k is chicken feed compared to an outsider beating the hot favourite in the bookmaking stakes

Mcewan done enough to win that qf, I thought whoever won that first fight would go on to win, we're Craig goes from here I don't know

The bookies may have more liability on another fighter, just because one fighter has shorter odds than another doesn't mean the bookie will profit more from him been beat.

I would imagine in a competition like this they won't be taking a huge amount of bets and probably have no liability whatsoever with a 109% book.

Have to say I had McEwan winning handily in the first fight, Carslaw got the sorry we screwed the scots supporters up decision in the second, as Toms won that one (and I backed Carslaw to beat him and I know he lost)

Was impressed enough with Ekundayo after the first fight but thought he lost rounds 1 an 3 against McEwan and not that certain that he won the 2nd tbh.

Don't think the bookmaker connection had anything to do with it tbh, however there may well have been another reason, because our judging just seems to get poorer and poorer.

I thought years ago we were miles ahead in the ref/judging stakes but not now, you see dreadful results and scoring week in week out, is it incompetence or is it something else, if you screwed
up in your own job like some of these guys, you would out on your ear.

Rant over

Coco wrote:I thought the Scots fighter was a handy winner in his QF, but then he was the fav!
Is it a conflict of interest to have a major bookmaker sponsoring such a subjective event?

They lose beause that is the way it is set up, imo.
The fighter that results in the lesser payout from the bookies get the nod.

As Betfair is primarily a betting exchange rather than a traditional bookmaker- it makes little difference to them who wins as they get their commission anyway.

I don't know if they will continue as a boxing sponsor for too long. The amount of money matched on boxing compared to other live TV sports is tiny and the constant plugging doesn't seem to be making much difference.