BoxRec

dondada wrote:
If given a straight choice, would you prefer the BBBoC or a rival Board led by FW?

One hopes it doesn't come to that but, you know, hypothetically speaking...?

BBBofC all day, but we need to get rid of the geriatrics and people involved who only keep seats for financial motives. Take a look at the photo of them on the boards website. They look like dads army :)

The Insider wrote:

dondada wrote:
If given a straight choice, would you prefer the BBBoC or a rival Board led by FW?

One hopes it doesn't come to that but, you know, hypothetically speaking...?

BBBofC all day, but we need to get rid of the geriatrics and people involved who only keep seats for financial motives. Take a look at the photo of them on the boards website. They look like dads army :)

x2 changes are needed

The Insider wrote:

dondada wrote:
If given a straight choice, would you prefer the BBBoC or a rival Board led by FW?

One hopes it doesn't come to that but, you know, hypothetically speaking...?

BBBofC all day, but we need to get rid of the geriatrics and people involved who only keep seats for financial motives. Take a look at the photo of them on the boards website. They look like dads army :)

Insider me old pal, there can't be that much financial motive, surely. They don't get paid, as such. Oh aye, jollies and all that but I just don't believe they're making anything out of it.

Agree with the rest, mind.

dondada wrote:

gasman wrote:I have to agree with Warren, there is no defending the Board, they are incompetent and hypocritical and need to embrace a complete overhaul making them more competent, transparent and accountable. Whatever you think of Warren, there are few others in the game, capable of triggering such pressure that might actually force these changes on the Board. They will never change anything on their own accord, you just have to look at their history and see that any major change over the years has been forced on them.

People banging on about the perils of setting a precedent of Lux sanctioning the Chisora-Haye in the UK should look into the some of other precedents that have occurred in the Board's own illustrious history. Cartels, cronism, racism are all part of their past. They need to make big changes, or else they could very well face stiff competition and become a shrinking force as a result.

I agree with almost all of this mate.

If given a straight choice, would you prefer the BBBoC or a rival Board led by FW?

One hopes it doesn't come to that but, you know, hypothetically speaking...?

Just my opinion, but a system where the license holders were given an annual vote on who they wanted to run the board would be a smart move.

Because of the board's standing (ie self-appointed), I see them as more a club or union than a regulator so a system were the people in charge are democratically elected would be a good move.

The problem is, if every licence holder was given a vote, I could see a situation where a certain group of people attempt to bully other licence holders into voting in a way which favours them.

The best situation would be for a democratic process to be put in place but those bullies first be kicked out for their recent rule breaking. Of course, they would probably try and form their own board then then the problems could be even worse.

It's catch 22.

I do find it maybe a tad ironic that when people look at boxing on a global level - the British fight fans seem to always seem to think it is done more fairly in the UK.

E.g. - the stereotypical view of judging in Germany.
The "reviews" done of dogdy fights, and responses by the Nevada Athletic State Commision.
The refereeing in the states compared to here.
The sanctioning of unfit fights / fighters in the states - e.g. Valero etc.
The medical proceedures to get a licence in most countries over the world compared to the UK.

Now cause FW complains about the apparant mistreatment and misrepresentation of Chisora (there was no sign of a overhaul before the lack of a licence could mean the end of the big money Chisora vs Haye fight) all of a sudden, yes Frank is right and the BBBoC are dinosaurs.

At least Bruce Baker has been vocal of his criticisms for the last 12 years (at least).

Yes, without a doubt things are not perfect. Yes, without a doubt changes that the BBBoC have made in terms of medicals facilities have been forced (through horrible ring incidents) as opposed to being proactive. However, would you swap it with any well known body, globally, in a similar role.

It is plainfully obvious that there is something not right with Antonio Magarito's eye. It is clearly visibly damaged - yet he managed to get licenced in New York.

So to answer Ian's question.... no I wouldn't swap the BBBoC with any other sanctioning body and as for any hypothetical board.

Better the devil you know.... and the BBBoC aint that bad.

Wake up call wrote:

dondada wrote:

gasman wrote:I have to agree with Warren, there is no defending the Board, they are incompetent and hypocritical and need to embrace a complete overhaul making them more competent, transparent and accountable. Whatever you think of Warren, there are few others in the game, capable of triggering such pressure that might actually force these changes on the Board. They will never change anything on their own accord, you just have to look at their history and see that any major change over the years has been forced on them.

People banging on about the perils of setting a precedent of Lux sanctioning the Chisora-Haye in the UK should look into the some of other precedents that have occurred in the Board's own illustrious history. Cartels, cronism, racism are all part of their past. They need to make big changes, or else they could very well face stiff competition and become a shrinking force as a result.

I agree with almost all of this mate.

If given a straight choice, would you prefer the BBBoC or a rival Board led by FW?

One hopes it doesn't come to that but, you know, hypothetically speaking...?

Just my opinion, but a system where the license holders were given an annual vote on who they wanted to run the board would be a smart move.

Because of the board's standing (ie self-appointed), I see them as more a club or union than a regulator so a system were the people in charge are democratically elected would be a good move.

The problem is, if every licence holder was given a vote, I could see a situation where a certain group of people attempt to bully other licence holders into voting in a way which favours them.

The best situation would be for a democratic process to be put in place but those bullies first be kicked out for their recent rule breaking. Of course, they would probably try and form their own board then then the problems could be even worse.

It's catch 22.

An 'annual' vote on who they wanted to run the board??, sounds like a bad idea open to corruption to me.
Certain license holders will have their own agenda's who 'they' want in charge for their own benefit and during the yearly term ( which is far to short to create stability) there would be serious pressure to keep the most influential license holders happy in case they put their backing behind another candidate.

Edit I see you said that sorry didn't get the rest of your post on my phone

stujones wrote: So to answer Ian's question.... no I wouldn't swap the BBBoC with any other sanctioning body and as for any hypothetical board.

Better the devil you know.... and the BBBoC aint that bad.

However, big changes are certainly needed - the licence holders need more of a voice.

I put it to a leading figure of the Board that there was no apparent way of someone contributing to the governance of the sport.

The convo went like this:

Me: "If I wanted to change things in my town, I could stand for Council. If I wanted to change things in my town and the country, I could stand for Parliament. How would I, say, stand for election to an Area Council?"

BBBoC: "We would talk among ourselves, see what we thought we needed and approach someone we knew had the skills, etc."

Literally an old boys' network.

dondada wrote:

The Insider wrote:

dondada wrote:
If given a straight choice, would you prefer the BBBoC or a rival Board led by FW?

One hopes it doesn't come to that but, you know, hypothetically speaking...?

BBBofC all day, but we need to get rid of the geriatrics and people involved who only keep seats for financial motives. Take a look at the photo of them on the boards website. They look like dads army :)

Insider me old pal, there can't be that much financial motive, surely. They don't get paid, as such. Oh aye, jollies and all that but I just don't believe they're making anything out of it.

Agree with the rest, mind.

Oh no i doubt there is any passing of brown envelopes stuffed with used tenners but there are some serious perks to the positions held.

License holders should have some sort of representation at area level and at the meeting of stewards held every month.

Wake up call,

You make some interesting suggestions but not sure they could work in practice.

Yes there needs to be a democracy - but awkard to have it when the people who would have the right to vote would also have alot of self-interest in the decision.

A completely hypothetical example... imagine if Barry Hearn put himself forward as chairman. He would tick a lot of boxes in terms of running similar organisations elswhere. He would also have a lot of licence holders - with close connections to him - puting in their vote.

You might also have alot of British title fight (mandatories) involving Matchroom fighters should he be successful.

Maybe thats what the sport needs.... one all powerful promoter who can call the shots. However, it would cause massive tension. Look at the tension that is going on in World Snooker currently, and Hearn has no true alleagance to specific players anymore. His decisions have affected all players... some seem to think they are needed, others are quitting the sport as a protest.

I know you've stated something like this in your post.... but I think it simply couldn't work. We need figures with no self-serving interest or affilation running the board... and unfortunately I cannot imagine anyone who would put his name forward would have no connections to specific licence holders.

dondada wrote:

stujones wrote: So to answer Ian's question.... no I wouldn't swap the BBBoC with any other sanctioning body and as for any hypothetical board.

Better the devil you know.... and the BBBoC aint that bad.

However, big changes are certainly needed - the licence holders need more of a voice.

I put it to a leading figure of the Board that there was no apparent way of someone contributing to the governance of the sport.

The convo went like this:

Me: "If I wanted to change things in my town, I could stand for Council. If I wanted to change things in my town and the country, I could stand for Parliament. How would I, say, stand for election to an Area Council?"

BBBoC: "We would talk among ourselves, see what we thought we needed and approach someone we knew had the skills, etc."

Literally an old boys' network.

Yes, I think there needs to be a "grass roots" change and some of the things (like how to become a professional referee) need alterating. Does that mean anyone has to be thrown out of the Board.... no I don't think so, just some policy changes.

So far the main arguement I am reading about an overhaul (apart from the points you have just made) is that some of the board look old.... don't "appear" to contribute much anymore and in the PAST (which is the important word) there was a history of racism and corruption.

Nothing really about the medical side of things, the health and saftety - the BBBoC rules regarding fights.... the selection of mandatory challengers, rules about the lonsdale belt. The refereeing system, the scoring system etc. These are the things that concern me as a fight fan.... all of these seem to be honky dory.

Even FW main arguement seems to be against Charlie Giles' alledged expenses.

The Insider wrote:
License holders should have some sort of representation at area level and at the meeting of stewards held every month.

Agree Insider, is this though a massive overhaul and means people should be thrown out?Thats a simple policy change (one that should be easy to implement) and I hope it happens.

The more of a say at low level needs to be altered for sure. They need a voice, and need to be heard.

stujones wrote:

The Insider wrote:
License holders should have some sort of representation at area level and at the meeting of stewards held every month.

Agree Insider, is this though a massive overhaul and means people should be thrown out?Thats a simple policy change (one that should be easy to implement) and I hope it happens.

The more of a say at low level needs to be altered for sure. They need a voice, and need to be heard.

I agree with you both Licence holders need to have a voice and definitely need to be heard listened to and opinions need to be considered and acted upon if necessary

The thing I find most incredible here is that Warren prints a completely one-sided attack on the Board, with some really nasty personal digs, and not only most people on here assume that everything he says is true (where is the evidence to back it up), but they seem to believe it's very reasonable.

This isn't a balanced argument, this is the rantings of a man trying to attack the Board to prevent them taking actions against him for blatantly ignoring their authority.

As for gasman's stuff about "should look into the some of other precedents that have occurred in the Board's own illustrious history. Cartels, cronism, racism are all part of their past".

My god, why not blame David Cameron for slavery or the present defence minister for atrocities in World War I. Unless you believe the present Board is responsible for any of this, what possible relevance does it have? You may as well say nothing the Board does should ever be followed because of policies they had in the 1930s.

gobbles wrote:The thing I find most incredible here is that Warren prints a completely one-sided attack on the Board, with some really nasty personal digs, and not only most people on here assume that everything he says is true (where is the evidence to back it up), but they seem to believe it's very reasonable.

This isn't a balanced argument, this is the rantings of a man trying to attack the Board to prevent them taking actions against him for blatantly ignoring their authority.

As for gasman's stuff about "should look into the some of other precedents that have occurred in the Board's own illustrious history. Cartels, cronism, racism are all part of their past".

My god, why not blame David Cameron for slavery or the present defence minister for atrocities in World War I. Unless you believe the present Board is responsible for any of this, what possible relevance does it have? You may as well say nothing the Board does should ever be followed because of policies they had in the 1930s.

I didnt say blame the current Board on the failures of previous Board's did I. My point is in the context of this argument that I have seen put forward i.e. the dangers of the precedent set by an external body licencing fights in the UK. There are far worse precedents in the Board's chequered history - the standalone 'precedent' argument is a very hollow one imo, and if you think the current Board are doing a competent job, then I think you are content to have substandard, reactive and incompetent administration of the sport.

I would liken the Board to one of those archaic snobby golf clubs, that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with their stuffy traditions but still operate as a tight knit cliche, a closed shop. But, still tick along with their annual subs from their membership.

I would welcome a Board that is open, transparent and competent and my preference is that the paying membership shape the structure and processes of that new Board, preferably a revamped version of the BBBoC. Until then, I have absolutely no sympathy with their current problems and as long as they stick their head in the sand, then market and political forces will shape their future - whatever that might be.

gasman wrote:

gobbles wrote:The thing I find most incredible here is that Warren prints a completely one-sided attack on the Board, with some really nasty personal digs, and not only most people on here assume that everything he says is true (where is the evidence to back it up), but they seem to believe it's very reasonable.

This isn't a balanced argument, this is the rantings of a man trying to attack the Board to prevent them taking actions against him for blatantly ignoring their authority.

As for gasman's stuff about "should look into the some of other precedents that have occurred in the Board's own illustrious history. Cartels, cronism, racism are all part of their past".

My god, why not blame David Cameron for slavery or the present defence minister for atrocities in World War I. Unless you believe the present Board is responsible for any of this, what possible relevance does it have? You may as well say nothing the Board does should ever be followed because of policies they had in the 1930s.

I didnt say blame the current Board on the failures of previous Board's did I. My point is in the context of this argument that I have seen put forward i.e. the dangers of the precedent set by an external body licencing fights in the UK. There are far worse precedents in the Board's chequered history - the standalone 'precedent' argument is a very hollow one imo, and if you think the current Board are doing a competent job, then I think you are content to have substandard, reactive and incompetent administration of the sport.

I would liken the Board to one of those archaic snobby golf clubs, that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with their stuffy traditions but still operate as a tight knit cliche, a closed shop. But, still tick along with their annual subs from their membership.

I would welcome a Board that is open, transparent and competent and my preference is that the paying membership shape the structure and processes of that new Board, preferably a revamped version of the BBBoC. Until then, I have absolutely no sympathy with their current problems and as long as they stick their head in the sand, then market and political forces will shape their future - whatever that might be.

Fair comments mate

And after this will Fwank be seeking transparency and fairness in the WBO?

Cholo_cws wrote:And after this will Fwank be seeking transparency and fairness in the WBO?

Agreed. Maybe - like in Nevada - all boxer's purse should be published too.

Cholo_cws wrote:And after this will Fwank be seeking transparency and fairness in the WBO?

Nice one Mate

I have a picture of FW when he don't get his own way