BoxRec

Adamj1987 wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Should the BBBC have one set of rules for celebs and one for the man on the street?

100% YES. Joe Public can do the sport no harm but a celeb can do massive damage.

can i just ask what where your thoughts on the Gervais Vs Bovey fight (i know it was an am fight and they both had limited experience so its not the same scenario) but it was on ITV prime time and 2 middle aged men could of hurt each other

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Should the BBBC have one set of rules for celebs and one for the man on the street?

100% YES. Joe Public can do the sport no harm but a celeb can do massive damage.

Lenny wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Should the BBBC have one set of rules for celebs and one for the man on the street?

100% YES. Joe Public can do the sport no harm but a celeb can do massive damage.

Is harm to the sport more important that harm to Joe Public's brain then?

Adamj1987 wrote:Lenny

1 i didn't say that it shouldn't be shown.
2. just because theres a low chance don't mean there wasn't a chance of it happening
3. celebs are open to a wider audience than most championship level boxers. i will guarantee more people have heard of gervais (even at the time the office was popular) and flintoff so a bigger audience will see if if something bad does happen

Lenny wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:Lenny

1 i didn't say that it shouldn't be shown.
2. just because theres a low chance don't mean there wasn't a chance of it happening
3. celebs are open to a wider audience than most championship level boxers. i will guarantee more people have heard of gervais (even at the time the office was popular) and flintoff so a bigger audience will see if if something bad does happen

I know you didn't, it was more aimed at Glyn opinion that the public seeing Flintoff hurt would damage boxing and I was saying there is more chance of Khan getting hurt in the near future which would do boxing just as much harm. Do we want the return of popular boxers on primetime terrestial channels again or not just in case another Watson happens?

Please don't think I am defending the Andrew Flintoff fight though, but I'm against it more for the reasons Terry gave

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Glyn,

What make Freddie any more or less likely to get 'McClellan'd' than any other fighters?

McClellan, Watson, Deuk-Koo Kim and a lot of others were involved in long brutal fights. I can't remember a 4 rounder having the same effect.

He's no more or less likely. The point is he isn't a boxer, he's a celeb having a dabble. If it happens to a man whose livelihood depends on it, fine - so to speak. But he's someone who appears to be doing it for other reasons and who could drop the sport in a shitload of trouble if he gets hurt. That's my point; potential damage to the sport. Why risk it for reality TV culture?

I have a lot of respect for you Glyn, but you avoided my McClellan, Watson, Deuk-Koo Kim.

I would counter your reality TV point, with it potentially bringing more fans to the sport.

Adamj1987 wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Should the BBBC have one set of rules for celebs and one for the man on the street?

100% YES. Joe Public can do the sport no harm but a celeb can do massive damage.

can i just ask what where your thoughts on the Gervais Vs Bovey fight (i know it was an am fight and they both had limited experience so its not the same scenario) but it was on ITV prime time and 2 middle aged men could of hurt each other

Lenny wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Should the BBBC have one set of rules for celebs and one for the man on the street?

100% YES. Joe Public can do the sport no harm but a celeb can do massive damage.

Is harm to the sport more important that harm to Joe Public's brain then?

banjo wrote:One point I'd like to make regarding people getting "seriously hurt" etc. etc. Do people seriously think that's a factor as to why TV companies drop boxing from their schedules? I only ask this because in October last year on BBC, millions of people watched Marco Simoncelli die in one of the most horrific accidents I've ever seen, did that affect the BBC's stance on MotoGP? Nope. ITV broadcast the Isle of Man TT which has the highest mortality rate of any sporting event on the planet yet they've just signed for the rights for another 5 years. Yet people are of the opinion that they'll drop boxing because somebody ends up in a wheelchair? I'm not so sure, I reckon its more to do with money to be honest.

banjo wrote:One point I'd like to make regarding people getting "seriously hurt" etc. etc. Do people seriously think that's a factor as to why TV companies drop boxing from their schedules? I only ask this because in October last year on BBC, millions of people watched Marco Simoncelli die in one of the most horrific accidents I've ever seen, did that affect the BBC's stance on MotoGP? Nope. ITV broadcast the Isle of Man TT which has the highest mortality rate of any sporting event on the planet yet they've just signed for the rights for another 5 years. Yet people are of the opinion that they'll drop boxing because somebody ends up in a wheelchair? I'm not so sure, I reckon its more to do with money to be honest.

Glyn Leach wrote:
Didn't like it, or the involvement of licence holders. But at the end of the day it was an unlicensed fight

Lenny wrote:

banjo wrote:One point I'd like to make regarding people getting "seriously hurt" etc. etc. Do people seriously think that's a factor as to why TV companies drop boxing from their schedules? I only ask this because in October last year on BBC, millions of people watched Marco Simoncelli die in one of the most horrific accidents I've ever seen, did that affect the BBC's stance on MotoGP? Nope. ITV broadcast the Isle of Man TT which has the highest mortality rate of any sporting event on the planet yet they've just signed for the rights for another 5 years. Yet people are of the opinion that they'll drop boxing because somebody ends up in a wheelchair? I'm not so sure, I reckon its more to do with money to be honest.

A massive percentage of online viewers closed their streams once Felix Baumgartner's parachute had opened. They love that disaster shiit

J wrote:god there is some bollox being spouted here.

whats the diffeence if flintoff has got himself in shape between him and curtis taking to boxing, or even some of the white collar stuff.

fact is Flintoff hasnt always been out of shape and could bowl 18 overs off the bounce at 88-93 mph in his hey day.

That makes him fitter than most, ergo all this crap about him getitng brain damaged, he is less liekly than a shopworn boxer trying to make weight .

Like it or not he is was an international athlete, this means his body is conditioned to stress and strain if anythign he is less likely to get hurt than most.

J wrote:whats the diffeence if flintoff has got himself in shape between him and curtis taking to boxing, or even some of the white collar stuff.

stujones wrote:What exactly happened to Cracknell. He got sparked but got up eventually healthy. His Neural issues are linked to an accident not to his boxing.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:I can't go with this 'but there are so many worse things in boxing to worry about' 'argument'. Maybe there are, but not one of them could do the sport as much instant and irreparable damage as one soft celebrity drawing the general public into our world and getting seriously (by which I mean seriously) hurt.

Imagine that - Flintoff gets McClellan'd. God forbid that or anything similar should happen, but imagine the huge and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY damage that would be done to the sport on the back of such a horrific instance. Think about it and really effing imagine it. You want to compare that to boxing has too many sanctioning bodies? Dillian Whyte drank a dodgy tinny? Jesus effing Christ, get out more.

Fact is, a fighter could be fatally injured in a British ring and it would barely raise an eyebrow these days; the press would be suitably outraged for a few days and then move on. That would not be the case should some celebrity dabbler suffer a similar fate. We'd never hear the last of it and all the positive PR the sport got through the Olympics earlier this year would be flushed down the drain.

Please, don't make comments to the effect that 'but it could happen to anyone'. Of course it could, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that someone who can't fight a lick (but hey, he's got great BMI and can do loads of situps) is more at risk than the average competitor.

I find the comparison of Flintoff to Curtis Woodhouse ridiculous and insulting. Woodhouse was an active athlete from another sport who wanted a serious career in boxing, Flintoff is a retired athlete from another sport indulging a whim - odds on we'll never see him again after this.

I have absolutely nothing against Flintoff, who seems like an OK fella. But I find it incredibly short sighted that any boxing types could aid and abet such a potentially damaging daydream. I have massive respect for Barry McGuigan but he's disappointed me here. And as for the Board licensing it, yeah, a Cardiff license really should be regarded more highly than one from Luxembourg - nice work Charlie you rocket scientist.

Will I watch it? Of course I effing will, but only to check that Flintoff walks away from the ring unassisted afterwards and in the hope that he takes enough stick to discourage fellow fame hungry B-listers from giving that boxing thing a go - enough stick but no more, because the risk of further damage just doesn't bear thinking about. I'll watch it alright, but I won't be worrying about why so and so isn't a mandatory contender for such and such as I do.

You're such a drama queen Glyn!! What an over reaction to someone wanting a pro fight that is

You say he "Can't fight a lick", seen him spar much Glyn?

He's obviously gonna be matched carefully (1st fight especially), if the BBBC have seen him in action and say he's fit to fight as a pro, then he's fit to fight.

Obviously if Flintoff gets "McClellan'd" then it'll be bad for boxing, but lets face it it's a 1 in a million chance. The McGuigans and the referee will surely be over-cautious if anything, no way they're gonna let him go into a live and death battle in his first fight

COME ON FREDDIE!!!

If sparring was a guideline Sweet D would have been world champion. I'm genuinely baffled - and disappointed - by the inability to understand quite how dangerous this sport is that I'm seeing from some in this thread. All it takes is one punch. People in the street die from one punch all the time. Unless matey the opponent throws no punches at all, there is an element of danger.

But as I keep having to say, the issue is why risk it? Why risk a high profile disaster? Likelihood percentages don't matter at all. It CAN happen, that's the bottom line. Boxing doesn't benefit from Freddie having a fight, it only stands to lose, so why risk the standing of the sport for one celebrity's desire to expand his CV? I really don't get it.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Should the BBBC have one set of rules for celebs and one for the man on the street?

100% YES. Joe Public can do the sport no harm but a celeb can do massive damage.

rhino222 wrote:So.... where do we stand if by this time next year Flintoff is 5-0 (3) ........ will we all shut up?

Glyn Leach wrote:

J wrote:whats the diffeence if flintoff has got himself in shape between him and curtis taking to boxing, or even some of the white collar stuff.

Curtis was serious about having a career. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll be astounded if Flintoff 'becomes a boxer' — and I'll happily eat my words if he does. Fitness does not come into it. Gerald McClellan was fit, Paul Ingle was fit. And this is licensed boxing, not white collar. Licenses are there for a reason, to separate the professionals from the part-timers. When Martin Offiah fought the other day, when Cracknell got smashed, these were not licensed bouts and I have no problem with them. They were not 'real boxing'. Flintoff's fight will be.