No moaning about german board sanctionin a show in london?

[maninthemiddle]

Its a shame the likes of Boxing News and Boxrec help promote this organisation. As someone has already mentioned, where do you draw the line. Why not publicise the EBF and all the other unlicensed set ups. They also have boxers who are not deemed suitable for a BBBoC licence.

[spudder56]

Its a shame the likes of Boxing News and Boxrec help promote this organisation. As someone has already mentioned, where do you draw the line. Why not publicise the EBF and all the other unlicensed set ups. They also have boxers who are not deemed suitable for a BBBoC licence.

personally i agree that boxers who are fit to hold a board licence should only fight on board shows and those who dont have a board licence can box where they like if they so wish

[Final round]

I agree with the above Leonard. Why should we have a board that stops people boxing to protect them from themselves? Well its pretty obvious in my opinion.
Why dont we just get it on with semi blind boxers I am sure the GBA would be all for sanctioning that.

x2 they would sanction anybody and anything as long as the money is right pretty much like the masters titles where the only criteria appears to be have you got the sanctioning fee I know the board collect money off licence holders etc but they dont collect money if the boxers health and safety is at risk hence refused and withdrawn licences etc so i agree the board are far from perfect but they wont sell peoples health for money

Well said Spudder

[Adamj1987]

Its a shame the likes of Boxing News and Boxrec help promote this organisation. As someone has already mentioned, where do you draw the line. Why not publicise the EBF and all the other unlicensed set ups. They also have boxers who are not deemed suitable for a BBBoC licence.

its strange i agree, I'm thinking of going to that show and I'm curious as to how it pans out

[slapbangwhallop]

Its a shame the likes of Boxing News and Boxrec help promote this organisation. As someone has already mentioned, where do you draw the line. Why not publicise the EBF and all the other unlicensed set ups. They also have boxers who are not deemed suitable for a BBBoC licence.

well Boxing News didnt report on Iain Weavers debut which was under the same circumstance as this.

[spudder56]

I agree with the above Leonard. Why should we have a board that stops people boxing to protect them from themselves? Well its pretty obvious in my opinion.
Why dont we just get it on with semi blind boxers I am sure the GBA would be all for sanctioning that.

x2 they would sanction anybody and anything as long as the money is right pretty much like the masters titles where the only criteria appears to be have you got the sanctioning fee I know the board collect money off licence holders etc but they dont collect money if the boxers health and safety is at risk hence refused and withdrawn licences etc so i agree the board are far from perfect but they wont sell peoples health for money

more scaremongering.

to say "they would sanction anybody and anything as long as the money is right" is without foundation.

Just because the board bottled it with Weavers and Counihan's licences doesnt make them right.

What do you mean when you say the board bottled it with Weavers Licence ?

[slapbangwhallop]

Why dont we just get it on with semi blind boxers I am sure the GBA would be all for sanctioning that.

x2 they would sanction anybody and anything as long as the money is right pretty much like the masters titles where the only criteria appears to be have you got the sanctioning fee I know the board collect money off licence holders etc but they dont collect money if the boxers health and safety is at risk hence refused and withdrawn licences etc so i agree the board are far from perfect but they wont sell peoples health for money

more scaremongering.

to say "they would sanction anybody and anything as long as the money is right" is without foundation.

Just because the board bottled it with Weavers and Counihan's licences doesnt make them right.

What do you mean when you say the board bottled it with Weavers Licence ?[/quote]

Bottled it, as in didnt have the balls to take on board superior and more qualified information than their own.

Counihan and Weaver were passed fight to boxing by some of the best neurosurgeons in Europe and the BBBoC refused to take those opinions into consideration.

[spudder56]

I believe that the boards insurers insist on all scans medical issues etc go before an independent panel of top specialists and there decision is final maybe Iain has grounds for legal action then ? Maybe it's worth taking advice on it just a thought

[jamesmcdonnell]

It's all boxing to me, I don't care who sanctions what. All that matters to me is being entertained.

If a boxer has had his license removed/suspended by the BBBofC for his own safety but he is still fighting on a show in the UK sanctioned by a different body then it is extremely worrying to me.

Equally worrying is the unanswerable monopoly the BBBoC have on pro boxing in the UK.

It's not a monopoly, as they are not a commercial outfit making profit from boxing. They are there to ensure safety procedures are in place, and to license boxers and fights. Would you rather there was NOBODY doing this, or do you think we should have lots of different people doing this. The former would be dangerous, and the latter would just be unworkable.

A monopoly is a strangehold in a market which ensures commercial success, such as the one formerly enjoyed by Microsoft in their heyday.

[maninthemiddle]

Its a shame the likes of Boxing News and Boxrec help promote this organisation. As someone has already mentioned, where do you draw the line. Why not publicise the EBF and all the other unlicensed set ups. They also have boxers who are not deemed suitable for a BBBoC licence.

well Boxing News didnt report on Iain Weavers debut which was under the same circumstance as this.

Took the advertising money for next one though??

[slapbangwhallop]

If a boxer has had his license removed/suspended by the BBBofC for his own safety but he is still fighting on a show in the UK sanctioned by a different body then it is extremely worrying to me.

Equally worrying is the unanswerable monopoly the BBBoC have on pro boxing in the UK.

It's not a monopoly, as they are not a commercial outfit making profit from boxing. They are there to ensure safety procedures are in place, and to license boxers and fights. Would you rather there was NOBODY doing this, or do you think we should have lots of different people doing this. The former would be dangerous, and the latter would just be unworkable.

A monopoly is a strangehold in a market which ensures commercial success, such as the one formerly enjoyed by Microsoft in their heyday.

1. "they are not a commercial outfit making profit from boxing", they are, and they do!

2. It has a virtual monopoly. The EBU ensures that.

2. "Would you rather there was NOBODY doing this". When did I ever advocate that? What I advocate is that the Board is held accountable for its decisions and decision making process. At the moment it is completely unanswerable to anyone. Boxers and Licence holders have absolutely no say!

[dbflex]

Its a shame the likes of Boxing News and Boxrec help promote this organisation. As someone has already mentioned, where do you draw the line. Why not publicise the EBF and all the other unlicensed set ups. They also have boxers who are not deemed suitable for a BBBoC licence.

well Boxing News didnt report on Iain Weavers debut which was under the same circumstance as this.

Took the advertising money for next one though??

I take your point on the chin. No one was more aggrieved by the ad's inclusion than us. The simple and regrettable truth is that our ad dept sold the space unaware of the editorial stance; certainly embarassing for the editorial team. Tris would NEVER have approved it - he feels very strongly about boxer safety which MAY be compromised by boxers who have had their licenses withdrawn being sanctioned to compete (not just Weaver whose case is complex). We have since been assured that this will not happen again. Every time I look at that ad it irks me tbh but I think it's important to explain what happened because no one at BN feels principles should be compromised, even inadvertantly.

[slapbangwhallop]

well Boxing News didnt report on Iain Weavers debut which was under the same circumstance as this.

Took the advertising money for next one though??

I take your point on the chin. No one was more aggrieved by the ad's inclusion than us. The simple and regrettable truth is that our ad dept sold the space unaware of the editorial stance; certainly embarassing for the editorial team. Tris would NEVER have approved it - he feels very strongly about boxer safety which MAY be compromised by boxers who have had their licenses withdrawn being sanctioned to compete (not just Weaver whose case is complex). We have since been assured that this will not happen again. Every time I look at that ad it irks me tbh but I think it's important to explain what happened because no one at BN feels principles should be compromised, even inadvertantly.

what a bunch of hypocrites! You guys werent shy in putting in press applications for the LuxBox show!? Whats the difference here?

[edited by mod]

[dbflex]

what a bunch of hypocrites! You guys werent shy in putting in press applications for the LuxBox show!? Whats the difference here?

[edited by mod]

First of all, give the personal attacks a rest - harbouring a vendetta against people you have never met is nonsensical and pointless. And you don't know me one little bit - I've never arse-licked anyone, I've been banned from more promoters' shows than you've had hot dinners - probably, as you see I don't know you. As for the Luxembourg, I was an incredibly vocal critic of it, so vocal in fact that I lost a lucrative research position with allegedly because of my opposition. I did not apply for a pass, nor have I ever watched the show then or since. If you want to criticise me I'm there to be shot at, but get your facts right and leave the childish insults in the schoolyard. You're a journalist, you should be above all that.

[slapbangwhallop]

First of all, give the personal attacks a rest - harbouring a vendetta against people you have never met is nonsensical and pointless. And you don't know me one little bit - I've never arse-licked anyone, I've been banned from more promoters' shows than you've had hot dinners - probably, as you see I don't know you. As for the Luxembourg, I was an incredibly vocal critic of it, so vocal in fact that I lost a lucrative research position with Allegedly channel because of my opposition. I did not apply for a pass, nor have I ever watched the show then or since. If you want to criticise me I'm there to be shot at, but get your facts right and leave the childish insults in the schoolyard. You're a journalist, you should be above all that.

I said "you guys" i.e. Boxing News! Are you telling me no one from BN applied for a pass for the show or reported on the show? READ posts before you jump in with two feet.

Again, I state you guys are hypocrites and unthinking yes-men! Thats not childish name calling, thats my opinion formed from years of watching how BN operates, especially since Tris took over.

You stated Tris, "feels very strongly about boxer safety which MAY be compromised by boxers who have had their licenses withdrawn being sanctioned to compete"

Which boxer on this bill is having their safety potentially comprised?

What you are doing is simply toeing the party (BBBoC) line.

Would you report on Weaver's fights if he was on a Mayweather undercard in Vegas, or a Heffron fight in a Frampton bill in Dublin? I dare say yes!

[jonp]

Tbf Len if the above is true you gotta say sorry for the insults as hes stood by what hes said and you cant really knock him for that

[The Law]

Len, please cut out the insults. We all like a debate but there's no need to use certain phrases.

[slapbangwhallop]

Tbf Len if the above is true you gotta say sorry for the insults as hes stood by what hes said and you cant really knock him for that

I talking about Boxing News as a publication, they were there at the LuxBox show and enjoyed increased sales as a result. But now the are seeming taking a faux moral high ground when it comes to a small show! Hypocrites!

[jonp]

It did seem that you called the poster and tris arselickers and yes men and he did point out after wards he wasnt a yes man.To the outside reader it did look directed at him to be honest.

Yr point with boxing news seems about right but the insults did seemed aimed at the individual.

[slapbangwhallop]

It did seem that you called the poster and tris arselickers and yes men and he did point out after wards he wasnt a yes man.To the outside reader it did look directed at him to be honest.

Fair enough Jon, I'll withdraw that statement then. Simply, hypocrites will do.

[dbflex]

First of all, give the personal attacks a rest - harbouring a vendetta against people you have never met is nonsensical and pointless. And you don't know me one little bit - I've never arse-licked anyone, I've been banned from more promoters' shows than you've had hot dinners - probably, as you see I don't know you. As for the Luxembourg, I was an incredibly vocal critic of it, so vocal in fact that I lost a lucrative research position with Allegedly channel because of my opposition. I did not apply for a pass, nor have I ever watched the show then or since. If you want to criticise me I'm there to be shot at, but get your facts right and leave the childish insults in the schoolyard. You're a journalist, you should be above all that.

I said "you guys" i.e. Boxing News! Are you telling me no one from BN applied for a pass for the show or reported on the show? READ posts before you jump in with two feet.

Again, I state you guys are hypocrites and unthinking yes-men! Thats not childish name calling, thats my opinion formed from years of watching how BN operates, especially since Tris took over.

You stated Tris, "feels very strongly about boxer safety which MAY be compromised by boxers who have had their licenses withdrawn being sanctioned to compete"

Which boxer on this bill is having their safety potentially comprised?

What you are doing is simply toeing the party line like, dare I say it, a crew of Little Englanders!

Would you report on Weaver's fights if he was on a Mayweather undercard in Vegas, or a Heffron fight in a Frampton bill in Dublin? I dare say yes!

You guys includes me surely? And the "arse licking" element of your sophisticated invective could perhaps be considered childish.

You focus on Weaver because his case is the most contentious. Is Deakin's? Graham Earl? Scriven? All of whom have been slurring for years and have taken significant punishment. It's far easier to fight Weaver's corner though.

And if being raised on an east London council estate by a single parent and starting work on the markets at 14 makes me a little Englander then guilty as charged. You should visit Stepney sometime.

Preconceptions and prejudices are natural - we all have them - but at least allow yours to be challenged. We're not all from the home counties or middle class at BN, not that it should matter if we were. We still gave your recent show good coverage, using a quality local reporter.

[slapbangwhallop]

First of all, give the personal attacks a rest - harbouring a vendetta against people you have never met is nonsensical and pointless. And you don't know me one little bit - I've never arse-licked anyone, I've been banned from more promoters' shows than you've had hot dinners - probably, as you see I don't know you. As for the Luxembourg, I was an incredibly vocal critic of it, so vocal in fact that I lost a lucrative research position with Allegedly channel because of my opposition. I did not apply for a pass, nor have I ever watched the show then or since. If you want to criticise me I'm there to be shot at, but get your facts right and leave the childish insults in the schoolyard. You're a journalist, you should be above all that.

I said "you guys" i.e. Boxing News! Are you telling me no one from BN applied for a pass for the show or reported on the show? READ posts before you jump in with two feet.

Again, I state you guys are hypocrites and unthinking yes-men! Thats not childish name calling, thats my opinion formed from years of watching how BN operates, especially since Tris took over.

You stated Tris, "feels very strongly about boxer safety which MAY be compromised by boxers who have had their licenses withdrawn being sanctioned to compete"

Which boxer on this bill is having their safety potentially comprised?

What you are doing is simply toeing the party line like, dare I say it, a crew of Little Englanders!

Would you report on Weaver's fights if he was on a Mayweather undercard in Vegas, or a Heffron fight in a Frampton bill in Dublin? I dare say yes!

You guys includes me surely? And the "arse licking" element of your sophisticated invective could perhaps be considered childish.

You focus on Weaver because his case is the most contentious. Is Deakin's? Graham Earl? Scriven? All of whom have been slurring for years and have taken significant punishment. It's far easier to fight Weaver's corner though.

And if being raised on an east London council estate by a single parent and starting work on the markets at 14 makes me a little Englander then guilty as charged. You should visit Stepney sometime.

Preconceptions and prejudices are natural - we all have them - but at least allow yours to be challenged. We're not all from the home counties or middle class at BN, not that it should matter if we were. We still gave your recent show good coverage, using a quality local reporter.

Lets focus on the show then shall we.

Yes I'm focusing on Weaver because he is the most high profile individual on the show and was hounded out of Europe by the BBBoC in a completely disgraceful manner (unreported by BN).

Earl and Scriven arent on the show. Deakin slurring words? Not that I've noticed?

Heffron? Martin? Trabant? Prince? Any issue with those?

It's completely indefensible to not cover the show. I'm still waiting to hear a coherent and justifiable argument why the show is being ignored.

[dbflex]

I said "you guys" i.e. Boxing News! Are you telling me no one from BN applied for a pass for the show or reported on the show? READ posts before you jump in with two feet.

Again, I state you guys are hypocrites and unthinking yes-men! Thats not childish name calling, thats my opinion formed from years of watching how BN operates, especially since Tris took over.

You stated Tris, "feels very strongly about boxer safety which MAY be compromised by boxers who have had their licenses withdrawn being sanctioned to compete"

Which boxer on this bill is having their safety potentially comprised?

What you are doing is simply toeing the party line like, dare I say it, a crew of Little Englanders!

Would you report on Weaver's fights if he was on a Mayweather undercard in Vegas, or a Heffron fight in a Frampton bill in Dublin? I dare say yes![/quote]

You guys includes me surely? And the "arse licking" element of your sophisticated invective could perhaps be considered childish.

You focus on Weaver because his case is the most contentious. Is Deakin's? Graham Earl? Scriven? All of whom have been slurring for years and have taken significant punishment. It's far easier to fight Weaver's corner though.

And if being raised on an east London council estate by a single parent and starting work on the markets at 14 makes me a little Englander then guilty as charged. You should visit Stepney sometime.

Preconceptions and prejudices are natural - we all have them - but at least allow yours to be challenged. We're not all from the home counties or middle class at BN, not that it should matter if we were. We still gave your recent show good coverage, using a quality local reporter.[/quote]

Lets focus on the show then shall we.

Yes I'm focusing on Weaver because he is the most high profile individual on the show and was hounded out of Europe by the BBBoC in a completely disgraceful manner (unreported by BN).

Earl and Scriven arent on the show. Deakin slurring words? Not that I've noticed?

Heffron? Martin? Trabant? Prince? Any issue with those?

It's completely indefensible to not cover the show. I'm still waiting to hear a coherent and justifiable argument why the show is being ignored.[/quote]

It's a policy decision that's been explained already in the magazine. Basically we do not cover any non-Board-sanctioned shows in Britain. Luxembourg was an EBU-endorsed body and their show was felt at the time to be a one-off. The fact also that so many Board license-holders appeared on the show created an unprecedented grey area. There was no policy because it had never happened in over 80 years. There is now a policy in place and the GBA shows appear to feature mostly boxers who have been refused a Board license or had it suspended. In your view, what separates the GBA from say the EBF?

As for Prince, if it's true that he was refused a BBBoC license due solely to his age (as I've heard claimed) that's patently wrong but we don't know that. I would always favour a body that errs on the side of caution over one who does not but perhaps that's a personal preference.

Incidentally, if you feel so strongly about the Board, why not use another sanctioning body for your own show? I would never drop to the level of alleging hypocrisy but it does seem illogical.

[slapbangwhallop]

It's a policy decision that's been explained already in the magazine. Basically we do not cover any non-Board-sanctioned shows in Britain. Luxembourg was an EBU-endorsed body and their show was felt at the time to be a one-off. The fact also that so many Board license-holders appeared on the show created an unprecedented grey area. There was no policy because it had never happened in over 80 years. There is now a policy in place and the GBA shows appear to feature mostly boxers who have been refused a Board license or had it suspended. In your view, what separates the GBA from say the EBF?

As for Prince, if it's true that he was refused a BBBoC license due solely to his age (as I've heard claimed) that's patently wrong but we don't know that. I would always favour a body that errs on the side of caution over one who does not but perhaps that's a personal preference.

Incidentally, if you feel so strongly about the Board, why not use another sanctioning body for your own show? I would never drop to the level of alleging hypocrisy but it does seem illogical.

1. "Basically we do not cover any non-Board-sanctioned shows in Britain". So if the BUI sanctioned a show in Belfast then you would boycott it would you? Or if this bill took place in Dublin would you cover it?

2. Maybe you should look at WHY the board havent allowed these boxers licences rather a blanket ban. The majority of the boxers on the bill hold EBU recognised licences.

3. "In your view, what separates the GBA from say the EBF?" the same things that separate the BBBoC and the EBF.

4. "if you feel so strongly about the Board, why not use another sanctioning body for your own show? I would never drop to the level of alleging hypocrisy but it does seem illogical", I support the Board, they IN GENERAL do a very good job. But there are things the Board do that are wrong. Those issues should be raised and challenged (if BN had the balls they should really be on that one!). I dont see where the hypocrisy is there! I wouldn't rule out using GBA or LuxBox or the BUI in the UK.

[dbflex]

Look, you have deeply entrenched views and we're not likely to agree anytime soon. But I'm glad we had the debate - not so glad that I'm going to continue it into the small hours but maybe you know a little more about me now and vice versa. And I'll take your comments on board re investigating why boxers have been refused licenses.

We have an issue coming up featuring Frampton, Burnett and Sean Monaghan. Be interesting to know what you think after reading it.

That's me out. Got some arse-licking to do ;;-)