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

[SP4RTICUS]

This, playing the negotiations out for all to see, really is getting boring now. Groves has no-one but himself to blame when he turns the process into a circus, aka: hayemaker styley.
He will have to realise that to get the re-match/money he wants he will have to compromise, and give a little back to hearn.
Why doesn't he say that he will rematch, but only if its close on points, or a sd, and then stipulate terms that hearn will have to meet for a subsequent 2 fight deal(or a min purse per fight) .
'one hand washes the other' as they say.
These are all details that always go on behind closed doors and are never even usually mentioned until after the fight. Its never just a case of who ducked who.

[uncommon]

So Froch should give up his belt and 85% of the money just to appease George Groves?

And George Groves should not fight for a world title just to appease you?

Living in a fantasy world. All fans would love it if there was just one champion in every division. It's not going to happen though, is it? Titles are more than just belts. They are leverage.

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.

[adietheforestfa]

Froch should take the fight, insist on the venue being York Hall.

900 tickets at £50.00 each would give Groves a cut of £6750.00

Wont happen but would be so funny

[SP4RTICUS]

Some one here with sense ,among a mountain of blind fools...85/15 is silly after the ref in almost everyone's opinion (even Froch's, be it '2 or 3 seconds too soon')stopped it too soon. A fair split for this really huge pot would surely be around the 65/35 mark in Froch's favour ?...and let Groves decide his own future with no silly ties.

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.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

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.

Carl Froch would have to give up his IBF belt if he wasn't going to follow the IBF rules. I mean....isn't this obvious?

Titles are leverage. You go to the negotiation table as a champion rather than just an opponent. George Groves is not Manny Pacquiao. Surely this is also obvious?

If Groves had beat Froch the first time, he'd be getting a champions payday for the rematch. If Groves beats Froch in the rematch and then wants to secure a fight with Ward, the belt means he gets a better deal.

[uncommon]

Carl Froch would have to give up his IBF belt if he wasn't going to follow the IBF rules. I mean....isn't this obvious?

Titles are leverage. You go to the negotiation table as a champion rather than just an opponent. George Groves is not Manny Pacquiao. Surely this is also obvious?

If Groves had beat Froch the first time, he'd be getting a champions payday for the rematch. If Groves beats Froch in the rematch and then wants to secure a fight with Ward, the belt means he gets a better deal.

Why do you presume Carl would have to give up his belt? Have personal first-hand knowledge of Carl's agreement with "IBF"? Are you presuming that to be an "IBF" champion Carl has agreed to not participate in any prizefight in any part of the world without the approval of the "IBF"? I would like to read such an agreement. I doubt it is enforceable.

I have never seen evidence that titles draw in paying spectators. What fight is ever promoted as "IBF" champion vs Name of Opponent. Fights are always promoted firstly as Name vs Name. Buyers seek contests of fighters they recognize by name; buyers do not associate or recognize who holds what arbitrary, and meaningless, title.

[jas]

i think carl froch is laughing his ass off right now

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Why do you presume Carl would have to give up his belt? Have personal first-hand knowledge of Carl's agreement with "IBF"? Are you presuming that to be an "IBF" champion Carl has agreed to not participate in any prizefight in any part of the world without the approval of the "IBF"? I would like to read such an agreement. I doubt it is enforceable.

He has been ordered by the IBF to defend his title against Groves within a certain amount of days. If he doesn't defend it, he gets stripped of the title. I mean, this is basic elementary stuff. Are you new to boxing or something?

[uncommon]

He has been ordered by the IBF to defend his title against Groves within a certain amount of days. If he doesn't defend it, he gets stripped of the title. I mean, this is basic elementary stuff. Are you new to boxing or something?

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.

[Chrismart]

The IBF did Groves a solid by ordering the immediate rematch. Now he wants them to change their usual split procedure for him?

Come on George, you got the fight you wanted..the boxing world doesn't revolve around you.