Printable View
Is this just a show of confidence or could it be considered (given the way the fight played out) collusion and perhaps close to being a fixed fight? I mean if Paul Briggs a guy with a legit physical problem can #1 Get a fight and #2 Get penalized for getting KO'd in the 1st round then shouldn't an athletic commission look into this?
I don't think it's against any rules nor should it be. Didn't Kiko Martinez bet his entire camp's purse on the fact that he would KO Dunne in the first round? Nothing wrong there.
It definitely looks like a fix. If you google "haye/audley betting scandal" you'll see bookmakers all over Britain are up in arms over it and have refused to pay out.
Personally I think they should fine Haye 50% of his £5 million purse and ban him for two years. Audley should get the electric chair.
The whole betting problem though could be stopped if you were simply not allowed to bet of any kind on yourself.
Haye could have put £100k on him NOT knocking Audley out in the first round, that's easy if you don't throw any punches! You can guarantee extra money by fixing parts of a fight and it's still legal in boxing? :confused:
Part of the prediction is probably bravado, but it's the principle we all know Haye is shafting as many people as he can to get as much money as he can.
Yup and we should take Ali out of the hall of fame because he correctly predicted the round he would defeat his opponant on more than one occasion.
Double standards as usual......
Well Hornfinger you bring up a good comparison, but did Ali bet on himself? I know Jack Dempsey's trainer bet on a 1st round KO when he fought Willard and Dempsey legitimately tried for it and had a case for it (had Willard had it to do over again I think he would have given up in that round given the damage he took).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
But this begs the question, "Why the 3rd round?" Why not the 1st or 2nd or 5th? I mean betting on a KO is one thing, betting on a round especially not the first (in my eyes) is kind of bogus...it means someone can be carried and in this case you can definently say someone was carried and that's unsportsmanlike (purely from a betting standpoint).
HF I'm just asking a question I'm not trying to rile anyone up...just a legit innocent question, so no need to bristle about it
Acceptable, but a 1st round KO wouldn't involve carrying a fighter to a certain round before stopping them....I just see that as a slight difference from a betting standpoint of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by amat
How do you know ali didn't bet on himself?
I don't which is why I asked you if you knew...I thought that was an interesting and relevant point that you made (even if you were being facetious when you brought up Ali).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
I mean I don't see a problem with carrying a fighter if you want to punish them or what have you and I certainly know that even if you plan to KO a fighter in a certain round your opponent can certainly have other plans in mind. Just from a betting perspective it seems a little off is all...and plus I didn't like how Paul Briggs got treated (and I am certain most other fight fans agree with me on that) so I was trying to point out that double standard.
The difference is paul briggs went down without being punched. At least Audley went down after being smacked about and got back up. Also the ref waved it off after 3 or 4 shots after audley got back up. Audley could easily have stayed down.
I think the last time you were sucking on Haye's nut sack, it got caught in your throat and cut off your air supply and you are brain damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterI think the last time you were sucking on Haye's nut sack, it got caught in your throat and cut off your air supply and you are brain damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
I have a point then. Because instead of trying to argue it or tell me why I'm wrong you go to name calling like a baby.
Thanks for letting me know I have a valid point.
you cant stop a boxer from betting on himself! thats my opinion
as for others
hopkins bet the 50k he was paid by golden casino to hgave their name on his back during the trinidad fight. but t distinguish he bet it on himself to win, not to ko in a certain round
It's illegal for pro baseball players to bet on themselves, it's illegal for basketball players to bet on themselves......could Pepe Reina bet on a Liverpool match and not get in trouble? It's illegal for tennis players to bet on themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by oakleyno1
I'm just saying it seems as if boxing is the last place where nobody looks at the competitors betting on themselves.
I just think it's a conflict of intrests for the sport to allow this to continue to happen...it's a bit like insider trading what with the fighter telling his friends and family what the result was going to be before the fight happened.
Unless Audley himself bet on Haye to win in the 3rd round, I really don't see how this is possibly a fix?
It would be like discovering that Manny Pacquiao or friends of his had bet on him to win by decision the other night, and therefore lambasting him for not getting the stoppage over Margarito in the last couple of rounds.
Any fighter should be free to bet on themself by any means they feel confident of winning, I mean think about it. In order for a boxer to actually be confident in laying down his own money to win by KO in a GIVEN ROUND, he needs to be vastly superior than his opponent. If the bookies can't see this when they make the odds or what not, then it's their problem.
Haye to win the fight by any means shouldn't have payed out a bean, and Audley would've been a 783 to 1 dog if people didn't have the wool pulled over their eyes for that one.
This will be the very same bookies that are quite happy to pocket my cash after I have listened to some idiot fighter who assures me he will stop his opponent in 'x' rounds and then gets his arse handed to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Boo hoo, they lost money for a change, tough!!!! :)
Irony mate ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gogs67This will be the very same bookies that are quite happy to pocket my cash after I have listened to some idiot fighter who assures me he will stop his opponent in 'x' rounds and then gets his arse handed to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Boo hoo, they lost money for a change, tough!!!! :)
Why all the fuss? Last I heard, gambling was perfectly legal in England ???
If a Goalkeeper put a bet on to NOT concede goals. Then there's no problem. Fact.
David Haye is a smart lad.
The argument they've made with baseball is that if you bet on yourself and don't do it every time then the times you don't bet on yourself you're essentially betting against yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boogie Man
Conflict of intrests man, that's all I'm saying
For the record - British boxers are not allowed to bet on their fights.
He is now denying the bet - clearly he didn't realise his comments would fuel ridiculous fix claims :rolleyes:
It seems blatantly obvious to me that he was just showing off because he predicted an early KO. Bookies normally reveal massive gambles landed. Not a sqeuak from them.
If you had just rissed a boxing match would you then in the post fight interview tell everyone that you had?
This is all a bit silly really.
What you are all missing is that you can "lay" a bet. You can bet on something not happening.
Let's say Haye bet £100k on Audley NOT being KO'd in the first or second rounds. Haye then throws no punches for those rounds and guarantees his money. Even if Audley KO'd Haye, he would still win.
That's no different than spot fixing in cricket in my eyes.
Betting to win you could get away with, but with the amount of markets in today's betting, it's too easy to manipulate a match.
What, why ??? It's certainly NOT a conflict of interest to predict what round you win. Okay, so you decide to carry the fight a couple of rounds?? You could still get KTFO yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Oh well, the rules are the rules I guess. Shit, that really means David has put his foot in it this time :-\
He denied the bet and the Britsh Boxing Board have accepted he didn't bet. He probably didn't even know boxers weren't allowed to bet on themselves otherwise he wouldn't have been announcing it to everyone. AS you said - there is nothing wrong with saying the round you believe you will win.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boogie ManWhat, why ??? It's certainly NOT a conflict of interest to predict what round you win. Okay, so you decide to carry the fight a couple of rounds?? You could still get KTFO yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Oh well, the rules are the rules I guess. Shit, that really means David has put his foot in it this time :-\
Silly sod. Lying like that on TV :vd:Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterHe denied the bet and the Britsh Boxing Board have accepted he didn't bet. He probably didn't even know boxers weren't allowed to bet on themselves otherwise he wouldn't have been announcing it to everyone. AS you said - there is nothing wrong with saying the round you believe you will win.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boogie ManWhat, why ??? It's certainly NOT a conflict of interest to predict what round you win. Okay, so you decide to carry the fight a couple of rounds?? You could still get KTFO yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Oh well, the rules are the rules I guess. Shit, that really means David has put his foot in it this time :-\
lol, oh well. All's well that ends okay.
;DQuote:
Originally Posted by 0james0
Who's gonna take that bet? And Haye was on a minimun of £5 million for this fight. I think the actual WINNING of the fight was more important to him than stealing a few quid ;D
To HIM perhaps you're right, to the gamblers whom he may or may not have shared information that knowledge is worth a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster;DQuote:
Originally Posted by 0james0
Who's gonna take that bet? And Haye was on a minimun of £5 million for this fight. I think the actual WINNING of the fight was more important to him than stealing a few quid ;D
so they are talking about not paying out.... WOW.
i guess they will also be giving the money back to everyone who didn't bet the first round.
the thing is Haye still had to Knock him out in the third and i can't see anything wrong with that unless Harrison stuck a big amount on that result also.
still not good for boxing all this crap :(
"Billy, here's a grand, stick it on me to KO Fraudley in the 3rd and you'll get 10% of the winnings"Quote:
Originally Posted by 0james0
Yes, because Haye is very much in control of what comes out of his mouth isn't he? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saddo
And this is what I've been saying since the fight.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that Harrison agreed what round to get KTFO in. I just don't think he had a choice. It was such a fucking mismatch.
The bloke who posted the vid said David seems to say Now to Audley
:lol:
Great stuff.
But why did Audley get back up then?
I don't bloody know lol look it int my vid im just disgusted that neither did nothing for 2 rounds Audley landed 1 shot Haye landed 24 then he's bragging about the 3rd round bets him and his family and friends have put on even groves commented that he had a bet on haye after his fight. plus they didn't hate eachother as they made out they had that spar in early 2006 in miami and that was basically when friendship ended well cast your mind back to April 2008 when Audley was on Calzaghe vs Hopkins undercard and Haye was their they both said they wouldn't fight each other as they were close friends but if they both had a world title they would so they were still friends 2 year after spar.
I saw him talking to him, but I thought he said "you want more?"
I doubt he said, dive now!