BoxRec

In foresight I see boxing been driven down the pan, then coming back again as a better sport.

The funny thing I find is that boxing actually evolved from something similar to what MMA is now (freestyle brawling sort of thing) and boxing developed from there and held the spot as one of the top sports in the world.

King Geedorah wrote:Blimey. Did I post all of that. I feel comfortable with it at the minute but won’t be able to resist deleting the entire thing later today.

In short: I’ve just been swimming through warm sewage. I love it.

dont delete it, great post, agree with all of it.

gobbles wrote:

earsjohn wrote:A suicide mission is a bit strong, but Boxing, as a sport, consistently suffers from a lack of independent oversight.

As for the comparison with UFC, I simply don't get it. UFC is a promotion/vehicle for MMA rather than a Sport in its own right. Much like FWP or Golden Boy aren't Boxing, just parts of the whole.

To compare the slickness, consistency and high production values of UFC with some last minute changes forced by injury (to Bellew) and over-ambition (on the part of Cook) to a regular, small-hall show is a little unfair. I don't know a great deal about UFC, but i'd compare their events with the big boxing nights - the Mag 7, the Haye-Harrisons (bad example in terms of fight quality, but comparable in terms of an event), Pac-Margarito. What does UFC do in terms of the smaller shows? The week in-week out fights that appear on SFN on Sky or Primetime, the cards that provide opportunities for young up and coming fighters to learn the trade, the fights that keep the likes of Johnny Greaves and the other worthy journeyman in business? I simply don't see how one can validly compare Boxing as a whole sport with UFC, which is a privately run promotion.

Absolutely correct. The only reason people compare the two is because they are suckered in by years and years of aggressive anti-boxing propaganda put out by the UFC. If allegedly controlled every boxer in the UK, he would have no problem making every match he wanted and would also be able to have boxers on standby as substitutes.

Earsjohn, you make some really good points, and I should clarify my position, as contrary to what Gobbles thinks, it's in no way influenced by anti-boxing propaganda. I believe it is perfectly valid to compare UFC with the 'big' boxing shows in the following ways:
1) The consumer experience - one is frequently beset by issues ranging from lack of crowd control through to lack of investment in facilities for paying customers. The other by contrast has clearly been willing to invest in every facet of the 'experience'
2) The product - As I touched on, you tend to get what you pay for with UFC i.e. the bill bar the odd genuine injury remains consistent with your expectation (and what you'd been sold in the first place). By contrast, some of the boxing bills bring to mind street scams where you're offered a product and buy it only to get home and unpack it to find it's not what you paid for! You mention Bellew and Gavin as if they're exceptions to the rule, but there have been multiple similar incidents with regards to the big shows, to the point where most fans have reached the point where they're default 'setting' is sceptical with regards to whether a bill will go ahead as first announced... and more often than not they're proved right.
3) Marketing - whether it's leveraging social media or merchandising, the UFC is light years ahead of boxing with the result that it generates a far higher level of engagement with customers and builds their loyalty through treating them like they have value rather than something they've stepped in.

I completely understand what you're saying about the businesses operating differently guys and I'm not trying to dispute that element. In fact, if it's easier for you to understand where I'm coming from, delete UFC and insert an alternative sport, as in most cases they are simply run better and don't treat the paying punter (whether that's in person or through pay TV) with an attitude that at times borders on contempt.

Deserter wrote:

gobbles wrote:

earsjohn wrote:A suicide mission is a bit strong, but Boxing, as a sport, consistently suffers from a lack of independent oversight.

As for the comparison with UFC, I simply don't get it. UFC is a promotion/vehicle for MMA rather than a Sport in its own right. Much like FWP or Golden Boy aren't Boxing, just parts of the whole.

To compare the slickness, consistency and high production values of UFC with some last minute changes forced by injury (to Bellew) and over-ambition (on the part of Cook) to a regular, small-hall show is a little unfair. I don't know a great deal about UFC, but i'd compare their events with the big boxing nights - the Mag 7, the Haye-Harrisons (bad example in terms of fight quality, but comparable in terms of an event), Pac-Margarito. What does UFC do in terms of the smaller shows? The week in-week out fights that appear on SFN on Sky or Primetime, the cards that provide opportunities for young up and coming fighters to learn the trade, the fights that keep the likes of Johnny Greaves and the other worthy journeyman in business? I simply don't see how one can validly compare Boxing as a whole sport with UFC, which is a privately run promotion.

Absolutely correct. The only reason people compare the two is because they are suckered in by years and years of aggressive anti-boxing propaganda put out by the UFC. If allegedly controlled every boxer in the UK, he would have no problem making every match he wanted and would also be able to have boxers on standby as substitutes.

Earsjohn, you make some really good points, and I should clarify my position, as contrary to what Gobbles thinks, it's in no way influenced by anti-boxing propaganda. I believe it is perfectly valid to compare UFC with the 'big' boxing shows in the following ways:
1) The consumer experience - one is frequently beset by issues ranging from lack of crowd control through to lack of investment in facilities for paying customers. The other by contrast has clearly been willing to invest in every facet of the 'experience'
2) The product - As I touched on, you tend to get what you pay for with UFC i.e. the bill bar the odd genuine injury remains consistent with your expectation (and what you'd been sold in the first place). By contrast, some of the boxing bills bring to mind street scams where you're offered a product and buy it only to get home and unpack it to find it's not what you paid for! You mention Bellew and Gavin as if they're exceptions to the rule, but there have been multiple similar incidents with regards to the big shows, to the point where most fans have reached the point where they're default 'setting' is sceptical with regards to whether a bill will go ahead as first announced... and more often than not they're proved right.
3) Marketing - whether it's leveraging social media or merchandising, the UFC is light years ahead of boxing with the result that it generates a far higher level of engagement with customers and builds their loyalty through treating them like they have value rather than something they've stepped in.

I completely understand what you're saying about the businesses operating differently guys and I'm not trying to dispute that element. In fact, if it's easier for you to understand where I'm coming from, delete UFC and insert an alternative sport, as in most cases they are simply run better and don't treat the paying punter (whether that's in person or through pay TV) with an attitude that at times borders on contempt.

Don't get me wrong, I entirely get where you are coming from with regard to Boxing needing to sharpen up its act, but I just feel its not right comparing the entire sport of boxing with a single, privately run, promotional outfit such as UFC.

Your points regarding the learnings boxing could take from UFC are very valid, however. To build on your point, it's baffled me for years why FWP don't have an official username for a board such as this.

Boxing fans are a relatively tight-knit and loyal community - its that type of sport. A forum, such as Boxrec (I personally don't use other fora), contains a vibrant community of hardcore fans, who simply by their presence represent a significant number of paying fans whether that be at the venue or Sky subscribers. While there will always be idiots, the large majority of posts and threads are genuine boxing fans discussing genuine boxing issues. The number of boxers who post here is surely testament to the level of respect shown and any criticism, when provided constructively, appears appreciated. At a time when our national sport has become so sullied by footballers becoming so detached from the working class background of the vast majority of its fans, the ability to connect with boxers in a real, albeit virtual, manner is a real plus. But, the number one promoter in the UK, possibly Europe has no presence here other than an unofficial spokesman (Boxchat?) who appears to contribute little of value other than to denigrate the actions of rival promoters. At best it's unprofessional. Compare this approach with the likes of ftmpress and HS Press - they provide detail and content, and while they don't generally enter into the debates, they do seem to recognise that engaging with the Boxrec community is necessary for their promotions. I'm sure I read/saw somewhere that one of the top promoters doesn't like forums because they're full of criticism and irrelevant debate. When you consider some of the regular contributors - Frankie Gavin, Tony Bellew, Paul Smith, Glyn Leach, Danny Flexen, Steve Bunce, Ed Robinson - that's quite a statement!

Times have changed and news is now much more immediate. The advent of online reporting and especially Twitter means that there is no excuse for mis- or non-information. It was the great Nas who once said "Knowledge is Power, mutha fockers" and the balance has shifted from the providers (Promoters) to the Consumers (us). To treat us fans, the ones who provide the money, as fools who can be kept in the dark because "that's how it always has been" is to ignore the changes that have taken place in the wider world. Times have moved on, boxing, at the very least, needs to catch up.

earsjohn wrote:Don't get me wrong, I entirely get where you are coming from with regard to Boxing needing to sharpen up its act, but I just feel its not right comparing the entire sport of boxing with a single, privately run, promotional outfit such as UFC.

Your points regarding the learnings boxing could take from UFC are very valid, however. To build on your point, it's baffled me for years why FWP don't have an official username for a board such as this.

Boxing fans are a relatively tight-knit and loyal community - its that type of sport. A forum, such as Boxrec (I personally don't use other fora), contains a vibrant community of hardcore fans, who simply by their presence represent a significant number of paying fans whether that be at the venue or Sky subscribers. While there will always be idiots, the large majority of posts and threads are genuine boxing fans discussing genuine boxing issues. The number of boxers who post here is surely testament to the level of respect shown and any criticism, when provided constructively, appears appreciated. At a time when our national sport has become so sullied by footballers becoming so detached from the working class background of the vast majority of its fans, the ability to connect with boxers in a real, albeit virtual, manner is a real plus. But, the number one promoter in the UK, possibly Europe has no presence here other than an unofficial spokesman (Boxchat?) who appears to contribute little of value other than to denigrate the actions of rival promoters. At best it's unprofessional. Compare this approach with the likes of ftmpress and HS Press - they provide detail and content, and while they don't generally enter into the debates, they do seem to recognise that engaging with the Boxrec community is necessary for their promotions. I'm sure I read/saw somewhere that one of the top promoters doesn't like forums because they're full of criticism and irrelevant debate. When you consider some of the regular contributors - Frankie Gavin, Tony Bellew, Paul Smith, Glyn Leach, Danny Flexen, Steve Bunce, Ed Robinson - that's quite a statement!

Times have changed and news is now much more immediate. The advent of online reporting and especially Twitter means that there is no excuse for mis- or non-information. It was the great Nas who once said "Knowledge is Power, mutha fockers" and the balance has shifted from the providers (Promoters) to the Consumers (us). To treat us fans, the ones who provide the money, as fools who can be kept in the dark because "that's how it always has been" is to ignore the changes that have taken place in the wider world. Times have moved on, boxing, at the very least, needs to catch up.

Great post

Deserter wrote: Sorry, as I know I'm venting, but it's just this type of self-inflicted damage being done to the sport is so bloody painful to watch.

I have very little interest in boxing now, due to so few decent match ups. Haye V that other fella was perhaps the icing on the cake of shit.

there have been some intertesting one- Smith V De Gale, and Khans fight, but occassionally decent matches like that are not enough to carry a sport.

I check the boxrec schedule, months in advance, and very little grabs me.

where is the structure :!:

bbbofc need a rival :!:

King Geedorah wrote:

hurlock wrote:where is the structure :!:

bbbofc need a rival :!:

Yeah, y'll must have forgot how much of a positive impact the introduction of the IBF, WBO, WBU and IBO had on the behaviour of the WBC and WBA..

Is that true or a joke?Genuine question by the way not sarcasm :)

lefty wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:

hurlock wrote:where is the structure :!:

bbbofc need a rival :!:

Yeah, y'll must have forgot how much of a positive impact the introduction of the IBF, WBO, WBU and IBO had on the behaviour of the WBC and WBA..

Is that true or a joke?Genuine question by the way not sarcasm :)

i think he's saying it will dilute it even more.

i think an organization or league were fighters are contracted would be great & would show serious competitors.

hurlock wrote:

lefty wrote:

King Geedorah wrote: Yeah, y'll must have forgot how much of a positive impact the introduction of the IBF, WBO, WBU and IBO had on the behaviour of the WBC and WBA..

Is that true or a joke?Genuine question by the way not sarcasm :)

i think he's saying it will dilute it even more.

i think an organization or league were fighters are contracted would be great & would show serious competitors.

I think it would rid us of the few remaining decent match-ups we get. Groves would work for one, Degale the other.... Fury for one, Price the other... all it would start is a nationalised version of alphabet titles A.K.A "a filthy little sh*t stain on a sport"

Boxing doesn't need the "big names" for everything.

Sean Hughes V Esham Pickering was a great night's entertainment, for example. That sort of fight and show is all we need on a regualr basis.

funtime wrote:

hurlock wrote:

lefty wrote: Is that true or a joke?Genuine question by the way not sarcasm :)

i think he's saying it will dilute it even more.

i think an organization or league were fighters are contracted would be great & would show serious competitors.

I think it would rid us of the few remaining decent match-ups we get. Groves would work for one, Degale the other.... Fury for one, Price the other... all it would start is a nationalised version of alphabet titles A.K.A "a filthy little sh*t stain on a sport"

but isnt that the case now??? or rarely do you see a promotor match his own.

Boxing is like a fat ugly girlfriend that openly cheats on you,farts in bed and mocks the size of your penis but you stick with her because you hope things will get better, because you love her and always will no matter how bad it gets.