BoxRec

RIP Scott

I probably speak for most on here when I say this kind of thing really affects us. It's bloody tragic. First and foremost I'd like to offer my deepest sympathies to Scott's family and friends. Most of us that are involved in the boxing community wether it be as a competitor or as a fan etc... we know the dangers that face us. We know any punch that lands could be our last but we still compete and try! This is just tragic. If there's anything anyone on here or anywhere else can do then let us know and you'll be surprised.....

How sad, RIP Scott. My thoughts to his family and friends, awful news.

Cazelo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 05:59 He put his life on the line for the sake of a couple of grand that he likely had to sell tickets to earn the right to fight.

The wage structure in boxing has to change so the reward meets the risk.

I don’t understand?

Scott like all fighters made a risk v reward decision. It didn’t work out for him and that is incredibly sad, but to suggest fighters should be paid more because getting punched in the head is dangerous makes precisely no sense.

This sport can be cruel. He's just won a massive breakthrough fight and this happens, R.I.P.

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:10

Cazelo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 05:59 He put his life on the line for the sake of a couple of grand that he likely had to sell tickets to earn the right to fight.

The wage structure in boxing has to change so the reward meets the risk.

I don’t understand?

Scott like all fighters made a risk v reward decision. It didn’t work out for him and that is incredibly sad, but to suggest fighters should be paid more because getting punched in the head is dangerous makes precisely no sense.

It's pretty much universally accepted that more risk demands better pay. If it didn't, we'd all pay the same car insurance, soldiers wouldn't get hazard pay for being stationed in war zones, and working on oil rigs wouldn't be such a lucrative trade.

It jars when that risk isn't reflected in better pay, i.e. where a boxer loses his life earning a few hundred quid or a grand, when a badly-paid miner gets buried under rockfall, etc...

Terrible news. RIP.

So tragic RIP Scott

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:26

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:10

Cazelo wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 05:59 He put his life on the line for the sake of a couple of grand that he likely had to sell tickets to earn the right to fight.

The wage structure in boxing has to change so the reward meets the risk.

I don’t understand?

Scott like all fighters made a risk v reward decision. It didn’t work out for him and that is incredibly sad, but to suggest fighters should be paid more because getting punched in the head is dangerous makes precisely no sense.

It's pretty much universally accepted that more risk demands better pay. If it didn't, we'd all pay the same car insurance, soldiers wouldn't get hazard pay for being stationed in war zones, and working on oil rigs wouldn't be such a lucrative trade.

It jars when that risk isn't reflected in better pay, i.e. where a boxer loses his life earning a few hundred quid or a grand, when a badly-paid miner gets buried under rockfall, etc...

Small time promoters often lose cash. If we start having minimum pay for fighters then we will just end up with no small hall scene.

It is sad, but if any fighters think the risk isn't worth it they can hang the gloves up. That is for the individual.

A death in boxing is always very sad, but the money is neither here nor there.
If a man dies for £1m is that less sad than for £1000?
It’s an inherently dangerous sport and all involved know that.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:55 A death in boxing is always very sad, but the money is neither here nor there.
If a man dies for £1m is that less sad than for £1000?
It’s an inherently dangerous sport and all involved know that.

Indeed. And some fellas love the sport more than the money it brings.

thepocketrocket wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:42

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:26

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:10

I don’t understand?

Scott like all fighters made a risk v reward decision. It didn’t work out for him and that is incredibly sad, but to suggest fighters should be paid more because getting punched in the head is dangerous makes precisely no sense.

It's pretty much universally accepted that more risk demands better pay. If it didn't, we'd all pay the same car insurance, soldiers wouldn't get hazard pay for being stationed in war zones, and working on oil rigs wouldn't be such a lucrative trade.

It jars when that risk isn't reflected in better pay, i.e. where a boxer loses his life earning a few hundred quid or a grand, when a badly-paid miner gets buried under rockfall, etc...

Small time promoters often lose cash. If we start having minimum pay for fighters then we will just end up with no small hall scene.

It is sad, but if any fighters think the risk isn't worth it they can hang the gloves up. That is for the individual.

Or lower-earning fighters can be subsidised by taking more off higher earners. Given the popularity of boxing in this country at the moment I don't think that would lead to a stampede overseas.

dookus, have a think about what you're writing, both in terms of simple economics and philosophically.

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:22 dookus, have a think about what you're writing, both in terms of simple economics and philosophically.

Have done. Am not into unrestrained free market economics, particularly where the activity in question has a heavy human toll. A compulsory levee on higher purses (say 1 or 2%) to be paid into a fund boosting the earnings of boxers at the arse end of earnings purse is not going to lead to the complete death of large boxing events in this country. It may even provide an incentive for talented young fighters not to become journeyman just so they can earn enough as prospects to make the game worthwhile.

RIP Scott

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:09

thepocketrocket wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:42

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:26
It's pretty much universally accepted that more risk demands better pay. If it didn't, we'd all pay the same car insurance, soldiers wouldn't get hazard pay for being stationed in war zones, and working on oil rigs wouldn't be such a lucrative trade.

It jars when that risk isn't reflected in better pay, i.e. where a boxer loses his life earning a few hundred quid or a grand, when a badly-paid miner gets buried under rockfall, etc...

Small time promoters often lose cash. If we start having minimum pay for fighters then we will just end up with no small hall scene.

It is sad, but if any fighters think the risk isn't worth it they can hang the gloves up. That is for the individual.

Or lower-earning fighters can be subsidised by taking more off higher earners. Given the popularity of boxing in this country at the moment I don't think that would lead to a stampede overseas.

Yeah...scamming 10% off Joshua's earning to pay lower fighters when all are self employed isn't illegal beyond belief at all...

I won't go in too hard as all true fans are in mourning today. That will lead to some posts being less than intelligent, but probably coming from a good place.

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:29

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:22 dookus, have a think about what you're writing, both in terms of simple economics and philosophically.

Have done. Am not into unrestrained free market economics, particularly where the activity in question has a heavy human toll. A compulsory levee on higher purses (say 1 or 2%) to be paid into a fund boosting the earnings of boxers at the arse end of earnings purse is not going to lead to the complete death of large boxing events in this country. It may even provide an incentive for talented young fighters not to become journeyman just so they can earn enough as prospects to make the game worthwhile.

This probably isn't the topic for this discussion. Start another one if you like and I'll participate there.

All the best to Scott's family and friends, and to his opponent and connections.

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:33

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:29

Sklar wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:22 dookus, have a think about what you're writing, both in terms of simple economics and philosophically.

Have done. Am not into unrestrained free market economics, particularly where the activity in question has a heavy human toll. A compulsory levee on higher purses (say 1 or 2%) to be paid into a fund boosting the earnings of boxers at the arse end of earnings purse is not going to lead to the complete death of large boxing events in this country. It may even provide an incentive for talented young fighters not to become journeyman just so they can earn enough as prospects to make the game worthwhile.

This probably isn't the topic for this discussion. Start another one if you like and I'll participate there.

All the best to Scott's family and friends, and to his opponent and connections.

I agree and will leave the discussion there.

RIP Scott and my condolences to all involved.

thepocketrocket wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:32

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:09

thepocketrocket wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 09:42


Small time promoters often lose cash. If we start having minimum pay for fighters then we will just end up with no small hall scene.

It is sad, but if any fighters think the risk isn't worth it they can hang the gloves up. That is for the individual.

Or lower-earning fighters can be subsidised by taking more off higher earners. Given the popularity of boxing in this country at the moment I don't think that would lead to a stampede overseas.

Yeah...scamming 10% off Joshua's earning to pay lower fighters when all are self employed isn't illegal beyond belief at all...

I won't go in too hard as all true fans are in mourning today. That will lead to some posts being less than intelligent, but probably coming from a good place.

Totally uncalled for. If you want to have a civil discussion about how the economics of boxing can be reformed, rather than sling sanctimonious insults around, then I'm happy to oblige elsewhere.

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:52

thepocketrocket wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:32

dookus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 10:09
Or lower-earning fighters can be subsidised by taking more off higher earners. Given the popularity of boxing in this country at the moment I don't think that would lead to a stampede overseas.

Yeah...scamming 10% off Joshua's earning to pay lower fighters when all are self employed isn't illegal beyond belief at all...

I won't go in too hard as all true fans are in mourning today. That will lead to some posts being less than intelligent, but probably coming from a good place.

Totally uncalled for. If you want to have a civil discussion about how the economics of boxing can be reformed, rather than sling sanctimonious insults around, then I'm happy to oblige elsewhere.

It certainly wasn't meant as an insult as I pointed out your thoughts came from a good place. If you felt insulted, I apologise.

Very sad news, RIP

incidentally there is a funding page set up if anyone wants to donate

https://www.gofundme.com/scott-westgarth

Scott Westgarth R.I.P.

Steve Bunce's article about this seemed unpleasant and I'm not sure what sort of point that he was trying to make with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 29036.html

RIP.

Horrible news today. Thoughts to family and friends.

Horse wrote: ↑26 Feb 2018, 15:13 Scott Westgarth R.I.P.

Steve Bunce's article about this seemed unpleasant and I'm not sure what sort of point that he was trying to make with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 29036.html

Agreed, the tone was strange. I assume he was implicitly responding to something some journalist or other has said?