UK Boxing - Bellew/McKenzie --- Burns/Cook --- Murray/Mitchell - Discussion Thread

[ryanman]

cook has a prolapsed disc. ouch

Alledgedly.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

cook has a prolapsed disc. ouch

Alledgedly.

as if they would lie!

[JazMerkin]

I do hope that how good the Mitchell-Murray fight was doesn't mean that The Farce gets forgotten about. The suspicious betting patterns & how Cook seemed to turn his back into shots (he's grown up boxing, he knows how to avoid taking shots flush on the spine) are very suspicious.

Also have Frank Warren & Dave Parris had some major fall-out. That's two fights now (DeGale-Groves & Gavin-Woodhouse) where Parris has gone against the house guy in close fights. Something must be up.

[ryanman]

I do hope that how good the Mitchell-Murray fight was doesn't mean that The Farce gets forgotten about. The suspicious betting patterns & how Cook seemed to turn his back into shots (he's grown up boxing, he knows how to avoid taking shots flush on the spine) are very suspicious.

Also have Frank Warren & Dave Parris had some major fall-out. That's two fights now (DeGale-Groves & Gavin-Woodhouse) where Parris has gone against the house guy in close fights. Something must be up.

My thoughts are already turning back to the Burns-Cook play.
I think maybe I'm normally a little naive as I never believe any of the fix theories but I'm about 94% convinced about this.

The way I see it these are the options(some more likely than others clearly)-

1) Cook hurt his back badly in Round 1. Noone had an inklin before. The betting stuff was pure coincidence.

2) Cook's back was fine. Cook threw the fight.. (If I was going to throw a fight its better to do so like that than get 'knocked out'.
i) Only Cook's side was in on it and make the money from the bookies.
ii) Cook paid to take a dive. Extra money made by both sides from bookies (nah, not this option).

3) No fix as such. Word got out that Cook had a dodgy back and was in no shape to fight. Hence money gets poured on Burns via KO.

My vote, sadly, is option 2)i). But I'm open to being badly wrong via the method of getting over excited.

[JazMerkin]

I do hope that how good the Mitchell-Murray fight was doesn't mean that The Farce gets forgotten about. The suspicious betting patterns & how Cook seemed to turn his back into shots (he's grown up boxing, he knows how to avoid taking shots flush on the spine) are very suspicious.

Also have Frank Warren & Dave Parris had some major fall-out. That's two fights now (DeGale-Groves & Gavin-Woodhouse) where Parris has gone against the house guy in close fights. Something must be up.

My thoughts are already turning back to the Burns-Cook play.
I think maybe I'm normally a little naive as I never believe any of the fix theories but I'm about 94% convinced about this.

The way I see it these are the options(some more likely than others clearly)-

1) Cook hurt his back badly in Round 1. Noone had an inklin before. The betting stuff was pure coincidence.

2) Cook's back was fine. Cook threw the fight.. (If I was going to throw a fight its better to do so like that than get 'knocked out'.
i) Only Cook's side was in on it and make the money from the bookies.
ii) Cook paid to take a dive. Extra money made by both sides from bookies (nah, not this option).

3) No fix as such. Word got out that Cook had a dodgy back and was in no shape to fight. Hence money gets poured on Burns via KO.

My vote, sadly, is option 2)i). But I'm open to being badly wrong via the method of getting over excited.

Yep probably 2i for me. I also wonder if he intentionally was trying to aggravate the injury there with positioning his back into shots & hurt it worse than intentioned, hence it happening earlier than planned. I truly don't believe Burns had a clue. He looked as embarassed as anyone. I pretty much never believe this stuff, but this one is just too suss. It seems the most likely one. It would be good if the bookies gave a bit more info on why they suspended betting.

[ryanman]

I do hope that how good the Mitchell-Murray fight was doesn't mean that The Farce gets forgotten about. The suspicious betting patterns & how Cook seemed to turn his back into shots (he's grown up boxing, he knows how to avoid taking shots flush on the spine) are very suspicious.

Also have Frank Warren & Dave Parris had some major fall-out. That's two fights now (DeGale-Groves & Gavin-Woodhouse) where Parris has gone against the house guy in close fights. Something must be up.

My thoughts are already turning back to the Burns-Cook play.
I think maybe I'm normally a little naive as I never believe any of the fix theories but I'm about 94% convinced about this.

The way I see it these are the options(some more likely than others clearly)-

1) Cook hurt his back badly in Round 1. Noone had an inklin before. The betting stuff was pure coincidence.

2) Cook's back was fine. Cook threw the fight.. (If I was going to throw a fight its better to do so like that than get 'knocked out'.
i) Only Cook's side was in on it and make the money from the bookies.
ii) Cook paid to take a dive. Extra money made by both sides from bookies (nah, not this option).

3) No fix as such. Word got out that Cook had a dodgy back and was in no shape to fight. Hence money gets poured on Burns via KO.

My vote, sadly, is option 2)i). But I'm open to being badly wrong via the method of getting over excited.

Yep probably 2i for me. I also wonder if he intentionally was trying to aggravate the injury there with positioning his back into shots & hurt it worse than intentioned, hence it happening earlier than planned. I truly don't believe Burns had a clue. He looked as embarassed as anyone. I pretty much never believe this stuff, but this one is just too suss. It seems the most likely one. It would be good if the bookies gave a bit more info on why they suspended betting.

Yeah in bold was weird and obvious. It could be as you are wondering, or that he wanted to get hit there not to hurt it but to point to that hit as the reason (so he had an actual 'moment' to play off) and then he can couple that with the fact that he told sky beforehand that he had a bad back (which is not a normal thing to do prior to a fight anyway).

[0james0]

Cook must be a great actor because that pain looked genuine.

I think he has a bad back, he has some kind of degenerative problem which he probably has good and bad days with out of the ring. From the interview he did, he said it isn't getting better or worse, but will always be around.

I expect he did his training camp and got through it mostly fine, certainly expected to be able to do 12 rounds and then the back would hurt the next day. But in the fight, the back just went. Partially due to the punch, partly due to the way he twisted.

I think it was just one of those things that just so happened to happen in the fight. I genuinely don't think it was a fix or his back was THAT bad going into the fight.

[Fenster]

"Fix" is probably the wrong word to use. This clearly had nothing to do with Burns.

But the fact is - some people KNEW Cook wasn't going to last long in the fight. So much so that they were betting large sums on a powderpuff puncher scoring an early KO. The bookies don't suspend betting for a few tenners.

So even if Cook's back injury was genuine, and I have no reason to doubt it wasn't, someone profited from knowing he wasn't fit.

If the money wasn't bet then a "freak" accident would be a reasonable explanation.

[Rantcatrat]

Doesn't Mitchell v. Kastidis sound like a good one? Kastidis won the first one so this fight should be in Australia, but it's ripe.

[superheavyrhun]

Doesn't Mitchell v. Kastidis sound like a good one? Kastidis won the first one so this fight should be in Australia, but it's ripe.

Sounds like a very dangerous fight to make in my view. I know Mitchell wasn't 100% right going into that bout, but it could be another battering if he gets it wrong.