Boxing pet hates.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 03 May 2007, 10:41

The Ridiculous headclash rule by the WBC , where the guy who isn't cut loses a point even if the clash of heads wasn't his fault. Didn't Honeyghan lose his title because of this?

'Super Champions' and 'Interim Champions' , just a moneymaking exercise by the ruling bodies.

ArtOfWar · Post by **ArtOfWar** » 03 May 2007, 10:54

I hate some of the cliches that are used like 'you have to take the belt from the champion'?

Why is that then, does the challenger not train as hard as the champ? If the challenger wins one more round than the champion then he wins. If you give the champ close rounds just because he is the champ then that's effectively biased/corrupt judging.

holyfields_ear · Post by **holyfields_ear** » 03 May 2007, 10:55

By far my biggest hate is fighters being labelled 'shot' because they've just been beaten. I have similar hate for fights being called a 'robbery' when in reality they were just close.

There's also the same fighters being recycled as opponents over and over again by certain sanctioning bodies e.g. the IBF light heavy belt. Woods beat De Lisle in an eliminator, then defended against him. Defended against Julio Gonzalez, and is defending against him again this summer. Defended against Glen Johnson, who is now facing Montel Griffin for the chance of another shot. So he'll be fighting Glen Johnson for the fourth occasion sometime later this year then

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 May 2007, 10:59

holyfields_ear wrote:By far my biggest hate is fighters being labelled 'shot' because they've just been beaten. I have similar hate for fights being called a 'robbery' when in reality they were just close.

There's also the same fighters being recycled as opponents over and over again by certain sanctioning bodies e.g. the IBF light heavy belt. Woods beat De Lisle in an eliminator, then defended against him. Defended against Julio Gonzalez, and is defending against him again this summer. Defended against Glen Johnson, who is now facing Montel Griffin for the chance of another shot. So he'll be fighting Glen Johnson for the fourth occasion sometime later this year then

thats all clintons fault. if he had spanked Johnson he would not still be in the title frame.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 03 May 2007, 10:59

Old bones Ian wrote:The Ridiculous headclash rule by the WBC , where the guy who isn't cut loses a point even if the clash of heads wasn't his fault. Didn't Honeyghan lose his title because of this?

'Super Champions' and 'Interim Champions' , just a moneymaking exercise by the ruling bodies.

Yes that is a ridiculous ruling.

What is even more annoying one where if a fight is stopped due to a clash of heads in this country and the fight is stopped, then the fight doesn't go to the scorecards.

Ridiculous, virtually encourages fighters to go in with the nut.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 03 May 2007, 11:00

Mikee wrote:
holyfields_ear wrote:By far my biggest hate is fighters being labelled 'shot' because they've just been beaten. I have similar hate for fights being called a 'robbery' when in reality they were just close.

There's also the same fighters being recycled as opponents over and over again by certain sanctioning bodies e.g. the IBF light heavy belt. Woods beat De Lisle in an eliminator, then defended against him. Defended against Julio Gonzalez, and is defending against him again this summer. Defended against Glen Johnson, who is now facing Montel Griffin for the chance of another shot. So he'll be fighting Glen Johnson for the fourth occasion sometime later this year then
thats all clintons fault. if he had spanked Johnson he would not still be in the title frame.

Stupid comment, who is there out there who is going to give Johonson a spanking, that's one tough nut to crack.

Podmore_Birmingham · Post by **Podmore_Birmingham** » 03 May 2007, 11:02

American fight-fans/pundits who believe that because a fighter hasn’t fought in America means he is either:

A. Not good enough.
B. Scared of leaving the confides of their home country because they will get beat.

I loved RJJ but how many times did he fight outside the States?

The hype of American fighters but the denigration of land-standing champions who haven’t gone over and fought in America. Does it make good business sense for lower-weight (flyweight, etc) champions to go over to America where they wont be appreciated and will be booed for being too skilful?

No, they will stay in Thailand, Japan, etc where they will be appreciated for their art-form.

Tom Podmore.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 May 2007, 11:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Mikee wrote:
holyfields_ear wrote:By far my biggest hate is fighters being labelled 'shot' because they've just been beaten. I have similar hate for fights being called a 'robbery' when in reality they were just close.

There's also the same fighters being recycled as opponents over and over again by certain sanctioning bodies e.g. the IBF light heavy belt. Woods beat De Lisle in an eliminator, then defended against him. Defended against Julio Gonzalez, and is defending against him again this summer. Defended against Glen Johnson, who is now facing Montel Griffin for the chance of another shot. So he'll be fighting Glen Johnson for the fourth occasion sometime later this year then
thats all clintons fault. if he had spanked Johnson he would not still be in the title frame.
Stupid comment, who is there out there who is going to give Johonson a spanking, that's one tough nut to crack.

All i meant, smart-arse, was that if the champ never beats the challenger convincingly (in fact goes 1-1-1 with him, with the win and the draw both questionable) then he will be still well regarded as a challenger for that champion. Right or Wrong?

If Clinton Woods had beaten Johnson handily, Johnson would not still be a challenger. Therefore the 'answer', if not the 'fault' lies in the fact that Woods could not convincingly dispose of Johnson in his last defence. Right or Wrong?

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 03 May 2007, 11:14

The fault is the IBF.

They stripped Johnson after he beat Woods twice in his backyard for not fighting Woods a THIRD time, when Johnson was quite rightly fighting Tarver.

So the IBF gifted the belt to a man who had already lost to Johnson, hence the messy situation.

The IBF is an absolute abortion.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 May 2007, 11:18

in terms of fights being robberies, what always puzzles me is when ppl say 'it could have gone either way'

i always think "well why didnt it then?" what mysterious process is it that stops it? most of the time when people say that its as if they are offering a silver medal, they arent actually trying to say he could have won or deserved to win

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 03 May 2007, 11:35

Mikee wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Mikee wrote: thats all clintons fault. if he had spanked Johnson he would not still be in the title frame.
Stupid comment, who is there out there who is going to give Johonson a spanking, that's one tough nut to crack.
All i meant, smart-arse, was that if the champ never beats the challenger convincingly (in fact goes 1-1-1 with him, with the win and the draw both questionable) then he will be still well regarded as a challenger for that champion. Right or Wrong?

If Clinton Woods had beaten Johnson handily, Johnson would not still be a challenger. Therefore the 'answer', if not the 'fault' lies in the fact that Woods could not convincingly dispose of Johnson in his last defence. Right or Wrong?

Should have worded it better then shouldn't you?

My point is that there isn't really anyone in the division who would dispose of Johnson easily. So does that mean that Johnson should just keep on getting title shots forever because he's involved in close fights?

There are plenty of fighters who run a champ close and never get a look in again in their careers, Johnson's promoters (goosen?) are just good at securing shots for their man.

holyfields_ear · Post by **holyfields_ear** » 03 May 2007, 11:59

jamesmcdonnell wrote:My point is that there isn't really anyone in the division who would dispose of Johnson easily. So does that mean that Johnson should just keep on getting title shots forever because he's involved in close fights?

And thats the point

The fight was close not a robbery, the judges officially gave it to Woods by a couple of points each, therefore Johnson should go to the back of the queue. The problem is the IBF queue seems to be very short

I mean Woods is never going to obliterate Johnson because he's not good enough. Every fight between the two is going to be close but you can't keep on making them fight each other - it just bogs the division down. However Johnson definitely deserves his shot more than Gonzalez and bloody De Lisle. And another thing is if you start factoring in previous form between boxers like Johnson and Woods when deciding who's won you're just going to have more problems. So to the back of the queue with Johnson, Gonzalez and De Lisle fudge off for want of better words, and lets see a name like Adamek in there

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 May 2007, 12:05

i think if there is not an established system for title challenges (and there is not its all one big lashup) then the logic of - it was a good fight last time lets do it again - isnt a bad premise as an alternative.

we can all say 'to the back of the q' as much as we want but it will not happen.

holyfields_ear · Post by **holyfields_ear** » 03 May 2007, 12:13

Mikee wrote:we can all say 'to the back of the q' as much as we want but it will not happen.

Which is exactly why this is on a thread called 'pet hates' and not part of an email to the head of the IBF

My original post was more to do with the De Lisle and Gonzalez situation anyway which is downright bad and nobody can argue against that.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 May 2007, 12:18

holyfields_ear wrote:
Mikee wrote:we can all say 'to the back of the q' as much as we want but it will not happen.
Which is exactly why this is on a thread called 'pet hates' and not part of an email to the head of the IBF My original post was more to do with the De Lisle and Gonzalez situation anyway which is downright bad and nobody can argue against that.

fair play mate

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 03 May 2007, 12:46

Danny Williams' long shorts

who told him that was a good look!

and off topic, My pet hate is Milk Floats. bastards

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 03 May 2007, 12:54

When the talking heads on TV introduce a fight delayed, then hint or give away the result, by either speaking about the winning fighter in glowing terms, or saying it's a war you don't want to miss. In which case, if there's an early knockdown, you just KNOW the guy is going to come back strongly.

The Blade · Post by **The Blade** » 03 May 2007, 12:57

overhand_right wrote:Agree. The supposedly 'brilliant' Hugh McIlvanney referred to Bruno as a journeyman. What a complete bell end.

A bell end can be useful

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 03 May 2007, 14:38

Terry D wrote:
DavidPayne wrote:The last one is a big one for me.

I wish commentators would learn the power of allowing viewers to absorb the fight, action, crowd noise.

You don't have to talk every second of every round.
I watched an ITV broadcast of a fight the other day, it may have been McCallum-Bomber and they said little to nothing during the rounds then provided rational insight in the break.

I think the inane babble is to cater to modern attention spans.

the bbc were on strike that night.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 04 May 2007, 04:27

MightyWarrior wrote:When the talking heads on TV introduce a fight delayed, then hint or give away the result, by either speaking about the winning fighter in glowing terms, or saying it's a war you don't want to miss. In which case, if there's an early knockdown, you just KNOW the guy is going to come back strongly.

YES.

I remember BBC were criminal for this- all week in the previews it was David Haye v Carl Thompson, as Haye was the big name.

Then come saturday morning and the repeat of the fight and guess what? Its suddenly Carl Thompson v David Haye, you dont wanna miss this!!

I knew then that Thompson has thrown a spanner in the works.

stepper · Post by **stepper** » 04 May 2007, 06:22

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:
Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:id also bring back the Cook Report too
Possibly the greatest show ITV have ever had. Roger Cook was a legend, shame a lot of people want him dead.

Tom Podmore

I met Roger Cook sitting on a seat looking at the Thames by the National Theatre. I was filming some Doris who thought she was a pop star. Cook looked at me, the camera, the Doris, shouted "Oh no you don't" and ran off. I remember wondering who he thought we were.

My pet hate is 40-something ringcard girls with orange faces and Blackpool hair-do's.

caster · Post by **caster** » 04 May 2007, 14:37

I hate, with an absolute passion, a superficial boxing fan telling you how how good some obviously averagely talented boxer is when they've been following the sport 5 mins.....

Khaosai-Galaxy · Post by **Khaosai-Galaxy** » 04 May 2007, 14:42

1997 - Boxing needs to learn from WWF
2007 - Boxing needs to learn from UFC

Flavour of the month

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 04 May 2007, 15:04

caster wrote:I hate, with an absolute passion, a superficial boxing fan telling you how how good some obviously averagely talented boxer is when they've been following the sport 5 mins.....

yeah, that floyd geezers not as good as they make him out to be....

lol my pet hate of the the moment is all my mates assuming PBF is going to walk it becasue they have never heard of the other bloke

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 04 May 2007, 15:20

My pet hate can be summed up in just two words CARL FROCH.