Sakio Bika

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 15 Oct 2006, 09:48

He’s a naturalized Aussie & his boxing career started in OZ, so please don't change his nationality.

I was born in Slovenia, but I'm a true & true 'Victoria Bitter' beer piss pot AUSSIE.

emile · Post by **emile** » 15 Oct 2006, 12:55

He fought for Cameroon in the Olympics.

slapbangwhallop · Post by **slapbangwhallop** » 15 Oct 2006, 12:58

emile wrote:He fought for Cameroon in the Olympics.

"All the talk is about a potential Calzaghe v Woods showdown in the future but Bika - born in the Cameroon but an Australian citizen since last week - says that's disrespectful."

http://www.itv-boxing.com/News/Story_Pa ... 29,00.html

http://www.secondsout.com/news/index.cf ... 4&cs=20018[/url]

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 15 Oct 2006, 14:12

Bika is Cameroonian, born in Cameroon and learned to box in Cameroon. He learned that he could make money boxing in Australia, that shouldn't count.

brett · Post by **brett** » 15 Oct 2006, 15:17

Again with the Nationality. Duddy, Abraham, Bika. I'm sure there are hundreds of others.

Just get rid of the Nationality field altogether. With it gone, everyone can feel they are whatever they want to be (which is the way I think it should be anyway). In the end, why do we friggin care what somebody is listed as? If Bika (or whoever) wants to consider himself as Irish or Mexican or North Korean, then so what? Document where they were born and where they live now and that's it.

The limited value the field brings is simply not worth the discussion/aggravation.

Regards,

slapbangwhallop · Post by **slapbangwhallop** » 15 Oct 2006, 15:38

brett wrote:Again with the Nationality. Duddy, Abraham, Bika. I'm sure there are hundreds of others.

Just get rid of the Nationality field altogether. With it gone, everyone can feel they are whatever they want to be (which is the way I think it should be anyway). In the end, why do we friggin care what somebody is listed as? If Bika (or whoever) wants to consider himself as Irish or Mexican or North Korean, then so what? Document where they were born and where they live now and that's it.

The limited value the field brings is simply not worth the discussion/aggravation.

Regards,

Correct - tell that to your leader however!! Either have a set rule with regards nationality or scrap it! You cant have one rule for one and another rule for others!

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 16 Oct 2006, 11:29

Hmm.. I think someone saw my Oleg thread and changed him from Kazahkstani to Russian, which does make more sense.

See, if you aren't beligerent, annoying, and prove your points, then perhaps you will be listened to.

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 16 Oct 2006, 14:40

Next time Sakio tells me to list him as Aussie, any of you are welcome to stand between the two of us.

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 16 Oct 2006, 14:51

My final comment on the matter.
If a boxer has an Australian passport, which Sakio has, as far as I'm concerned he/she is an Aussie.
Cheers

emile · Post by **emile** » 16 Oct 2006, 15:04

AntonS wrote:My final comment on the matter.
If a boxer has an Australian passport, which Sakio has, as far as I'm concerned he/she is an Aussie.
Cheers

That's well and good, but as far as I know that's simply not in line with the standard that this site uses.

stac · Post by **stac** » 17 Oct 2006, 05:05

the duddy issue would be resolved if people from britain could be listed as English,Scottish,Welsh and Irish

stac · Post by **stac** » 17 Oct 2006, 05:08

And someones nationality can change during their career....at the moment i would say Bika is Australian....Duddy is Irish...wheteher that be N Irish or S Irish...In my own records i tend to list where people box out of rather than nationality.....

brett · Post by **brett** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:17

stac wrote:...In my own records i tend to list where people box out of rather than nationality.....

I think thats a good idea. Perhaps we should change the Bio field from 'Nationality' to "Fights Out Of" or "Based In" or something similar. Very much like how we changed the weight 'Division' field to 'Rated At'.

Regards,

Post by **John** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:31

stac wrote:the duddy issue would be resolved if people from britain could be listed as English,Scottish,Welsh and Irish.

Yes, I was going to do this but when I floated the idea some black boxers objected as they regard themselves as Black British not English. It would also mean that Eire boxers would be included in the ratings for the UK as they would not be distinct from NI boxers and NI boxers would be in the Eire ratings - don't know how much of a problem this would cause but I imagine the Duddyites would be apoplectic.

brett wrote: I think thats a good idea. Perhaps we should change the Bio field from 'Nationality' to "Fights Out Of" or "Based In" or something similar. Very much like how we changed the weight 'Division' field to 'Rated At'.
Regards,

I like that idea, it would be possible to change 'Nationality' to 'Based in' very easily. Also might be possible to retain Nationality for inactive boxers as the problem is really only with the active ones...... so far

stac · Post by **stac** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:43

mick leahy took different nationality to fight for the british title didn't he...

Musashi · Post by **Musashi** » 17 Oct 2006, 08:50

brett wrote: I think thats a good idea. Perhaps we should change the Bio field from 'Nationality' to "Fights Out Of" or "Based In" or something similar. Very much like how we changed the weight 'Division' field to 'Rated At'.
Regards,

JohnShep wrote: I like that idea, it would be possible to change 'Nationality' to 'Based in' very easily. Also might be possible to retain Nationality for inactive boxers as the problem is really only with the active ones...... so far

This would reduce a lot of potential conflict in the States as well where the Hispanic population is increasing the way it is. You'll have a lot of Hispanic fighters who consider themselves "Mexican" but were born in the United States. No matter what way you go regarding the term "Nationality" somebody is not going to be happy.

Not to mention, when entering a fighter into the database, I personally see a lot of fighters who are clearly hispanic but don't have their place of birth as the commission reports don't provide that. "Based in" or "Fights out of" would make that real simple.

emile · Post by **emile** » 17 Oct 2006, 09:18

In one sense, listing someone from where they fight out of would probably help matchmakers, since they could look at the ratings and immediately see potential matchups without having to click on every fighter and see where they're based out of.

On the other hand, I think you will have a lot more opposition from people if their hugely popular fighters get listed with an American or British flag, because they fight there. If you think the DudHeads are persistent, wait until the Pac-Men find out Manny is listed with a US flag because he trains with Freddie Roach and fights in Vegas. Also, the definition of where someone fights out of is not always any more clear than the current definition.

In my opinion, fighters should be listed under the nation they wish to be listed as. With mass immigration, I think people are the nationality they choose to be, and the old ideas about what it means to be of some ethnicity are passing on. Yes, ethnicity is still popular in some old world enclaves without much new blood, but I think these issues have been dealt with already by the French football team, etc.

If Sakio Bika wants to be listed as Australian, I say let him. If John Duddy wants to be listed as an Irishman, why not? Oleg Maskaev American, Arthur Abraham German, Kostya Tszyu Australian - what's the harm? I might keep the current guidelines as the default - but if someone asks to have their nationality changed, I suggest we honor that request and spare the drama.

slapbangwhallop · Post by **slapbangwhallop** » 17 Oct 2006, 10:19

brett wrote:
stac wrote:...In my own records i tend to list where people box out of rather than nationality.....

I think thats a good idea. Perhaps we should change the Bio field from 'Nationality' to "Fights Out Of" or "Based In" or something similar. Very much like how we changed the weight 'Division' field to 'Rated At'.

Regards,

But we already have a "Born in" and "Howntown" field - so that covers those issues already - I posted a list of possible questions that those at Boxrec could consider when choosing what country to got for in the nationality section. even thought I laid it out clearly and put a lot of thought into it, it was ignored by those at boxer.

What boxrec needs is a hard and fast rule on which nationality is based on. Once this is trashed out then there can be no question as it would be a matter of policy what country is chosen and not seen as the choice of the editor or moderator! More clarification would lead to less confusion and argument!!

Post by **John** » 17 Oct 2006, 10:35

sligobhoy67 wrote: What boxrec needs is a hard and fast rule on which nationality is based on.

The hard and fast rule is perm any two from :-
What was their nationality at birth.
What nationality did he/she have as they grew up/ learned to box.
Which country was he/she born in.
Which country did he/she live in as they grew up/ learned to box.
Change of nationality after 10 years of maintaining the new nationality ie living in that country. eg Kostya

All the problems we are now having with nationality are caused by governments making rash decisions without consulting me first.

slapbangwhallop · Post by **slapbangwhallop** » 17 Oct 2006, 10:50

JohnShep wrote:
sligobhoy67 wrote: What boxrec needs is a hard and fast rule on which nationality is based on.
The hard and fast rule is perm any two from :-
What was their nationality at birth.
What nationality did he/she have as they grew up/ learned to box.
Which country was he/she born in.
Which country did he/she live in as they grew up/ learned to box.
Change of nationality after 10 years of maintaining the new nationality ie living in that country. eg Kostya

All the problems we are now having with nationality are caused by governments making rash decisions without consulting me first.

what about when a countries legal status changes - e.g. the split up of USSR - do fighters remain Russian as they were born and initially fought as Russian even though they could now be Belrussian, Kazakstani, Turkmen etc, or Yugoslavians - then they changed to Serbian-Montenegran and now Serbian, those from Hong Kong are they still British or have they changed to Chinese? the list goes on - including Northern Ireland post the Belfast Agreement.

What about this issue?

Post by **John** » 17 Oct 2006, 10:59

sligobhoy67 wrote: what about when a countries legal status changes - e.g. the split up of USSR - do fighters remain Russian as they were born and initially fought as Russian even though they could now be Belrussian, Kazakstani, Turkmen etc, or Yugoslavians - then they changed to Serbian-Montenegran and now Serbian, those from Hong Kong are they still British or have they changed to Chinese? the list goes on - including Northern Ireland post the Belfast Agreement.
What about this issue?

There is a well established rule in law that changes are not effective retrospectively. Say on Monday someone wore a red hat, Tues the government outlawed red hats. It is not right or fair then for the police to arrest that person on Wednesday for wearing the hat on Monday. Similarly it is not right or fair to tell a Russian who was born in Russia that he was no longer born in Russia but was born in Kazakstan.

There is a bit about retrospective here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality

slapbangwhallop · Post by **slapbangwhallop** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:06

JohnShep wrote:
sligobhoy67 wrote: what about when a countries legal status changes - e.g. the split up of USSR - do fighters remain Russian as they were born and initially fought as Russian even though they could now be Belrussian, Kazakstani, Turkmen etc, or Yugoslavians - then they changed to Serbian-Montenegran and now Serbian, those from Hong Kong are they still British or have they changed to Chinese? the list goes on - including Northern Ireland post the Belfast Agreement.
What about this issue?
There is a well established rule in law that changes are not effective retrospectively. Say on Monday someone wore a red hat, Tues the government outlawed red hats. It is not right or fair then for the police to arrest that person on Wednesday for wearing the hat on Monday. Similarly it is not right or fair to tell a Russian who was born in Russia that he was no longer born in Russia but was born in Kazakstan.

There is a well established rule in law that changes are not effective retrospectively. Say on Monday someone wore a red hat, Tues the government outlawed red hats. It is not right or fair then for the police to arrest that person on Wednesday for wearing the hat on Monday. Similarly it is not right or fair to tell a Russian who was born in Russia that he was no longer born in Russia but was born in Kazakstan

Yes, but if they continued to wear the hat on the Wednesday and the Thursday then that would be illegal!! Hats! are you serious!?

So, by that reckoning all Serbs, Croats etc are all still Yugoslavian! All Slovaks are still Czechoslovakian, All East Germans are not German - thats crazy!

You must recognise that the legal position of countries change and that that alters nationality

p.s. the rational and open debate is most welcome and refreshing instead of slagging each other off

Post by **John** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:12

sligobhoy67 wrote: Yes, but if they continued to wear the hat on the Wednesday and the Thursday then that would be illegal!! Hats! are you serious!?

Yes of course, if they continued to wear hats then it would be illegal. Just as if they continued to live in Kazakstan then they would be Kazakstani but they would still have been born Russian not born Kazakstani.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:26

I strongly support the idea of changing the field 'Nationality' into "Based in":

- it is easy do (see John)
- the data already exist in the data base
- we get rid of this nationality issue
- we loose nothing related to boxing

slapbangwhallop · Post by **slapbangwhallop** » 17 Oct 2006, 11:28

JohnShep wrote:
sligobhoy67 wrote: Yes, but if they continued to wear the hat on the Wednesday and the Thursday then that would be illegal!! Hats! are you serious!?
Yes of course, if they continued to wear hats then it would be illegal. Just as if they continued to live in Kazakstan then they would be Kazakstani but they would still have been born Russian not born Kazakstani.

If that is your reasoning, why are the Klitchiko brothers not listed as Russian then, they were born in Kryzak and Kazakhstan respectively which was the former Russia (USSR) so by your logic "its not fair" to have them listed as being from a former USSR state - but you have them listed as being from the Ukraine even though they are only ethnically Ukrainian as there father was Ukrainian and a military man that was posted around the former USSR?

I dont believe that arguement applies here and if it does well then why dont you apply that evenly across the board then and change all the Serbs, Croats etc back to Yugoslavian, All Czechs and Slovaks back to Czechoslovakian, all those born in the former East Germany back to East German - are you going to change all of those back in line with your policy? the list of countries legality that changes goes on and on and these changes should be reflected.