British boxing - sort your fecking self out

[Chambers2]

I think in terms of the fighters we have around at the moment we could and probably should be entering a glory period in British boxing. There are some breathtaking all-British matches that could be made over the coming months at various levels of the sport (we all know what they are). As we saw from the Benn/Eubank/Watson/Collins matches nothing catches the publics imagination like an all-British fight, its certainly those fights that got me interested in the sport. The 1st Audley-Danny fight got the most press coverage of any fight in recent times as well (although Ricky-Castillo hasn't been doing too bad by all accounts)

If these fights such as Haye-Enzo, JC-Froch/Woods, Khan/Thaxton/Earl etc. were made they'd undoubtedly go along way to restocking the ever decreasing amount of people who follow and (try to) enjoy the sport on a regular basis, but the current crop of promoters and to a certain extent the boxers have been acting like a bunch of spiteful kids who always have to have everything 100% on their own terms or not at all. Is it any wonder the arenas are curtained off and 3/4 empty

I know the promoters are just trying to do their best for their boxers, but they're doing at the expense of the fans who ultimately employ the promoters, their refusal to work together is such a short-sighted view and a textbook example of how to ruin a sport from within thru infighting.

I thought the boxing politics situation couldn't get any worse, but now they've managed to come up with a new way to fcuk us about, by waiting til the purse bid results have been released and if they don't go the way they like it then the fighter withdraws. I'm sort of dreading the results of the Haye-JMM bids and the subsequent pissing about.

I'd love to get Warren, Hennessey, Hobson and Maloney together, give them a dry slap, then lock them in a room to try and come up with a set of guidelines of how they can work together in the future, but it just basically comes down to both sides being realistic and flexible. Some boxers also need to shoulder alot of the blame, surely if both boxers insist that they want the fight then it will happen.

To add insult to injury Ricky Hatton goes and fcuks off to some distant backwater TV channel and I now have to pay an extra fiver to watch the little fecker on Box Office, I already pay a small fortune for my Sky package and I point blank refuse to payout again to subscribe to Setanta.

Its good to get things off your chest

[dondada]

Well said, Chambers.

The BBBoC should be taking a lead, in my view. They really need to clamp down on rubbish titles and worse boards.

The thread about Nigel Benn and the WBO made me think - I didn't realise it at the time because all I wanted to see was Nige tearing things up. The folly of youth.

So what do they do? Hike the fees for the little guys who struggle to put shows on anyway. Well done.

[Old bones Ian]

one of the problems for me is the promoters always wanting options on the opposing boxer, as a safetynet, incase their boxer loses.

This just stops fights from happening, and is something the board should look into, as its a type of blackmail to me.

[jomothepure]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

[dondada]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

[jomothepure]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Yes. There's no one, other than the casual fans/viewers, who did not know Gunn/Enzo was a total mismatch. Completely wrong of the WBO to rank Gunn in their top 15. Either they are complete imbeciles, or there is something more dodgy, like they put a soft touch in the rankings for an easy defence.

If the bbbofc had put their foot down though, what would it have achieved? Gunn got a big payday; Enzo made a "defence" of his shiny belt, Warren kept one of his "world" champions in the game, Enzo's fans saw their guy mash up his opponent, ITV got an exciting KO, in a world title fight no less, on the box. The WBO got their sanctioning fee.

So who loses out?

Us - "us" being the sad cases who know something about the lie of things, who know that this is not a world title fight, this is a circus show duping fans who are none the wiser. They also lose out, although they do not know it, because they are duped into believing the Gunn fight was anything other than a club fight with bells on.

So the only group who loses out is small enough to be ignored. Therefore the beeb have absolutely no intention of taking a stand because it would be trading on far too many important toes.

And in the interests of balance, the Gunn/SN thing can be applied to Valero/Lozada, Mundine/Nievas etc etc.

It's shit, and I'd love a board with teeth, but I can't see it happening

[Goz]

Boxing has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, I knew Warren being allowed to snaffle up most of the stars in the 90s was unhealthy for the sport.

And he had things his own way for so long that he doesn't know what to do now but I agree it takes a complete idiot not to see that taking a short sighted view of things now will harm the long term future of the sport and ultimately Warren/Maloneys/Hennesseys long term income.

They do need to grow up a little, even possibly consult some financial analysts from outside the sport that might be able to construct various 'models' and permutations if the promoters start matching their various meal tickets against each other.

[Twinkle Toes]

Personally I would lay the blame at the door of the TV controllers - The board of control and the promoters have to take their stack of the blame, but it's the TV companies that have the ultimate power.

SKY have upped their requirements and the shows have been better, but before that we had Frank milking the situation for all it was worth - He's done the same with ITV.

Frank is there to make as much money as possible with as little risk as possible - We would all do the same, but you have to wonder about the long term damage it is doing to the sport.

[hitman_hatton1]

I thought the boxing politics situation couldn't get any worse, but now they've managed to come up with a new way to fcuk us about, by waiting til the purse bid results have been released and if they don't go the way they like it then the fighter withdraws. I'm sort of dreading the results of the Haye-JMM bids and the subsequent pissing about.

To add insult to injury Ricky Hatton goes and fcuks off to some distant backwater TV channel and I now have to pay an extra fiver to watch the little fecker on Box Office, I already pay a small fortune for my Sky package and I point blank refuse to payout again to subscribe to Setanta.

Its good to get things off your chest

yeah i was well pissed off with earl pulling out.

it was obvious who ordered he pulled out as well.

that's not f&cking good enuff.

i agree with u concerning the hatton/setanta thing as well.

i'm prepared to pay cos i'm a hatton fan and i happen to have sky, which entitles me to that setanta deal.

but hatton going to setanta only helps himself financially and doesn't help british boxing one bit. another backwater channel that's harder to find for the casual fan.

[Chambers2]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Yes. There's no one, other than the casual fans/viewers, who did not know Gunn/Enzo was a total mismatch. Completely wrong of the WBO to rank Gunn in their top 15. Either they are complete imbeciles, or there is something more dodgy, like they put a soft touch in the rankings for an easy defence.

If the bbbofc had put their foot down though, what would it have achieved? Gunn got a big payday; Enzo made a "defence" of his shiny belt, Warren kept one of his "world" champions in the game, Enzo's fans saw their guy mash up his opponent, ITV got an exciting KO, in a world title fight no less, on the box. The WBO got their sanctioning fee.

So who loses out?

Us - "us" being the sad cases who know something about the lie of things, who know that this is not a world title fight, this is a circus show duping fans who are none the wiser. They also lose out, although they do not know it, because they are duped into believing the Gunn fight was anything other than a club fight with bells on.

So the only group who loses out is small enough to be ignored. Therefore the beeb have absolutely no intention of taking a stand because it would be trading on far too many important toes.

And in the interests of balance, the Gunn/SN thing can be applied to Valero/Lozada, Mundine/Nievas etc etc.

It's shit, and I'd love a board with teeth, but I can't see it happening

I disagree that ITV and the casual fans were happy. ITV said they were expecting Man Utd Vs Chelsea and got served up a conference match and my casual fan mates were saying what a load of bollocks. As you say people like to see knockouts, but they do like to see a contest prior to it.

I still don't understand why ITV give out an exclusive contract to SN, why not just cherry pick the best fights from all promoters, it will obviously increase competition and ensure they only get served up 'premiership' matches.....they have to accept some of the responsibility

[dondada]

Although I agree with much of what jomo says, I'm with Chambers here too.

ITV and Joe Public weren't happy with the shite they were served up on that bill whatsoever. Even anecdotally I've had plenty of people saying to me that they were ashamed to be a boxing fan that night because Mr and Mrs Public were saying "What a bloody farce that was" and they couldn't defend the sport.

I agree with you generally jomo in that for much of the time, the knowledgeable minority are ignored - but in this case, I'd say most people knew the score.

[Captain Hook]

Very true Mr Chambers...

[Kilburn]

I don't know if Ricky Hatton doesn't see the bigger picture or what, or I'm just being unreasonable, but if you ask me it is a real shame that when he's exposed to the national terrestrial audience it's only when he's ballooned in weight and is busy taking the piss out of himself on The Weakest Link or Jonathan Ross. Then with a big fight like this coming up and there is some very impressive looking training footage on offer, a chance for people to at least get an idea of just what a serious athlete and competitor Hatton is when he is out of the pub, it's hidden away on channel 429.

He could do so much more if a wider audience saw the fighter rather than the pie eater. I wonder sometimes that maybe it is enough for Hatton that the whole of Manchester knows the real score and is behind him. I've no doubt that his city will be "Setanta'd" up to the hilt this weekend.

[Chambers2]

I don't know if Ricky Hatton doesn't see the bigger picture or what, or I'm just being unreasonable, but if you ask me it is a real shame that when he's exposed to the national terrestrial audience it's only when he's ballooned in weight and is busy taking the piss out of himself on The Weakest Link or Jonathan Ross. Then with a big fight like this coming up and there is some very impressive looking training footage on offer, a chance for people to at least get an idea of just what a serious athlete and competitor Hatton is when he is out of the pub, it's hidden away on channel 429.

He could do so much more if a wider audience saw the fighter rather than the pie eater. I wonder sometimes that maybe it is enough for Hatton that the whole of Manchester knows the real score and is behind him. I've no doubt that his city will be "Setanta'd" up to the hilt this weekend.

There'll probably be 30,000 scallies round one TV

[leforge]

lol

[Carbo]

Ways To Sort Out Boxing:

1. Only WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO are allowed to stage fights in this country. (In an ideal world, I'd get shot of the lot, but it ain't going to happen just yet, so let's be realistic). Any fighter who fights in a title match in Britain sanctioned by any other body but these 4 is banned for a set length of time, and his promoter is, too. And these organizations can not stage interim, youth, junior, inter-continental fights here, either. A holder of any other title is banned fom defending it in this country.

2. One person (or company) should not be permitted to both promote and manage a fighter. The conflict of interests that is the joint role of promoter and managers should end now. Let managers get on with making their fighters the most money for the least risk, and building a career, and let promoters get on with bringing together the most exciting fights and making as much money as possible for themselves.

3. Now that we've gotten rid of the lesser alphabet belts and intercontinental/youth affairs, boxers will be forced to progress through the good-old Area-English-British-Commonwealth-European route. But I read the matches the stewards come up with all the time, and there’s some crackers in ever press release, but how often do they come off??
I’m sick of all the pull outs, because they damage the credibility of the sport. We need to close the avoidance loopholes by making sure that fighters who sidestep quality matches and fan-friendly matches are punished.

Any fighter who has been called by the stewards to defend or challenge for a title, or take part in a box-off or elimination tournament should be made to do so. Sanctions should be brought against those fighters who pull out, and even injuries should be independently tested and a fighter banned from taking another fight (apart from the mandated one) for 60 days. It’s a little like if a football club says (Ryan Giggs, for example) can’t play for Wales because he’s injured, he can’t play any club match for 5 days after the date of the international.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

I think you've answered your own question there sunshine.

If the board refused to sanction it, SN would have had them by the bollocks, if the guy is ranked in the top 15, I am willing to bet it would satisfy the board's own criteria, and save him failing his medical, or some irregularity with his visa, there is little they could do.

The problem is that it is not easy to define a total mistmatch, it's not something that is easy to quantify, the best example could be their win loss ratio, but then you could have a guy who was 22-5, but had only ever won against complete palookas, and whose five losses came against club fighters, would this guy be permitted to fight for a title?

You can already see the difficulties, using rankings as a criteria is not perfect, but what criteria DO you use.

[Chambers2]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

I think you've answered your own question there sunshine.

If the board refused to sanction it, SN would have had them by the bollocks, if the guy is ranked in the top 15, I am willing to bet it would satisfy the board's own criteria, and save him failing his medical, or some irregularity with his visa, there is little they could do.

The problem is that it is not easy to define a total mistmatch, it's not something that is easy to quantify, the best example could be their win loss ratio, but then you could have a guy who was 22-5, but had only ever won against complete palookas, and whose five losses came against club fighters, would this guy be permitted to fight for a title?

You can already see the difficulties, using rankings as a criteria is not perfect, but what criteria DO you use.

The main problem in this instance is that the governing bodies rankings can't be trusted and it looks as though promoters can influence them....how else can Gunn and numerous others get such high rankings

[1southpaw]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge
for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

is there any one who could write a letter to the bbbc and ask them whats going on and post it on this site i wounder what they would have to say ????

[boxingchat]

Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Code: Select all

Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing. At least Gunn protested and tried to come out fighting so that's one up on the aforementioned. How would British Champion, John Keeton go with Gunn as food for thought?

The Board were, and are about to be again, affiliated to these organisations which means they have people on the committees that do the rankings so don't paint them whiter than white.

Mismatches will happen and do happen, albeit in a less dramatic way, in every sport around and quality control could be tighter agreed, but for God's sake Bobby Gunn was just one of many that you could name over the years but remember he was NOT the main event on this show and TV, I assume, paid nothing extra for it and the corwd at the venue would have come to see Calzaghe with or without Enzo on the card.

As for titles, TV allowed the influx of these titles, no one else and when it suits, especially SKy, they drop them. Is this fair on the fighters?

ITV Allowed the WBU, via Shea Neary's fights, and Sky followed suit with WBU and IBO and even WBF titles. Barry Hearn started the trend years ago and if TV suffered and ultimately paid and billed these fights as 'World' Titles' other Promoters and their fighters were bound to follow suit. Fighters want to fight for titles it's as simple as that and TV demands a bauble at the end of a fight, why?I don't know.

The so-called big three of the WBC/IBF and WBA have all been involved in ratings manipulation and corruption scandals over the years and as a result of these scandals the 'good guys' or 'opportunists' in the organizations fragmented to form the others. The WBA splintered, to form the WBC and the WBC splintered, to form the IBF. The IBF and WBO splintered to give us the WBU and the WBU splintered to give us the IBO.   

For me none is better than the others and the only resson the WBC, WBA and IBF hold the respect they do is that they have been around the longest. Fighters ame titles and not the othger way around. Benn/Eubank mad ethe WBO and Ali, Leonard etc the WBC. Tyson made the IBF big and Hatton the WBU, you get my point. In fact, for those of you who have been in the game longer than five minutes, I remember a time when the IBF were frowned upon and then the WBO but now the IBF are considered okay, despite their former leader being found GUILTY of corruption and the FBI overseeing their operation to this very day. 

There is not one organisation, or a person involved at some time, who has not been involved in a scandal. The same probably goes for every sport and every company in the World.

One things for sure, Football, Ice-Skating, Cycling, Cricket, the Sports of Kings - Horse racing and even the Olypics have been corrupted of late yet Boxing, despite mismatches has remained relatively clean.

Nigel Benn V Eubank was not the first WBO fight in this country to be televised that was Chris Pyatt V John David Jackson, a good fight and a quality match in anyone's book.

Every organisation has sanctioned  a fair share of mismatches over the years and probably the WBC and WBA more than most. However, on a positive note, list how many great and memorable fights each has sanctioned and this will far out weigh the bad ones.

Why does everyone on here constantly knock the sport. What about the great fights Warren has put on over the past 30 odd years, yet Bobby Gunn is the stick he is constantly beaten with, not Benn V McClellan or paying £400k out for brain scans, saving the Board and raising £300k for watson (Who he never, ever promoted) and, not to mention, raising over two million pounds for charity through boxing...Bobby 'bloody' Gunn is still the yardstick!

Still as long as Tommy 'Tightwad' Gilmour and Jane 'fornicate the Board' Couch get MBE's then all in the garden is rosy. Where's an MBE for Eubank, for Benn for Peter Buckly and a knighthood for Lennox Lewis and Frank Bruno in all this? Someone should investigate that organisation!

In conclusion of my Friday rant, it's easy to throw mud at the new guys, the Promoters and the TV companies, but stop and think for a minute. What about the fighters? Don't you think they get a major say in who they fight? Most of them turn down more opponents than they fight, I know that for a fact. The quality control should start there and how refreshing it would be for a fighter to say " I am not fighting him he's not good enough, I can't take all this money for that?"

Would Hatton be taking these 'super' fights if he were not already a multi-millionaire through the WBU title he was happy to defend for nearly £8m?

The Fighters and the fighters alone should be protecting their own sport and not subscribing to the self-preservation society.

Most if not all Promoters have egos and they would like nothing better than to stage super fights week in week out but sadly the fighters are not of the same frame of mind.

The promoters want the big fights, the TV companies want the big fights as do the fans and the commissions.  What makes more money for everyone big fights or little fights?

Sadly, until the fighters take a reality check then this decline will continue and the Bobby Gunns of this world will rise again.

Here endeth the lesson!  :TU:

[Goz]

Good reply Boxingchat, if you replied that constructively more often I think people would be less 'beastly' to you!

One minor issue, I think Larry Holmes made the IBF title into something on the world stage, not Mike Tyson.

[jamesmcdonnell]

All good points BC, but surely you would acknowledge that the sanctioning bodies do not really control the sport per se. The sport is really run by the promoters.

To suggest that the promoters have no influence in fighters rankings and getting them title shots is a little disingenuous isn't it? I don't know anything about the Bobby Gunn situation in particular, but it's not unheard of for a figther who is about to get a title shot to suddenly shoot up the rankings in order to facilitate this.

Of course, the sanctioning bodies are complicit in this, but I think this just serves to illustrate my point, which is that the people who front the money, the promoters and TV networks, are the ones running the sport, the sanctioning bodies merely do the administration, and in reality, the sport could function if not without them, then with other bodies doing their function.

With regard to fighters, I do think that modern fighters don't have the same "Let's see whose got the biggest bollocks" mentality. Fighters get on a gravy boat, and paddle their way along the juicy meat-stock river of title defences whilst avoiding the eddies surrounding the dangerously rocky roast potatoes and yorkshire puddings.

Ok so I'm milking the analogy, but you get my drift.

[Kilburn]

Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing.

That is a crap comparison. Nobody would have complained had Enzo bleen blowing out the likes of Gurov and Bonin, at least they had proven something and could represent a test. But Bobby Gunn? It was indefensible garbage.

[boxingchat]

Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing.

That is a crap comparison. Nobody would have complained had Enzo bleen blowing out the likes of Gurov and Bonin, at least they had proven something and could represent a test. But Bobby Gunn? It was indefensible garbage.

Do you think Bonin was brought to the UK by Audley Harriosn for his desire to win and dangerous skills?

[Coco]

Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing.

Are you trying to say you only realised how bad Gunn was untill after the event??

Anyone could have told you that this would not have gone past a round.

It is amazing how obscure fighters creep into the rankings and then get a shot.

It does lead people to believe that these rankings are manipulated.