White Collar - City Boxer - Park Lane

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 12 Jul 2007, 07:48

Anyone going to the White Collar show tonight at Hilton, Park Lane?

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 12 Jul 2007, 11:44

I'll be there. I might even be boxing.

One of the boxers was looking like he'd wuss out this week so i offered to stand in if necessary.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 12 Jul 2007, 12:23

Bloody hell Jon. I'm sure the opponent will be chuffed if that happens... not.

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 12 Jul 2007, 15:13

Well the guy fought and won by first round stoppage. So i was surplus to requirements.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 12 Jul 2007, 15:16

How did "Harvey" get on?

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 12 Jul 2007, 15:37

I only caught the end as i was on the phone but he lost on points.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 13 Jul 2007, 03:15

How did the first bout go, an acquintance of mine Mike Lawrence fought. He was first up.

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 13 Jul 2007, 04:24

Ah, Mike Lawrence. That would be the first round stoppage victim...

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 13 Jul 2007, 04:57

Really? Or are you doing the obvious wind up?

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 13 Jul 2007, 06:08

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 13 Jul 2007, 09:46

No straight up. A right hook finished him off apparently.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 13 Jul 2007, 09:51

You didn't see it then?

chris s · Post by **chris s** » 13 Jul 2007, 09:58

fornicating ridiculous white collar boxing, just unlicensed stuff under another guise.

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 13 Jul 2007, 10:14

The way Cityboxer does it's licenced and safer/better controlled than amateur boxing.
You could have easily found that out yourself if you were genuinely interested knowing what it's really about though.

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 13 Jul 2007, 10:15

DavidPayne wrote:You didn't see it then?

No, i was outside on a long phonecall so i missed it. It was filmed though. I'll find out when that will be made available later.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 13 Jul 2007, 10:32

Please.

1southpaw · Post by **1southpaw** » 13 Jul 2007, 12:11

to be honest it's all a load of poo you say it's a better set up than the amatures (where is the proof) how can it be when you've got a load of old men who have never put a glove on fighting each other people seen to think boxing is easy all's that is going to happen is someone is going to get hurt then the ban boxing bregade will be out in force to be honest id rather watch a punch up in my local :x

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 13 Jul 2007, 12:36

1southpaw wrote:to be honest it's all a load of poo you say it's a better set up than the amatures (where is the proof) how can it be when you've got a load of old men who have never put a glove on fighting each other people seen to think boxing is easy all's that is going to happen is someone is going to get hurt then the ban boxing bregade will be out in force to be honest id rather watch a punch up in my local :x

The proof is in requirements of the BWCBF such as scans for boxers over 35, particulars of the protection equipment, front loaded 16oz gloves, no bouts before a minimum period of supervised training & assessment, in-gym matchmaking only etc.

But if you already know it's a load of poo i'm not telling you anything that you don't know.
Please tell me how old these old men actually are?

Check your facts (and your spelling) & get back to me.

chris s · Post by **chris s** » 14 Jul 2007, 02:40

Shirow wrote:
1southpaw wrote:to be honest it's all a load of poo you say it's a better set up than the amatures (where is the proof) how can it be when you've got a load of old men who have never put a glove on fighting each other people seen to think boxing is easy all's that is going to happen is someone is going to get hurt then the ban boxing bregade will be out in force to be honest id rather watch a punch up in my local :x
The proof is in requirements of the BWCBF such as scans for boxers over 35, particulars of the protection equipment, front loaded 16oz gloves, no bouts before a minimum period of supervised training & assessment, in-gym matchmaking only etc.

But if you already know it's a load of poo i'm not telling you anything that you don't know.
Please tell me how old these old men actually are?

Check your facts (and your spelling) & get back to me.

Can be as controlled as you like, but these guys have no ability. They should stick to going to non contact classes and looking up the totty.

It is a way of marketing unlicensed boxing, and city box making dough from a dinner show crowd of knobs who wouldn't know a fish hook from a left hook cheering on the toughest guy in then office.

If these unlicensed boxers are so good get proper licences from the ABA or BBB of C or failing that have a go against former pros on the unlicensed circuit.

Is it true they pay to fight and have to cough up a load of money before fighting?

Not looking for a rumble Shirow, I'm just giving my honest opinion as you will give yours mate.

el_grande_mauro_mina · Post by **el_grande_mauro_mina** » 14 Jul 2007, 04:14

chris s wrote:
Shirow wrote:
1southpaw wrote:to be honest it's all a load of poo you say it's a better set up than the amatures (where is the proof) how can it be when you've got a load of old men who have never put a glove on fighting each other people seen to think boxing is easy all's that is going to happen is someone is going to get hurt then the ban boxing bregade will be out in force to be honest id rather watch a punch up in my local :x
The proof is in requirements of the BWCBF such as scans for boxers over 35, particulars of the protection equipment, front loaded 16oz gloves, no bouts before a minimum period of supervised training & assessment, in-gym matchmaking only etc.

But if you already know it's a load of poo i'm not telling you anything that you don't know.
Please tell me how old these old men actually are?

Check your facts (and your spelling) & get back to me.

Can be as controlled as you like, but these guys have no ability. They should stick to going to non contact classes and looking up the totty.

It is a way of marketing unlicensed boxing, and city box making dough from a dinner show crowd of knobs who wouldn't know a fish hook from a left hook cheering on the toughest guy in then office.

If these unlicensed boxers are so good get proper licences from the ABA or BBB of C or failing that have a go against former pros on the unlicensed circuit.

Is it true they pay to fight and have to cough up a load of money before fighting?

Not looking for a rumble Shirow, I'm just giving my honest opinion as you will give yours mate.

Totally agree! Unfortuneatley though. We have a myopic ABA and IABA that has an age limitof 34 which is ridiculous in todays climate. As for the old men part, if they are fit and pass the medical the young lads have to pass then whats the problem?

chris s · Post by **chris s** » 14 Jul 2007, 04:23

Ageism is a problem in this country and the amateur rules are daft.

The younger kids could also learn from the older fellas over a whole heap of things, not just about boxing.

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 14 Jul 2007, 04:55

chris s wrote:Can be as controlled as you like, but these guys have no ability. They should stick to going to non contact classes and looking up the totty.

It is a way of marketing unlicensed boxing, and city box making dough from a dinner show crowd of knobs who wouldn't know a fish hook from a left hook cheering on the toughest guy in then office.

If these unlicensed boxers are so good get proper licences from the ABA or BBB of C or failing that have a go against former pros on the unlicensed circuit.

Is it true they pay to fight and have to cough up a load of money before fighting?

Not looking for a rumble Shirow, I'm just giving my honest opinion as you will give yours mate.

No problem i welcome the discussion.

Well i've been a white collar boxer for over three years and i dispute that i have no ability - maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on that one but i'm not sure what you're basing that fact on.
Some white collar boxers have more ability than others and that IS the reason it is controlled. I've seen anumber of junior club amateur bouts and very few match the standard of the average Cityboxer white collar show. So should they be barred from competing too.

Bear in mind that a good few of the members lapsed amateur boxers who drifted away from the sport in their teens and have come back 10- 15 years later.

Turning pro is not a consideration for these guys and they don't have the time or dedication to regularly attend an abc they may only want to fight twice a year. Some don't want to fight at all and just spar occasionally to make their training more interesting.

You can use the same reasoning for any recreational sport. Take rugby, as it cause more serious injuries per capita than boxing, should that be banned from schools and reserved for clubs where only the most talented get to play?
In response to your 'if they're so good why don't they go amateur' question. I didn't think that your boxing skills were a factor in getting your aba card. I am wrong about that?

And no, you don't have to pay to fight but the more tickets you'll sell the more likely to get on a bill.

I don't know where it comes from but there always seems to be a lot of animosity from people who have never been to a show.

1southpaw · Post by **1southpaw** » 14 Jul 2007, 06:35

Shirow wrote:
1southpaw wrote:to be honest it's all a load of poo you say it's a better set up than the amatures (where is the proof) how can it be when you've got a load of old men who have never put a glove on fighting each other people seen to think boxing is easy all's that is going to happen is someone is going to get hurt then the ban boxing bregade will be out in force to be honest id rather watch a punch up in my local :x

The proof is in requirements of the BWCBF such as scans for boxers over 35, particulars of the protection equipment, front loaded 16oz gloves, no bouts before a minimum period of supervised training & assessment, in-gym matchmaking only etc.

But if you already know it's a load of poo i'm not telling you anything that you don't know.

Please tell me how old these old men actually are?

Check your facts (and your spelling) & get back to me.

there's no point getting out your pram over this but ive seen a lot of these fellas being trained by so called trainers for these shows and from what ive seen someone's gonna get hurt it dosen't matter if you use a 16oz glove or 10oz glove it's all about being able to take a shot ive seen pro's get put over by 16oz gloves in sparring when i used to do a bit i had my nose broke in sparring by 16oz gloves so dont try to tell me that it's safer for people to take punches to the head if it lands propperly it's going to do some damage

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 14 Jul 2007, 06:54

I fail to see why, with correct match making, a white collar boxer landing a punch on another white collar boxer is more dangerous than a pro boxer landing on another pro boxer.

1southpaw · Post by **1southpaw** » 14 Jul 2007, 07:24

Kilburn wrote:I fail to see why, with correct match making, a white collar boxer landing a punch on another white collar boxer is more dangerous than a pro boxer landing on another pro boxer.

i understand what your saying but at the end of the day i dont like this white coller boxing because there's people involved in it that aint got a clue about boxing and to me thats what makes it more dangerous and it seemed to me that the people involved thought it was some sort of joke and dont train properly id love to spar some of these people to let them know what it's realy like to get a punch on the nose