Froch prolonged title fight for family members' financial benefit

Just seen this on the BBC, not sure if it's been discussed yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A former WBC Super Middleweight champion has admitted he prolonged a title fight to enable some members of his family to benefit financially.

Speaking on BBC Radio Nottingham, Carl Froch amplified comments he made in his autobiography, published last year.

He said he could have finished his 2005 Commonwealth title defence against Ruben Groenewald earlier than he did.

The British Boxing Board of Control said it would now speak to Froch and "investigations will be made".

The Nottingham boxer said he could have finished the fight in the fourth round but deliberately avoided doing so because of bets made on it finishing in the fifth.

Carl Froch said what he did was not illegal.

He said: "I've done it more than one occasion and it was round five but that's not illegal.

"I can say, 'right, I'll stop this kid in round five'. If I'm good enough to do that then fair enough.

"I don't gamble but my brothers and my friends, they did quite well off it," he said.

"I can openly say that because if I'm good enough to step on the gas in round five and force the stoppage then that's my privilege, and that's what I did in this particular fight at the Arena for the Commonwealth title defence.

"But the problem with that is I held him up in round four.

"He was there for the taking and I held him up, I got him with a shot, I could have ended up getting done myself in round four."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-17088977

Thoughts on this?

Has Froch done wrong? Should he face any punishment?

I would imagine this kind of thing goes on a lot in boxing and think Carl's biggest mistake here is opening his mouth about it.

Was just about to post this, as he said it's not illegal as he hasn't profited from it, seems a strange thing to admit though.

True but other people might have bet on a 4th round ko. Seems at once a Poopie and nice thing to do. Daft of him to admit it.

I suspect this kind of thing happens all the time in boxing. Seems a bit strange to admit it though and bring the unneccessary hassle on himself.

I agree it's silly to admit it what's the point, can't be illegal though if Ruben knew nothing about it.

nice thing to do- its just showing up boxing again!

dont think to much about the betting scam that it is- its wrong,the guys an idiot for admitting it, however we know it happens.. boxing is a farce

think more about the fact that froch is allowed be in a position where he can have a fight and stage the outcome by winning in a given round- why are these fights happening!

whats the point in these sort of fights, another mis match to only benefit the boxers and money men involved- to give everyone a pay day.

us consumers are getting and paying for junk!!

Very interesting and there is nothing that can be done about it as long as a) there is no collusion between the boxers or b) he doesn't take a "dive". If as Froch says, the match up is one sided, then this becomes possible on the part of the better boxer/fighter to engineer the specific outcome.

That such circumstances could arise would be the "blame" of the managers in setting up the one-sided pairing, or the blame of "circumstances" - e.g. the challenger being superior to the title holder or higher ranked opponent (or vice versa).

Of course the better boxer/fighter must pack a sufficient punch to be able to knock out the opponent and the opponent must have sufficient defensive weaknesses as well as a weak "chin", that "allows" him to be knocked out.

Froch has this week opponent- he wants to helpo his family- he knows in his heart of hearts he could probally knock him out in the first or second- but he cant allow his family to back in an early round, why because the longer it goes on the more chance he has of 'staging' the outcome.

The best approach would be for froch to get better fights. However if he cant then surely the best option wuold be for him to go out and smash his opponent up in the first or second round! give his family and loved ones a few quid out of his pocket- and try and up his next purse by battering the last oppopnent!

or is that all to logical!!

is the only reason why he is telling the world what he did! for more money- to sell the story- or is it to make out he is a better boxer than we have witnessed..

its sad- not neccesarily froch, but the whole situation, it goes way deeper than the staged outcome

Haye waas questioned by the BBBoC when he said he let Audley get to the third because his family bet on that round. Hopefully the board will have a word with Froch although they have more important things to deal with just now so it will probably just be forgot about.

It's a stupid thing to admit to. It may not be illegal but it morally wrong.

Read this as well on the train to work.

Surely this is no different to match or spot fixing? Granted, he's taking more of a risk as there is no guarantee he would knock him out. But for arguments sake, he is still deciding the outcome of the match beforehand and influencing people to bet on it?

its wrong-and it goes way deeper than having an edge against the bookies(insider trading is illegal-morally this is no different)

Its us consumers that are being taken for a ride, what we are watching isnt real.

i also love a bet on sport- if i had taken the time to check them out and had backed him in the 4th- id be a little bit livid at this moment i can tell ya!

Sky didn't go into full detail but he never told his family which round to bet on. His brothers told him they had bet on round 5 and he dragged the fight out for an extra round which isn't illegal.

It's really dumb of Froch to admit this because even if there were suspicions about it there would have been no way of proving it. There were no suspicions It seems like the dullest man in the sport is trying to get a bit of publicity.

I dont think it is neccessarily wrong. You get fighters carrying opponents for all sorts of reasons. Whether it was to appear to be not as good in order to get more fights in the future, whether it was to dish out additional punishment to a disrespectful opponent, whether it was to give the crowd a longer show, whether it was to get more rounds of experience under their belt. It wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the betting aspect of it. Why should a boxer be obliged to knock his opponent out or go all out for a knockout at the earliest juncture? Because joe public might have had a bet on it? Tough I say. Ive seen countless fights where Ive though one fighter could have ended it earlier had he really pushed for the knockout.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Sky didn't go into full detail but he never told his family which round to bet on. His brothers told him they had bet on round 5 and he dragged the fight out for an extra round which isn't illegal.

It's really dumb of Froch to admit this because even if there were suspicions about it there would have been no way of proving it. There were no suspicions It seems like the dullest man in the sport is trying to get a bit of publicity.

i dont think that makes much difference- he staged the outcome, ok no not illegal in the slighest- but a massive big up to his brothers, yet a massive FU to the public at large. This does nothing to help the sport that has made him a living either!

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think it is neccessarily wrong. You get fighters carrying opponents for all sorts of reasons. Whether it was to appear to be not as good in order to get more fights in the future, whether it was to dish out additional punishment to a disrespectful opponent, whether it was to give the crowd a longer show, whether it was to get more rounds of experience under their belt. It wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the betting aspect of it. Why should a boxer be obliged to knock his opponent out or go all out for a knockout at the earliest juncture? Because joe public might have had a bet on it? Tough I say. Ive seen countless fights where Ive though one fighter could have ended it earlier had he really pushed for the knockout.

cant agree- i am a sports purist, i dont want to watch staged outcomes!

Froch explained that by prolonging the fight could have actually cost him the fight!- That is surely all you need to understand apart from the fact that an early KO would have helped his purse next time, he could then sort his brothers out, etc etc, etc!!

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think it is neccessarily wrong. You get fighters carrying opponents for all sorts of reasons. Whether it was to appear to be not as good in order to get more fights in the future, whether it was to dish out additional punishment to a disrespectful opponent, whether it was to give the crowd a longer show, whether it was to get more rounds of experience under their belt. It wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the betting aspect of it. Why should a boxer be obliged to knock his opponent out or go all out for a knockout at the earliest juncture? Because joe public might have had a bet on it? Tough I say. Ive seen countless fights where Ive though one fighter could have ended it earlier had he really pushed for the knockout.

cant agree- i am a sports purist, i dont want to watch staged outcomes!

Froch explained that by prolonging the fight could have actually cost him the fight!- That is surely all you need to understand apart from the fact that an early KO would have helped his purse next time, he could then sort his brothers out, etc etc, etc!!

Its not staged.

mystiroakey wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Sky didn't go into full detail but he never told his family which round to bet on. His brothers told him they had bet on round 5 and he dragged the fight out for an extra round which isn't illegal.

It's really dumb of Froch to admit this because even if there were suspicions about it there would have been no way of proving it. There were no suspicions It seems like the dullest man in the sport is trying to get a bit of publicity.

i dont think that makes much difference- he staged the outcome, ok no not illegal in the slighest- but a massive big up to his brothers, yet a massive FU to the public at large. This does nothing to help the sport that has made him a living either!

I'm not defending it. My post was in response to King beer who felt it was the same as spot fixing. I already said I would like the BBBoc to look into the matter. Froch will not be the first to do this and he won't be the last. He is just the only one stupid enough to admit it. It will bring a lot of attention to the money that is placed on his next few fights.

manos de piedra wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think it is neccessarily wrong. You get fighters carrying opponents for all sorts of reasons. Whether it was to appear to be not as good in order to get more fights in the future, whether it was to dish out additional punishment to a disrespectful opponent, whether it was to give the crowd a longer show, whether it was to get more rounds of experience under their belt. It wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the betting aspect of it. Why should a boxer be obliged to knock his opponent out or go all out for a knockout at the earliest juncture? Because joe public might have had a bet on it? Tough I say. Ive seen countless fights where Ive though one fighter could have ended it earlier had he really pushed for the knockout.

cant agree- i am a sports purist, i dont want to watch staged outcomes!

Froch explained that by prolonging the fight could have actually cost him the fight!- That is surely all you need to understand apart from the fact that an early KO would have helped his purse next time, he could then sort his brothers out, etc etc, etc!!

Its not staged.

the outcome wasnt staged- er ok, what are you taking about

Are you waingro in disguise?

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think it is neccessarily wrong. You get fighters carrying opponents for all sorts of reasons. Whether it was to appear to be not as good in order to get more fights in the future, whether it was to dish out additional punishment to a disrespectful opponent, whether it was to give the crowd a longer show, whether it was to get more rounds of experience under their belt. It wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the betting aspect of it. Why should a boxer be obliged to knock his opponent out or go all out for a knockout at the earliest juncture? Because joe public might have had a bet on it? Tough I say. Ive seen countless fights where Ive though one fighter could have ended it earlier had he really pushed for the knockout.

cant agree- i am a sports purist, i dont want to watch staged outcomes!

Froch explained that by prolonging the fight could have actually cost him the fight!- That is surely all you need to understand apart from the fact that an early KO would have helped his purse next time, he could then sort his brothers out, etc etc, etc!!

Its not staged.

the outcome wasnt staged- er ok, what are you taking about

How was it staged? Froch had no guarantee he could get the opponent out at the exact time he wanted to prior to the fight. He was merely expecting he could. Are you suggesting his opponent was in on it and this was a fix? Froch could have misread the situation entirely, his opponent could have been better or tougher than he had anticipated.

nope

manos de piedra wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont think it is neccessarily wrong. You get fighters carrying opponents for all sorts of reasons. Whether it was to appear to be not as good in order to get more fights in the future, whether it was to dish out additional punishment to a disrespectful opponent, whether it was to give the crowd a longer show, whether it was to get more rounds of experience under their belt. It wouldnt be an issue if it wasnt for the betting aspect of it. Why should a boxer be obliged to knock his opponent out or go all out for a knockout at the earliest juncture? Because joe public might have had a bet on it? Tough I say. Ive seen countless fights where Ive though one fighter could have ended it earlier had he really pushed for the knockout.

cant agree- i am a sports purist, i dont want to watch staged outcomes!

Froch explained that by prolonging the fight could have actually cost him the fight!- That is surely all you need to understand apart from the fact that an early KO would have helped his purse next time, he could then sort his brothers out, etc etc, etc!!

Its not staged.

the outcome wasnt staged- er ok, what are you taking about

How was it staged? Froch had no guarantee he could get the opponent out at the exact time he wanted to prior to the fight. He was merely expecting he could. Are you suggesting his opponent was in on it and this was a fix? Froch could have misread the situation entirely, his opponent could have been better or tougher than he had anticipated.

no i said he staged the outcome, thats all- he could have done him in the 4th- he prolonged it to the 5th on purpose- he staged the outcome infight. He admitted that it could have actually cost him the fight- something you need to look at abit harder , rather than trying to misunderstand the point i am making

There is a story about the Old Mongoose fighting in London. At the end of round 9, as his opponent was walking back to his corner. Archie Moore tapped him on his shoulder. The commentator then said Archie Moore had told him the next round was the last. Sure enough, Archie knocked the bloke out in the next round. This is just confidence, similar in its way to Froch calling the round before the fight. My only problem with this is saying that he carried the person before finishing them, which is unethical but not illegal.

No real issue for me here, though I do agree that Carl was a bit daft to admit it. Come on, it's not as if a fighter carrying his opponent is anything new. Yes, there is the extra dimension of money being involved on the periphery, but Froch is under no obligation to serve gamblers he doesn't know. As long as a fighter doesn't bet on himself to lose, what's the problem?

I think people need to differentiate between carrying an opponent like this and a fix / prearranged outcome. If Froch's opponent had no knowledge of Froch's plan, or if neither of them were told by an outside party what round the fight would end in, it simply can't be staged, fixed or prearranged.

88Chris05 wrote:No real issue for me here, though I do agree that Carl was a bit daft to admit it. Come on, it's not as if a fighter carrying his opponent is anything new. Yes, there is the extra dimension of money being involved on the periphery, but Froch is under no obligation to serve gamblers he doesn't know. As long as a fighter doesn't bet on himself to lose, what's the problem?

I think people need to differentiate between carrying an opponent like this and a fix / prearranged outcome. If Froch's opponent had no knowledge of Froch's plan, or if neither of them were told by an outside party what round the fight would end in, it simply can't be staged, fixed or prearranged.

lol- so his obligation is to serve gamblers he does know!!

i think you need to get out of the fact that it could only hurt gamblers, the point was to help gamblers(his brothers)!!!, the next point is to understand that us viewers are getting robbed of real sport and real outcomes, we know its not new- that is also the problem , and what makes it even worse is that it wont be the last. The main problem is that we have so many mismatches that this scenario can happen!

How are we robbed of real outcomes?

I don't think we are being 'robbed' at all as viewers. If Froch thinks he can help his family members make a few extra quid then he's well within his rights. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned it's tough luck for anyone else who perhaps bet on the fourth round or whatever - that's a risk you take when you place any bet. It's not as if Froch had a set in stone guarantee that he'd be successful in his quest for the stoppage in the fifth round, he merely suspected he'd be good enough to get it. And in this case, he was.

Froch should probably have known better than to go public with this kind of thing, but to me if it does carry any serious repercussions it will merely be a case of people / the press making a very unnecessary mountain out of a molehill.

trottb wrote:How are we robbed of real outcomes?

he could have knocked him out in the fourth- for all we know he could have knocked him out in the first,second or third!

he explained that what he did could have evn cost him the fight!

know if you only think outcomes are from win/drawing or losing rather than what round you win ,ok- however he admitted it could have cost him the fight and result!

Froch never told anyone what round to bet on. His brothers picked a round and he had the guy hurt and carried him for an extra round because he knew what round his brothers had bet on.

It may be morally wrong but it's certainly not illegal. It's just not very bright to come out with this. It will draw attention to the betting patterns for his future fights and that isn't nice for any fighter.

It happened to Ricky Burns after the Cook fight and although he never said anything publicly about it he was pretty upset about it.

"It's just not very bright to come out with this"

its not bright to do it full stop!- better for him to come out - the truth is allways best! Its as if the people that are glossing over this would rather live in ignorance!

It also works the other way in that he may not have been able to knock him out in the 4th and Ruben would have hung on regardless.

trottb wrote:It also works the other way in that he may not have been able to knock him out in the 4th and Ruben would have hung on regardless.

offcourse.

I only find this a problem if his opponent was in on it too, which he wasn't, fair play to him.

Froch really is acting as dumb as he looks isn't he. Why even come out with it right now? Has his buddy Haye not brought the sport into enough disrepute lately?

Hes doing what he always does - for some reason unfathomable to me he dont get the credit he deserves - which is wrong i feel but he always pipes up with something when the limelights on somone or something else. Khan loss his gob is there, joe calzaghe his gob is there, david haye his gob is there and now hes opened his gob about this hoping to put the media attention back on himself. If this is the best he can come up with he should just go to channel 5

we need good fighters- not these bunch of muppets

Admitting to family betting and that you held out on an opponent for their financial reasons......not the brightest spark is our Carl

The K-bots have openly admitted carrying fighters they could've put away earlier to provide more of a spectacle/value for money to the ticket-buying punters. This is no different really.

Didn't Ali used to pronounce pre-fight what round he'd put opponents away in (often turned out to be correct)? Again, this is barely any different, it still requires a) the skill to last that far yourself; and b) the ability to put the guy away in the 180 second window afforded to you. (which is why it's nothing like spot-fixing).

Silly thing to say but I'm not bothered particularly, don't see as anyone's really lost out and there's a host of bigger issues in boxing today than this.

TopHat24/7 wrote:The K-bots have openly admitted carrying fighters they could've put away earlier to provide more of a spectacle/value for money to the ticket-buying punters. This is no different really

Not really the same though is it. Carrying fighters for paying customers is a way of trying to make it more entertainment

Froch did this purley for family gain which is totally unprofessional and far more morally wrong

Both are wrong in my opinion. You should finish an opponent when you get first chance. Thats what boxing is all about. Anything less than 100% makes it a farce

100% agree steffan.

Froch will get in big trouble for this. The fact that he has admitted gambling influenced the outcome of a fight is very serious. The British Boxing Board of Control are going to have very busy few months at this rate

Really bad PR from Froch, not a huge deal really but he is foolish to say this publicly

He carried an opponent for money. Gambling should never involve how a fight finishes. We all know it happens ofcourse but now someone was actually dull enough to admit it then there could be repercussions

one things for certain - his brothers are gonna be very popular , very soon!