BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:

The Law wrote:A doctor cannot stop a fight. The referee can call over the doctor to examine the fighter and give him advice. The ref follows the advice more often than not. The doctor cannot stop the fight (or advise the ref) if he has not been called over by the ref.

There’s a funny clip of Danny Williams I think it is...the doctor came to inspect and called the fight off. Williams said no and pushed him out the way and then the bell went almost immediately so he ran out to the middle and left the doc standing there. Then he won and it all gets forgotten that the doctor had stopped it ! Weird.
According to the above tho it sounds like the message had to go via the ref but that sounds like a formality.

Cant remember I’m afraid. It cant have been Tyson. Don’t think it was as far back as that. Both his shoulders were ok.....it was an eye they were looking at. Split or bleeding badly........I think it was against Audley..

No one was to blame here. No one at all, not in this instance.

Unfortunately in a sport where the purpose is too punch someone repeatedly in the face/head, injuries like this will occur.

As I say in this particular instance no one was to blame.

I would prefer to concentrate my efforts on wishing the best for the fighter rather than looking to blame someone.

ttornado wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:
I've watched about 2 boxing cards so far in 2016 because i'm sick to the back teeth of mismatches.

What was Blackwell pre-fight? 14/1 or something?

Are you saying Blackwell should have been stripped of the title, and it just awarded to Eubank?

I'm saying that mismatches shouldn't be sanctioned. Look at the amount of mismatches in the up and coming schedule. How many underdogs need to get beaten into a coma before more stringent matchmaking practices are put into force?

Ricky_ wrote:

ttornado wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:
I've watched about 2 boxing cards so far in 2016 because i'm sick to the back teeth of mismatches.

What was Blackwell pre-fight? 14/1 or something?

Are you saying Blackwell should have been stripped of the title, and it just awarded to Eubank?

I'm saying that mismatches shouldn't be sanctioned. Look at the amount of mismatches in the up and coming schedule. How many underdogs need to get beaten into a coma before more stringent matchmaking practices are put into force?

This wasn't a mismatch on paper at all. Eubank was favourite, but the betting odds are not necessarily an accurate reflection of a fighter's chances, that's not how betting works.

Ricky_ wrote:

ttornado wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:
I've watched about 2 boxing cards so far in 2016 because i'm sick to the back teeth of mismatches.

What was Blackwell pre-fight? 14/1 or something?

Are you saying Blackwell should have been stripped of the title, and it just awarded to Eubank?

I'm saying that mismatches shouldn't be sanctioned. Look at the amount of mismatches in the up and coming schedule. How many underdogs need to get beaten into a coma before more stringent matchmaking practices are put into force?

i agree in terms of mismatches. at least in mma the best have to fight the best theres never really any mismatches in mma.

however i don't think blackwell-eubank was a mismatch, whatever the odds were, it turned out terribly but nobody could of predicted that, it certainly wasn't a mismatch like brook-bizier.

Everyone is an expert......after the event. Total blame culture we live in where an individual has to be shamed for anything that goes wrong. It's a joke.

Supremo wrote:Everyone is an expert......after the event. Total blame culture we live in where an individual has to be shamed for anything that goes wrong. It's a joke.

No it isn't a joke. I think it's only natural when we witness an event like this, to ask the question; what could or should have been done differently?

jamesmcdonnell wrote: This wasn't a mismatch on paper at all. Eubank was favourite, but the betting odds are not necessarily an accurate reflection of a fighter's chances, that's not how betting works.

It is exactly how betting works, a team of experts and insiders are paid to assign an implied probability to a fighters chances of winning, which converts to the odds (+ the bookies edge).

Not sure what Blackwell's odds were, think i read 14's somewhere, that makes him a 6.7% underdog.


My point is a wider criticism of how boxing is run however rather than this particular matchup. In the am's novice fighter's aren't allowed to be matched up with open boxers.

In the pro's, where imo, guys are more likely to be badly hurt, it seems any old cherry pick is sanctioned now. It's not good for fans, it's not good for the sport, the only person it suits is promoters, cause it allows them to build a tin-pot record to promote a guy off the back of.

Ricky_ wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: This wasn't a mismatch on paper at all. Eubank was favourite, but the betting odds are not necessarily an accurate reflection of a fighter's chances, that's not how betting works.

It is exactly how betting works, a team of experts and insiders are paid to assign an implied probability to a fighters chances of winning, which converts to the odds (+ the bookies edge).

Not sure what Blackwell's odds were, think i read 14's somewhere, that makes him a 6.7% underdog.


My point is a wider criticism of how boxing is run however rather than this particular matchup. In the am's novice fighter's aren't allowed to be matched up with open boxers.

In the pro's, where imo, guys are more likely to be badly hurt, it seems any old cherry pick is sanctioned now. It's not good for fans, it's not good for the sport, the only person it suits is promoters, cause it allows them to build a tin-pot record to promote a guy off the back of.

Yes, but the odds are not static, they change as money changes hand with the bookmakers. Also the bookies are often quite wide of the mark when it comes to odds. I have a friend who works for one of the betting firms, who is a big boxing fan, and he told me that many betting firms don't have people with good boxing knowledge doing the odds.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Yes, but the odds are not static, they change as money changes hand with the bookmakers. Also the bookies are often quite wide of the mark when it comes to odds. I have a friend who works for one of the betting firms, who is a big boxing fan, and he told me that many betting firms don't have people with good boxing knowledge doing the odds.

Well i would agree that the bookies aren't as accurate with boxing as they are in say, tennis. But it's besides the point how "exact" the odds are, it's simply a rough reflection of the mismatches we have to endure, it really make a difference if a guy is 20/1 or 30/1?

A good match-up should be a 50/50 or as close as possible to it. I know it's not an idea l world but once you get into the territory of 1 guy being a percieved 80% favourite, and this is an often occurance, then surely you agree it increases the chances of a bad beating taking place?

In other sports, if you have Djokovic facing rank #305, nobody is really going to watch, it's going to be a boring, straight sets mismatch, but at least it's only the underdogs pride that is being horsed, and not his brain.

Ricky_ wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Yes, but the odds are not static, they change as money changes hand with the bookmakers. Also the bookies are often quite wide of the mark when it comes to odds. I have a friend who works for one of the betting firms, who is a big boxing fan, and he told me that many betting firms don't have people with good boxing knowledge doing the odds.

Well i would agree that the bookies aren't as accurate with boxing as they are in say, tennis. But it's besides the point how "exact" the odds are, it's simply a rough reflection of the mismatches we have to endure, it really make a difference if a guy is 20/1 or 30/1?

A good match-up should be a 50/50 or as close as possible to it. I know it's not an idea l world but once you get into the territory of 1 guy being a percieved 80% favourite, and this is an often occurance, then surely you agree it increases the chances of a bad beating taking place?

In other sports, if you have Djokovic facing rank #305, nobody is really going to watch, it's going to be a boring, straight sets mismatch, but at least it's only the underdogs pride that is being horsed, and not his brain.

Boxing is not like Tennis though, Tennis has a tournament structure, rather than single promoted matchups, I agree there are too many mismatches, far too many 'home fighter bouts' - these have always been a feature of the sport, but increasingly we have fighters facing one after another low ranked opponent whilst waiting for a mega payday.

I honestly think the problem is, that at least in the western world, fighters are just not as hungry, or prepared to face serious danger on a regular basis as they once were, and it's hard to blame them if they don't have to - who wants to be punched into unconsciousness or worse when you can take on fighters you know you are very likely to beat. Poverty is nowhere near as much of a problem in western Europe and north America as it was through 1920's - 1950 - since then countries have become more affluent and there's less absolute poverty to drive people on to take huge risks. Sport has become globalised and there are lots of other less dangerous sports to tempt athletes away, and other routes out of poverty.

The model for modern fighters is that once they start to make a name for themselves, and there is big earning potential especially where PPV is concerned, then the risk reward ratio becomes everything, they are only prepared to take on serious challenges if there's a huge amount of money on the table. It's understandable, but unfortunately it harms the sport, as often these fights happen too late, or not at all. The high profile stars of the sport are not delivering the excitement required to keep the fanbase growing, and as a result boxing has continued to lose market share to it's other better organised rivals. Sure, there's the odd megabout, where they do 1.5 million PPV buys, but you compare that to the exposure of the other major sports, and it's pretty paltry - the fighters are earning huge amounts for these events, but let's be honest, if you were a casual who bought the PPV for Mayweather v Pacman or Fury v Klitshcko - would you jump at the chance to buy another PPV?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Yes, but the odds are not static, they change as money changes hand with the bookmakers. Also the bookies are often quite wide of the mark when it comes to odds. I have a friend who works for one of the betting firms, who is a big boxing fan, and he told me that many betting firms don't have people with good boxing knowledge doing the odds.

Well i would agree that the bookies aren't as accurate with boxing as they are in say, tennis. But it's besides the point how "exact" the odds are, it's simply a rough reflection of the mismatches we have to endure, it really make a difference if a guy is 20/1 or 30/1?

A good match-up should be a 50/50 or as close as possible to it. I know it's not an idea l world but once you get into the territory of 1 guy being a percieved 80% favourite, and this is an often occurance, then surely you agree it increases the chances of a bad beating taking place?

In other sports, if you have Djokovic facing rank #305, nobody is really going to watch, it's going to be a boring, straight sets mismatch, but at least it's only the underdogs pride that is being horsed, and not his brain.

Boxing is not like Tennis though, Tennis has a tournament structure, rather than single promoted matchups, I agree there are too many mismatches, far too many 'home fighter bouts' - these have always been a feature of the sport, but increasingly we have fighters facing one after another low ranked opponent whilst waiting for a mega payday.

I honestly think the problem is, that at least in the western world, fighters are just not as hungry, or prepared to face serious danger on a regular basis as they once were, and it's hard to blame them if they don't have to - who wants to be punched into unconsciousness or worse when you can take on fighters you know you are very likely to beat. Poverty is nowhere near as much of a problem in western Europe and north America as it was through 1920's - 1950 - since then countries have become more affluent and there's less absolute poverty to drive people on to take huge risks. Sport has become globalised and there are lots of other less dangerous sports to tempt athletes away, and other routes out of poverty.

The model for modern fighters is that once they start to make a name for themselves, and there is big earning potential especially where PPV is concerned, then the risk reward ratio becomes everything, they are only prepared to take on serious challenges if there's a huge amount of money on the table. It's understandable, but unfortunately it harms the sport, as often these fights happen too late, or not at all. The high profile stars of the sport are not delivering the excitement required to keep the fanbase growing, and as a result boxing has continued to lose market share to it's other better organised rivals. Sure, there's the odd megabout, where they do 1.5 million PPV buys, but you compare that to the exposure of the other major sports, and it's pretty paltry - the fighters are earning huge amounts for these events, but let's be honest, if you were a casual who bought the PPV for Mayweather v Pacman or Fury v Klitshcko - would you jump at the chance to buy another PPV?

very truthful post

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Yes, but the odds are not static, they change as money changes hand with the bookmakers. Also the bookies are often quite wide of the mark when it comes to odds. I have a friend who works for one of the betting firms, who is a big boxing fan, and he told me that many betting firms don't have people with good boxing knowledge doing the odds.

Well i would agree that the bookies aren't as accurate with boxing as they are in say, tennis. But it's besides the point how "exact" the odds are, it's simply a rough reflection of the mismatches we have to endure, it really make a difference if a guy is 20/1 or 30/1?

A good match-up should be a 50/50 or as close as possible to it. I know it's not an idea l world but once you get into the territory of 1 guy being a percieved 80% favourite, and this is an often occurance, then surely you agree it increases the chances of a bad beating taking place?

In other sports, if you have Djokovic facing rank #305, nobody is really going to watch, it's going to be a boring, straight sets mismatch, but at least it's only the underdogs pride that is being horsed, and not his brain.

Boxing is not like Tennis though, Tennis has a tournament structure, rather than single promoted matchups, I agree there are too many mismatches, far too many 'home fighter bouts' - these have always been a feature of the sport, but increasingly we have fighters facing one after another low ranked opponent whilst waiting for a mega payday.

I honestly think the problem is, that at least in the western world, fighters are just not as hungry, or prepared to face serious danger on a regular basis as they once were, and it's hard to blame them if they don't have to - who wants to be punched into unconsciousness or worse when you can take on fighters you know you are very likely to beat. Poverty is nowhere near as much of a problem in western Europe and north America as it was through 1920's - 1950 - since then countries have become more affluent and there's less absolute poverty to drive people on to take huge risks. Sport has become globalised and there are lots of other less dangerous sports to tempt athletes away, and other routes out of poverty.

The model for modern fighters is that once they start to make a name for themselves, and there is big earning potential especially where PPV is concerned, then the risk reward ratio becomes everything, they are only prepared to take on serious challenges if there's a huge amount of money on the table. It's understandable, but unfortunately it harms the sport, as often these fights happen too late, or not at all. The high profile stars of the sport are not delivering the excitement required to keep the fanbase growing, and as a result boxing has continued to lose market share to it's other better organised rivals. Sure, there's the odd megabout, where they do 1.5 million PPV buys, but you compare that to the exposure of the other major sports, and it's pretty paltry - the fighters are earning huge amounts for these events, but let's be honest, if you were a casual who bought the PPV for Mayweather v Pacman or Fury v Klitshcko - would you jump at the chance to buy another PPV?

You"ve summed up pretty well what i was getting at.

I think the fans need to boycott to make a statement we won't accept or pay for mismatches.

Saunders is a disgrace. He knocked back a few million quid to face Golovkin in a unification bout. Now je faces Bursak instead for a defence of a world title. This shouldn't be sanctioned. Fans shouldn't watch it or buy tickets. Let it generate the revenue the matchup deserves: £00.00.

Ricky_ wrote: I'm saying that mismatches shouldn't be sanctioned. Look at the amount of mismatches in the up and coming schedule. How many underdogs need to get beaten into a coma before more stringent matchmaking practices are put into force?

Bizier was the much bigger underdog from last weekend.
It's callous and insensitive to now belittle Blackwell's boxing ability to score points on a forum.

ttornado wrote:

Ricky_ wrote: I'm saying that mismatches shouldn't be sanctioned. Look at the amount of mismatches in the up and coming schedule. How many underdogs need to get beaten into a coma before more stringent matchmaking practices are put into force?

Bizier was the much bigger underdog from last weekend.
It's callous and insensitive to now belittle Blackwell's boxing ability to score points on a forum.

How am i belittling his ability? He was (i think) 14/1. Did the bookies belittle him by making him a big underdog? Eubank we know for a fact is a world level boxer from his resume and having played his part in a razor close bout with Saunders who's recently taken Lee's world title. There's certainly no shame in the opinion that Eubank vs Blackwell was a mismatch. It was the mainstream opinion pre-fight and exactly how the fight went down, it was a mismatch.

Ricky_ wrote: How am i belittling his ability? He was (i think) 14/1. Did the bookies belittle him by making him a big underdog?

The bookies were giving odds on the fight.
You are saying Blackwell wasn't fit to step in the ring with Eubank.
Saying the British number 3 middleweight isn't fit to fight the number 2 is belittling their ability.
This was according to the Boxing Monthly British Ratings number 2 and 3 fighting.

Just re-watched Calzaghe Lacy on allegedly - that was a far worse beatin and shouldve been stopped. Saying that Lacy was never same after that fight.