Carl Froch: Fight fixer?
by Olbas on Feb 20, 2012 11:29 AM EST
Email
Print
Former two-time super-middleweight world champion Carl Froch has admitted deliberately prolonging fights so members of his family could benefit from betting.
Froch claims he could have stopped Ruben Groenewald earlier than he did during a Commonwealth title defence in 2005.
The Nottingham fighter said he allowed the South African to survive in the fourth round because members of his family had bet on him winning in the fifth.
Froch told the BBC: "I've done it more than one occasion and it was round five but that's not illegal.
http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/7533287/Froch-prolonged-fights-
"Every time I fight, when good fighters fight, they often make predictions. It's all part of the media hype beforehand," he said. "On that particular occasion I made a prediction that I would win the fight in a certain round.
"But the comments made about prolonging the fight were a throwaway comment that, in hindsight, I shouldn't have said. I shouldn't have said that because I have never done that.
http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/7534056/Froch-rues-throwaway-comment
So Froch has "done it on more than one occasion", but he has also "never done that".
His first statement sounds a whole lot more truthful than his second one, on first inspection.
Pakistani cricketers have been incarcerated for things that are contextually similar to this, albeit in a different sport.
I'd be interested to know where Froch stands legally now. It looks as though he's been told to make the second statement, to cover his own ass.
Another question is: even if this isn't illegal, how does this admission (for that's what it sounds like, regardless of his withdrawal) make him look morally and ethically? Fighters aren't saints, and it would be silly to assume them to be so, but the image of a fighter as an honest guy who gives his all is looking a little shaky after recent developments and news stories.
FanPosts are user-created content written by community members of Bad Left Hook, and are generally not the work of our editors. Please do not source FanPosts as the work of Bad Left Hook.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Im not that worried
As you say, fighters arn’t saints….
It’s not as though he fixed the fight…. A loss or draw… He didn’t bet on himself (Which I guess would be illegal?)
David Haye done excacty the same thing against Audley really…..
Performing other than to one’s best, in order to alter a sporting result for financial gain.
Disgraced Pakistan cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir were jailed on Thursday for a fixing conspiracy that the trial judge said undermined the integrity and image of cricket and meant no fan could ever trust what they saw on the field again.
But he wasn't gaining financially
Haye was saying how he had picked a round and im pretty sure Groves had put bets on round 3….
And it is obvious that if Haye had thrown a meaningful punch in round 1 or 2 Audley would have hit the canvas…. Was Haye performing to his best in round 1 or 2 so he could win his mates some £££
by Sweet science on Feb 20, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Froch admitted doing it, so his family could make money from it.
I’m pretty sure that’s illegal.
Either way
Im sure there won’t be a cae brought against him, maybe a ticking off or something
It’s not as though he…..fought negatively, or made a significant difference… such as being KD himself and then coming back to win
The Pakistani’s actions were negative in tha, they actually harmed their team. Much worse in my book
by Sweet science on Feb 20, 2012 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
what Froch says he did may not be strictly illegal, I don’t really know UK law on the issue, but it’s deeply shifty. When Ali or some imitator states publicly “I’ll take him in 6,” that’s just hype, an it’s public knowledge. When someone privately and essentially secretly advises friends and relatives as to what round to bet on, it’s very shady, whether it’s legal or not, imo..
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
I agree with you that it gives a bad impression and looks like something improper is going on, but at least to say bet for me to win in 6 or 5, or whatever, still means that the athlete has to perform at his level to meet that mark. Personally I’d think that a fighter saying that he is betting on himself to win or advising people to bet on him to win is no big deal, since basically he is saying I’m guaranteeing I’ll deliver a good performance (in order to win the bet). It would be bad when it’s the other way around and he intentionally throws away a fight to win a bet which I’d assume it’s illegal pretty much anywhere.
It would be bad when it’s the other way around and he intentionally throws away a fight to win a bet which I’d assume it’s illegal pretty much anywhere.
Deliberately throwing away a TKO-4 in favour of a TKO-5, performing to a lesser level in order to allow associates to make money on a later round, insider trading…. whatever you want to call this, it’s fraud.
He didn’t step his performance UP in order to win a fight in a certain round, he intentionally dropped his performance in order to make sure he DIDN’T win a fight in a certain round.
I have no dog in this race and no vested interest, but I personally hate corruption, and this is just as bent as throwing a fight: it’s deliberate manipulation of a sporting result in order to rip bookmakers off.
I’m genuinely amazed that so many people don’t seem to have an issue with this. It has really saddened and disgusted me that morality doesn’t seem to play a part in people’s thinking any more. “Oh well, not many people will have lost money”… is that the point? This is still supposed to be an honest sporting event, and Froch abused his position.
The man is a disgrace. And I mean that sincerely.
I also view this as a form of influencing the result of a fight for financial gain and I don’t think it’s the same thing as saying “Bet on me to win”. It’s kind of like saying “Bet on me to NOT win in any of the first rounds”.
I would imagine that even if there are no negative legal consequences to this, at least British bookmakers will not allow betting on Froch fights anymore since he is known to modify his performance to intentionally affect their business.
However, I also do not think it’s “is just as bent as throwing a fight” as you say. I think there is still a difference and it’s still a few levels lower on the same scale of corruption.
I don’t think this equates to insider trading nor is it the same as throwing away a fight for one reason. In insider trading the information acquired is certain, you know that the price of whatever you are buying or selling will behave exactly as you are told or you say and it is not dependent on anything else. The same thing when throwing away a fight, it only depends on the fighter throwing away the fight, he just needs to go down in whichever round he wants and that’s it.
In this case for as much as Froch thought he could have ended things sooner it’s still a matter of how willing to cooperate is his partner. For example I’m sure Angulo thought the could have ended Kirkland in the first round after knocking him down just to realize seconds later that Kirkland was not willing to cooperate. I’m sure Mike Jones thought he could have ended Soto Karas in their first fight prior to gassing out when Soto Karas decided not to go down. To exapand on this point, if you say it is wrong for a fighter to willingly “lower” his level in order to win a bet, how is it that it is not wrong for a fighter to willingly "lower " his level to get a little rest or get a couple of more rounds under his belt? How many times do we actually encourage particularly young fighters to try to get as many rounds as possible and not try to end things too quickly? When we see fighters goofing off suddenly trying out a style that is not theirs for a round or two in fights they are dominating are they being dishonest? When a fighter eases off on an oppent that has no more but the ref is not willing to stop the fight are they affecting the integrity of the sport by not stopping their opponent as early as they could? Aren’t these situations the same as not stepping their perfromance up to their max in each and every round?
The motives in each situation might be different, but the actual effect on the fight are actually exactly the same in all of these cases (a fight that goes longer than it potentially could). Because there is no guarantee that any fight actually would have ended sooner in a precise round, from a moral point of view I think it is hard for me to say we should judge Froch as affecting the integrity of the sport for saying I let him go one more round to help win a bet, when at the same time we applaud Manny’s humanity for taking it easy the last couple of rounds against Margarito. Or applaud prospects that say they want to get rounds and not look for the KO, or criticize fighters like Lemieux for doing the opposite and always going for the early KO instead of getting experience.
If we say it is ok for a fighter not to go for the KO in a particular situation or for particular motives then why should we complain if one decided to do the same thing but for a motive we don’t approve of?
In this case for as much as Froch thought he could have ended things sooner it’s still a matter of how willing to cooperate is his partner. For example I’m sure Angulo thought the could have ended Kirkland in the first round after knocking him down just to realize seconds later that Kirkland was not willing to cooperate.
Welcome to professional sport.
At least Angulo tried to finish him.
I’m sure Mike Jones thought he could have ended Soto Karas in their first fight prior to gassing out when Soto Karas decided not to go down.
There is a massive difference between not being able to stop the guy early enough, and deliberately not stopping him when you could have done, and waiting for the right time.
Underestimating an opponent comes with its own perils, but at least it isn’t deliberate manipulation.
When we see fighters goofing off suddenly trying out a style that is not theirs for a round or two in fights they are dominating are they being dishonest?
If they are being paid off to do so, or someone close to them is gaining financially from their decreased lack of effort, then, well, yes.
If they are experimenting and trying to learn from using different styles/techniques etc, then no.
This isn’t a difficult concept, really.
If you are doing something that achieves a net gain INSIDE the ring, then it’s fair game. No-one has an issue with gaining experience, or experimenting with style.
That is absolutely not the same thing as deliberately lowering your level of performance so as to win crooked bets and rip off bookmakers.
Because there is no guarantee that any fight actually would have ended sooner in a precise round
With all due respect, anyone who has been through the ropes, or even had a hard sparring session, knows when an opponent is spent.
Underestimating an opponent comes with its own perils, but at least it isn’t deliberate manipulation.
Didn’t you just agreed to the opposite with the two examples I gave you of two professional boxers who obviously mistakenly thought their opponents were spent?
I think I see your point, but it's a bit contrived.
There is a big difference between suspecting an opponent is going to go down next time you hit him, and then he doesn’t;
and
knowingan opponent is done, and then not hitting him just in case he does go down….
One is sport, and one is manipulation of a fight.
Again: this is not a difficult concept.
All I ask is that fighters try their best, and do all they can to become all they can, within the context of a boxing ring.
Not take their foot off the gas when they know they have their man gone, in order to make a quick buck.
You can apply that to any sport, to be honest.
You did get my point, sorry for the confusion, whether they knew or they suspected their opponents were gone I guess is semantics. But still the point I wass trying to make is they thought they could get them out in that round and failed, as Froch could have failed when he decided to take out his opponent in his fight.
I agree with everything else you say, just wanted to clarify that I don’t see this particular case as fraud. I would not encourage any fighter to do so and surely hope they don’t, but at least to me it is not fraud because in the end he is still getting the result that benefits him the most inside the ring and from a career point of view, and more importantly, he still had to earn it, even if he eased off at times during the fight (which all fighters do).
If we say it is ok for a fighter not to go for the KO in a particular situation or for particular motives then why should we complain if one decided to do the same thing but for a motive we don’t approve of?
Because there are massive moral and ethical differences between humanity, experience-farming, not taking a risk in the last round when the fight is already won (thereby avoiding the possibility of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory) and deliberately taking your foot off the gas so you/your friends/family can nick a few dishonest notes from a bookmaker.
What you’re comparing here is like a soccer team not going for a third goal because they’re 2-0 up in the 80th minute and don’t want to risk conceding, and a soccer team who are 2-0 up in the 80th minute and don’t try to score again because they have all had a bet on the exact score being 2-0.
If those two scenarios seem like the same thing to you, morally and ethically, then I’d be amazed, and I will lose even more faith in human morality than I already have.
I’m not sure what is more disgusting; Froch fixing fight results, or the general apathy of people regarding gambling fraud.
I truly hope you don’t base your hopes of humanity based on the comments you read on the internet.
The point I’m trying to make and which your comment that there are always perils when going for the kill (as in your comment above as well as in here when talking about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory), is that Froch still had to earn the victory or the KO (which is why I don’t see it as fraud).
The example you mention of soccer you mention to me is the equivalent of a fighter that has to go down to win his bet, meaning they have to stop trying to win. In this case, even if Froch allowed the fight to go on for one more round he still had to close the deal the next and that’s what I was referring to when I said there are no guarantees, in this case he did, but he could have just as easily not delivered. To me fraud means there is no uncertainty about the outcome. The examples I used were to indicate that to say he lowered his level is not reason enough for me because a lot of fighters lower their level for plenty of reason (and we really can never be certain what they were). And in this case, because he still had to finish the job (not a guarantee), I can’t see that as fraud, because we’ve seen cases were fighters go out for the KO just to get KO’ed themselves, or find an opponent that decided to go on the run and there is not much they can do about it (just ask Manny chasing Mosely for 12 rounds).
Yes what he did was certainly not smart and not something that could be called ethical, but I would not equate it to fraud or as diminishing the integrity of the sport, because the particular scenario that occured in the ring (a fighter letting another one last longer) is one that plays out plenty of times for multiple other reasons. I hope that has clarified my position.
I don't know if certainty decides fraud
If I’m privy to information that company X is looking to take over company Y, and I choose to divulge that information, that is fraud, no matter if said takeover doesn’t happen or if the stock prices don’t move as anticipated.
Now I will say that I do see the shades of corruption, and it is far better than taking a dive (thereby ensuring a certain result), but it’s hardly a moral standard we should applaud. I do think intent has to come into how you judge the case, like one would in court, and I do think it damages the integrity of the sport, if not quite as much as those idiots this weekend or as BoxAnne notes, those in Argentina.
Coming on top of all the other recent sludge, this can only hurt Froch. Boxing is starting to
wobble. It really is.
"I wish people would love everybody else the way they love me. It would be a better world."
—Muhammad Ali…
I never thought Carl froch was more than I tough B fighter
Now I just think he’s an idiot.
WTF would he ever make these comments
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
nO ONE LIKES BRITS MORE THAN ME, BUT CHISORA, HAYE, AND NOW FROCH ARE
NOT DOING MUCH FOR THE HOMELAND. THANKS GOD FOR LADS LIKE Cleverly, Cook, Burns, Brook, Groves, etc.
"I wish people would love everybody else the way they love me. It would be a better world."
—Muhammad Ali…
They’re really no reflection on Britain, only on themselves and on boxing. Argentina, however, not because of how Lazarte et al. behaved, but because of the Argentine [lack of] reaction to it, really looks bad.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
I think they (Argentine’s) are simply more used to and to a degree desensitized to sporting riots. They occur with relative frequency during or after soccer matches and their “barras bravas”, the hardcore fan groups of the teams tend to get into violent altercations with opposing fans with the least provocation.
Well, sporting riots are one thing, and I don’t think they’re a good thing—if Argentines are desenitized to them, I don’t think that’s a good thing either. More to the point, this went beyond “brawl”—Eddie Claudio, the referee, was hospitalized, at least one of Casimero’s cornermen was hospitalized, never mind what happened in the crowd. They attacked a light flyweight boxer dressed only in shorts which is just reprehensible, and they’re not doing anything about it. I’ve got no respect for that.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
I completely agree with you, I guess what I was trying to say is that because incidents like this are not uncommon and in some instances tend to be even more severe with tens of injured and fatalities involved, my guess is that for the authorities is easier to brush things aside and do nothing or act like it was no big deal. It should not be that way and it is reprehensible they act in that manner (doing nothing about it), but I think that may be one reason for it.
Dead right there Ted.
We never had this type of nonsense with Calzaghe in all the years he was fighting. ( and many other Brit boxers)… People may have accused him of being boring, but he was a good face for boxing. There’s a fine line between playing ‘the bad guy’ and just being a total a-hole. Those two crossed WAY over that line last week.
They should fight and put all the money to some good use to somewhere/someone that needs it, if they were to do that, then maybe people will start to believe those ‘heartfelt & sincere’ apologies we read yesterday.
Naseem Hamed often used yto say which round he would end a fight, in fact he was quite famous for his predictions. I dont remember him getting ragged on for doing it.
He said it publicly, anyone could know what he said. That’s the difference for me. Hamed made public predictions, like Ali, that all the world could hear. This guy kept it private, and then did his best to make it happen, so people he knew could make money. Not the same thing. But I don’t take it to the level of fight fixing, nobody took a dive, not that—more like bet-fixing, which although I don’t bet, just doesn’t seem kosher.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Carl Froch is more like Pete Rose
If you want to influence a game in which you or other have bets, pull your starting pitcher and throw in some mediocre middle relief.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
I think s**tcanned for that stuff, didn’t he? From the Baseball Hall of Fame or something. Don’t follow baseball, but even I know he’s nobody’s hero anymore.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Not suggesting anything that harsh necessarily for Froch, but it doesn’t make him look wonderful and I think he should stop the betting manuevering and have no problem with BBBoC giving him a few hours on the hotseat over it. Even a fine.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
yeah he’s banned from baseball for life. can’t get any jobs as a manager or anything either i think
The struggle to free myself of restraints, becomes my very shackles
by battle axe of doom on Feb 22, 2012 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
From BoxingScene March 3.
http://www.boxingscene.com/frank-warrens-take-on-carl-frochs-fight-betting-scandal—50219
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
