Comments Thread For: Groves Loses Appeal, IBF Stands By 85-15 Split For Froch

[Doctor_Tenma]

[r.burgundy]

don king would be proud

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I'm not certain I understand your point? I have been writing about a George/Carl match. But I have suggested the two fighters could fight without any transfer of rights of the "IBF" title to the victor. George could fight Carl while declining the rights to the "IBF" title if he won. Since George is not the "IBF" champion, he's just the George Groves champion, what "orders" could anyone possibly give him? George is not the "IBF" titlist, and could decline to act as "it".

You see, the "IBF" cannot force their rules onto someone who does not consent to them. While perhaps the "IBF" could force Carl in some way, they could not force George in any way. George could agree to fight "their" champion but decline to accept to act as their champion should he win the contest. In this manner, Carl could still keep his title, should he lose, and comply with the "IBF" demands.

Yes, I agree, this is very unusual, and by doing this fans would see just how transparent and worthless these titles really are, but if fighters wish to free themselves from the yoke of arbitrary rule, it will take unusual will.

What the *** are you on about? I give up

[LacedUp]

Where did I write Carl should "give up his belt"? If it makes Carl happy to think he's a champion of something what is wrong with that?

George would not be fighting a "world title", he would be fighting Carl? How could the "title" fight George anyway?

When the two men fight, are they not fighting to see who is the better of the two? How would any "title" affect that?

Why would I be "appeased" or displeased in any way? Did I write I was to be a participant or benefactor?

What if a fighter were to hold four or five "titles" simultaneously but still not be a draw? Of what benefit as leverage would those "titles" be?

The last I checked Manny has no "titles" anymore. Poor man, it is reported he will gain a 20 million purse for his next fight against Timothy, the champion, who will gain 6 million. What "leverage" did Timothy gain with his "titles"?

Not fighting with you Dirk, just showing there are different ways to do things.

I don't understand where you want to go with this. Why would Froch drop the belt? First off, if it happened, Groves would rather fight for the vacant belt than fight Froch.

Second off, Froch is a proud world champion who ripped the belt of a long time, undefeated champion - why would he give that up?

Third, there would probably be less money involved should it not be a world title fight.

Fourth, Carl Froch would have to give up way more of his purse should he drop the belt.

Fifth, neither of these guys have the pull of a manny pacquiao that you relate to. Manny pacquiao is an ATG of the sport who's been fighting on HBO and worldwide events for 10 years. There's a major difference.

Sixth, your posts don't really make any sense for either fighter.

[Wesker115]

Bit of a joke, but hey, Groves has got the rematch that he was after.
Hopefully this motivates him to retire Froch.
Should be a good fight! Fingers crossed hearn doesn't charge us rip off prices for nosebleed seats at Wembley...

[yoz]

George:

I hope you now understand that the "IBF" did not expect you would win in your last fight with Froch, did not want you to win in that fight, and are now telling you to get lost by trying to dictate to you how much money you should earn. Tell the "IBF" and Froch to shove off. The last I checked it takes two to fight. Let Froch go rent a stadium and try to sell tickets for an event of him punching himself. Do not accept this insult and we hope other fighters will learn from this. Stop giving away all of your authority. Fight your own fights, write your own contracts, and stay in control. Stop being some else's agent.

What?

[removed]

Unlucky ugly boy.

[uncommon]

[QUOTE=LacedUp;14188923]

"I don't understand where you want to go with this."

Clearly you all have missed the point. Sometimes people cannot see the obvious. I'm suggesting the three letters "IBF" coupled with the word "title" have little or no value. Titles do not fight; men do. People watch men box; the title is a fiction. There are so many titles very few care about them anyway.

I could use dozens examples throughout most of the weight classes as examples of credibility and marketability without titles but, instead understanding my point you, like others, would only reply "but Carl and George are not them..."

I use the following examples to show that the fighters' ability, proven by their records, is evidence that the names and reputation of the fighters is what sells these fights- not the titles:

Carl is widely recognized as the second best super middle in the world today. Carl is so recognized because of who he fought and how he fared. Were Carl to fight without "putting his title on the line" would anything change? Would no spectator be found? Of course not. People would still buy.

Is George not the most worthy, and intriguing, U.K. opponent for Carl at the present time? Does George need an imaginary title to support this? No.

As this is prizefighting, why should Carl's most worthy opponent be offered a mere 1/9th of the purse win or lose? What is the incentive? A title which, if he won, George could use to try to coerce his potential future opponents to accept small purses of their fights? The present system has made these titles valuable as coercive tools to strip opponents' ability to negotiate fair sharing of purses (in other words: the winner gets the right, which he has to pay for anyway, to screw the next guy).


Now try to forget the examples and understand the concept. I am suggesting any fight could be sold to the public without silly titles. A man could hold 12 titles at once but if he is not marketable who cares? Titles do not make a man marketable: his past performances do. It is being done now and has been done for over a hundred years. This is prizefighting. The title is not the prize. The prize is the money. The title is more of a liability (because to use it the fighter has to pay and is subject to its rules). A way fighters can change this is for the non-titlists to stop avoiding each other and fight big cards without titles, or when titlists fight non-titlists the non-titlist agrees to fight but not for the title (I'll fight you but you can keep those belts no thanks). When a non-titlist beats a titlist who then would value the titlists' belts if he lost!

Examples of this are everywhere: if George beat Carl but declined the belt, would anyone put value into Carl's claim to be the "IBF World Champion"? No, it would be funny if they did. If Sergey were to beat Adonis but decline the belts, would anyone still claim Adonis is "the champion"? No, it would be funny if they did. If anyone can ever beat Floyd but declined those belts, would anyone still chant "Oh, but Floyd is still the best"? Hell no. Floyd could only stop being the best if he loses to another man, and if such a man can be found, that man would then be the best -his title would be "The Man that Beat the Great Floyd Mayweather Jr."

[techliam]

"I don't understand where you want to go with this."

Clearly you all have missed the point. Sometimes people cannot see the obvious. I'm suggesting the three letters "IBF" coupled with the word "title" have little or no value. Titles do not fight; men do. People watch men box; the title is a fiction. There are so many titles very few care about them anyway.

I could use dozens examples throughout most of the weight classes as examples of credibility and marketability without titles but, instead understanding my point you, like others, would only reply "but Carl and George are not them..."

I use the following examples to show that the fighters' ability, proven by their records, is evidence that the names and reputation of the fighters is what sells these fights- not the titles:

Carl is widely recognized as the second best super middle in the world today. Carl is so recognized because of who he fought and how he fared. Were Carl to fight without "putting his title on the line" would anything change? Would no spectator be found? Of course not. People would still buy.

Is George not the most worthy, and intriguing, U.K. opponent for Carl at the present time? Does George need an imaginary title to support this? No.

As this is prizefighting, why should Carl's most worthy opponent be offered a mere 1/9th of the purse win or lose? What is the incentive? A title which, if he won, George could use to try to coerce his potential future opponents to accept small purses of their fights? The present system has made these titles valuable as coercive tools to strip opponents' ability to negotiate fair sharing of purses (in other words: the winner gets the right, which he has to pay for anyway, to screw the next guy).


Now try to forget the examples and understand the concept. I am suggesting any fight could be sold to the public without silly titles. A man could hold 12 titles at once but if he is not marketable who cares? Titles do not make a man marketable: his past performances do. It is being done now and has been done for over a hundred years. This is prizefighting. The title is not the prize. The prize is the money. The title is more of a liability (because to use it the fighter has to pay and is subject to its rules). A way fighters can change this is for the non-titlists to stop avoiding each other and fight big cards without titles, or when titlists fight non-titlists the non-titlist agrees to fight but not for the title (I'll fight you but you can keep those belts no thanks). When a non-titlist beats a titlist who then would value the titlists' belts if he lost!

Examples of this are everywhere: if George beat Carl but declined the belt, would anyone put value into Carl's claim to be the "IBF World Champion"? No, it would be funny if they did. If Sergey were to beat Adonis but decline the belts, would anyone still claim Adonis is "the champion"? No, it would be funny if they did. If anyone can ever beat Floyd but declined those belts, would anyone still chant "Oh, but Floyd is still the best"? Hell no. Floyd could only stop being the best if he loses to another man, and if such a man can be found, that man would then be the best -his title would be "The Man that Beat the Great Floyd Mayweather Jr."

Honestly, you do not understand how organisations work. George wants that belt just as much as Froch does. George wants to defeat Froch yes, but his ultimate aim is to become world champion.

Froch cannot disregard IBF rules without dropping his belt. Whoever he faces, he is now the sanctioned IBF champion.

The Prize is the money, and being able to be called a 'world champion' fighting in a 'world championship' sells a lot. You may think the belt is worthless, but most fighters don't, apart from the examples you gave such as Pacquiao or Mayweather, who are rare in that they have transcended the need for belts.

As this is prizefighting, why should Carl's most worthy opponent be offered a mere 1/9th of the purse win or lose? What is the incentive? A title which, if he won, George could use to try to coerce his potential future opponents to accept small purses of their fights? The present system has made these titles valuable as coercive tools to strip opponents' ability to negotiate fair sharing of purses (in other words: the winner gets the right, which he has to pay for anyway, to screw the next guy).

This entire paragraph is pretty much wrong. The 85/15 situation came about because of Groves - he did this himself. Froch didn't do it. the 85/15 split practically gave him what he wanted, the ability to fight without stipulation. He would get more under Hearn's offer, but with options.

You offer a concept that not even the fighters would want. Titles are not that worthless to fighters, yet..

[thack]

That the benefit of having a good promoter working for you, it means you hold the cards, and the options, Groves needs to learn from this and take a more pragmatic approach instead of trying to force the issue for everyone else. I wonder exactly why he spit with booth, my guess is that it had alot to do with booths control and managerial/promotional percentage.

Yea ok..decent point!..I just hate this tie tie tie stuff...reminds me too much of Mr. King