Boxing
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
i backed the mexican to win and clash of heads curtailed the fight in the second / third . the draw that was announced is just a shake down of all the bets and is scandalous . a draw is when two fighters have a even match , go to the scorecards , not when a cut stops the fight in round 2 thats a no contest . how did they get away with that . you whom are involved sully the game . i hope you get your dues your crooks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 21
|
By:
Who are the crooks the boxers? the promoter? the referee? the judges?
|
|
By:
i thought it needed to go 4 rounds otherwise it's a "no contest". don't think it does either fighters any benefit having a draw now on their resume
|
|
By:
I also thought that it was 4 rounds.
But all the organisations have slightly different rules to each other. |
|
By:
The crooks are the people involved in changing the ruling , why ? for the purpose of unfairly relieving the punter of their bets . They (those that chose to change the ruling from a no-contest to a draw ) are the crooks . who benefits from the result ? the bookmakers and the fans and punters are ripped off . How can you possibly call a fight a draw after two rounds ? Its a no-contest and those that changed that ruling are crooks
|
|
By:
Just consider for one moment why anyone would want to change the ruling from a no-contest to a draw . Can you put forward one reason why the original ruling needed changing ? Other than for robbing the punters
|
|
By:
At the moment we don't know if the IBF has changed any rule.
|
|
By:
Just say the bookies took 3million quid on the fight with 15% profit built into their odds layed. Thats 450 k profit that they should be handing back to punters . So for a bit of brown envelope business (lobbying) the bookies can get the law changed and now they get to keep their profits . So the crooks are the bookies and those that took the brown envelopes, abused their positions and changed the rule .
|
|
By:
Grow up FFS
|
|
By:
forget the ibf wasnt a title tight or when the rule was changed doesnt matter either . The only thing that matters is that the rule was changed for no reason other than to fleece punters !
|
|
By:
How old are you Gaze?
Instead of acting like a spoilt child why don't you pay a visit to the IBF website where you will find why this contest was declared a draw and not a No Decision. |
|
By:
Can you give a valid boxing reason why the rule needed to be changed ? No you cant . Spoilt brat ? for complaining at being ripped off ! sorry people should just be happily ripped off is that it . How old are you JLS why cant you understand the point !
|
|
By:
Don't you find it strange that no one else is complaining about being ripped off?
Is it because they understood the rules before the bout started. You claim time and time again that a rule has been changed but that is not the case. |
|
By:
Technical draw if it gets stopped before 4 rounds witha head clash, the draw and technical draw are combined together in the market. Been this way for ages. I agree the bookies must of made a killing and i feel for the punters but it is the way it is.
Made a few bob myself. Knew the Mexican didn't want to come out and there was some juicy prices still floating about. Amazed i got on as my phone rang and put me back 20 secs. Still cant be to greedy. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
boxing rec , no contest occurs when a bout is ended before its scheduled duration , but excludes a knockout or technical knockout ending . Historically , the usual reason for a no-contest was when the referee determined that one or both boxers were not giving their best (not trying) and decided to end the contest , shooing the boxers out the ring . No contests also occurred if the police stepped in to stop the fight , a power failure developed or rain forced an ending . In recent years (2008 statement)many united states commissions have made the official result of bouts that end due to an accidental foul or under unusual circumstances "no contest" . Many of these bouts had been previously ruled a technical draw . A no-contest results in neither boxer officially winning or losing
|
|
By:
Where did u place your bet? And on what market? I assumed most bets would have been void as most markets are win
If it was method of victory well that has techincal draw in it, most markets i would have assumed be void though... |
|
By:
Most markets are win draw win *
|
|
By:
I had 200 quid on it on BF, and it was settled as a loser, which I knew would happen and just accepted it. More annoyed with myself for not being quick enough to lay off at the end of the round. I couldn't see the cut clearly at that point, but you knew it was bad because you could hear the Mexican wincing and yelling as they dabbed at the cut, clearly in a lot of pain. Unlucky, but my own fault for not paying enough attention and not acting quickly enough.
|
|
By:
Eggington has his hands full here, btw against Jkitou. A typically action-packed fight with Eggington taking a lot of punishment as usual, but giving as good as he gets. Can't be good for him in the long run, but he just likes to fight, I suppose.
|
|
By:
Great fight that was, the savage really brings it. Always nice when you get a evens winner too. Bit more experience and the French boy would have had a lot better sniff, Sams workrate is fantastic tho the boy couldnt live with his output even tho he had the harder shots.
|
|
By:
Pretty much sums it up, Bob. I enjoyed the McKenna fight as well.
|
