BoxRec

anybody got any ideas what they are getting for the fight??

Glad is not PPV but it should make massive amounts of money through ticket sales , sponsors etc

MachoMan09 wrote:

stujones wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: Why must we have uniformity? And who are "we" anyway? If 22 fat knackers with bad knees and no eyes decided to book Wembley for a football match and sell tickets for the privilege of being able to watch, what's the problem? The onus is on the potential customer to decide if they want to buy a ticket or not.

Not sure the analogy is exactly holds true cause of the more violent nature of the sport. If you have 22 fat knackers with bad knees - you can see exactly what the problem is and you can make judgments (the punter).

If you have a fighter with some damage retina, not that visible in press conferences etc, or you have a fighter who has had some neural damage.... and they end up blinded or worst.... how will the press react, what about insurance details and claims etc. What will that do for the nay sayers who want to ban the sport.

Spencer Oliver recently spoke and said words to the effect of "if by some miracle the BBBoC would licence me, I wouldn't hesistate but to comeback"..... Now, Spencer is aware that the BBBoC wouldn't and he is not actively seeking out a chance with them.... but now there are avenues available..... possibly not for Spencer himself, because his was such a high profile problem.... but what about Barry Jones before him, or Nigel Wright now.

It doesn't matter what the product is, legal or illegal, licensed or unlicensed, if there is a market for it, it will be made available. Nobody will disagree with that, I'm sure. Boxing is legal, there is a market for it, there is no requirement to hold a license to promote a boxing show in the UK, as far as I'm aware, there never has been.

Precisely where people choose to set their 'ethical bar' will vary from individual to individual but the vast majority will have it set at a comparable level. The very fact that the overwhelming majority of the contemporary public would be against the idea of paying to watch people with eye damage and brain injuries fighting each other is why such events are unlikely to be promoted to the general public, via the national media, in the first place - although that's not to say there isn't a market at all.

Therefore a boxing promoter who is targeting the public at large will almost certainly take all realistic precautions to ensure the guys he is putting on his shows are medically fit when the opening bell sounds, irrespective of whether the show is sanctioned by the BBBoC.

Wasn't there fears that Hatton was going to lose his promotional license after he got caught with the nose candy?

I can see another problem, Haye is Millwall right?

Hope their hooligan element don't see it as a reason to turn up mob handed, was very NASTY last time they went to Upton Park, albiet for a football game last time.

:(

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

stujones wrote: Not sure the analogy is exactly holds true cause of the more violent nature of the sport. If you have 22 fat knackers with bad knees - you can see exactly what the problem is and you can make judgments (the punter).

If you have a fighter with some damage retina, not that visible in press conferences etc, or you have a fighter who has had some neural damage.... and they end up blinded or worst.... how will the press react, what about insurance details and claims etc. What will that do for the nay sayers who want to ban the sport.

Spencer Oliver recently spoke and said words to the effect of "if by some miracle the BBBoC would licence me, I wouldn't hesistate but to comeback"..... Now, Spencer is aware that the BBBoC wouldn't and he is not actively seeking out a chance with them.... but now there are avenues available..... possibly not for Spencer himself, because his was such a high profile problem.... but what about Barry Jones before him, or Nigel Wright now.

It doesn't matter what the product is, legal or illegal, licensed or unlicensed, if there is a market for it, it will be made available. Nobody will disagree with that, I'm sure. Boxing is legal, there is a market for it, there is no requirement to hold a license to promote a boxing show in the UK, as far as I'm aware, there never has been.

Precisely where people choose to set their 'ethical bar' will vary from individual to individual but the vast majority will have it set at a comparable level. The very fact that the overwhelming majority of the contemporary public would be against the idea of paying to watch people with eye damage and brain injuries fighting each other is why such events are unlikely to be promoted to the general public, via the national media, in the first place - although that's not to say there isn't a market at all.

Therefore a boxing promoter who is targeting the public at large will almost certainly take all realistic precautions to ensure the guys he is putting on his shows are medically fit when the opening bell sounds, irrespective of whether the show is sanctioned by the BBBoC.

Wasn't there fears that Hatton was going to lose his promotional license after he got caught with the nose candy?

Macho - you make a lot of sense in your post, but you are also kind of missing the point I was trying to make.

Okay, I will think of an example.... Mark Potter. Now, he cannot get a BBBoC licence cause of eye problems I believe. We know this, cause we are hardcore boxing fans who chat on forums.... does the general public.... I wouldn't have thought so, does the unlicenced boxing promoter advertise the fact "oh, Mark Potter still got it, but his eye is effed".... No I don't think he does.

If there wasn't a BBBoC test that he failed then the public at large wouldn't have known there was a problem. Nigel Wright, because of a BBBoC test he couldn't fight Theophane - if he didn't need such a test to fight, then who would have known.

Its not as if the promoters are going to promoting the fact that these fighters have issues. If it wasn't for the BBBoC we wouldn't known about these problems. How do we know that any of the fighters on Ross Minter shows, as an example, are fit enought medically to box? Do they publish the results of the annual MRI scans? We currently make an assumption that all are fit to fight based on stringent health checks.... what would happen if nobody is saying anything about the health of the fighter, mainly because they cannot afford to test them religiously.

I love boxing and if there were some excellent unlicenced shows I would watch, but I think my interest would wain if I was seeing more fighters getting blinded or dying because they were not fit to fight.... the calls for the sport being "barbaric" and should be banned, would increase.

The regulations are there not just so they can sanction British title fights, but there for the safety of the fighters.

How can this fight take place without completely destroying the credibility of boxing as a proper sport in Britain? The BBBofC MUST take a strong stance and make it clear that FW will lose his promoter's licence if he goes ahead and that no licensed boxers referees or judges can be involved without losing their licences as well. Nothing to stop FW continuing on the unlicensed circuit of course but there can be no half measures here - anarchy versus proper regulation. Take your pick.

josco wrote:How can this fight take place without completely destroying the credibility of boxing as a proper sport in Britain? The BBBofC MUST take a strong stance and make it clear that FW will lose his promoter's licence if he goes ahead and that no licensed boxers referees or judges can be involved without losing their licences as well. Nothing to stop FW continuing on the unlicensed circuit of course but there can be no half measures here - anarchy versus proper regulation. Take your pick.

How can they take away his Promoters licence when he's not promoting the fight?

Does anyone have any details on the last fight/card carried out under the Luxembourg commission?

Good news for anyone on the continent or anyone who can receive ARD: the fight will be broadcast live on ARD!

earsjohn wrote:

josco wrote:How can this fight take place without completely destroying the credibility of boxing as a proper sport in Britain? The BBBofC MUST take a strong stance and make it clear that FW will lose his promoter's licence if he goes ahead and that no licensed boxers referees or judges can be involved without losing their licences as well. Nothing to stop FW continuing on the unlicensed circuit of course but there can be no half measures here - anarchy versus proper regulation. Take your pick.

How can they take away his Promoters licence when he's not promoting the fight?

Does anyone have any details on the last fight/card carried out under the Luxembourg commission?

Sorry - my mistake. Who would be the promoter then?

josco wrote:How can this fight take place without completely destroying the credibility of boxing as a proper sport in Britain?

It won't destroy boxing's credibility.

josco wrote:The BBBofC MUST take a strong stance and make it clear that FW will lose his promoter's licence if he goes ahead and that no licensed boxers referees or judges can be involved without losing their licences as well.

If the BBBofC try to get tough like that then it could backfire and lead to a lot of non-BBBofC fight cards being put on in Britain.

josco wrote:Nothing to stop FW continuing on the unlicensed circuit of course but there can be no half measures here - anarchy versus proper regulation. Take your pick.

I would choose anarchy over the BBBofC lording it over everyone.

Mickey Vann should ref this with roger tillerman as one of the judges

Glass Joe wrote:Mickey Vann should ref this with roger tillerman as one of the judges

Bad taste unless you didnt know Roger Tillerman had passed away

BBBofC: What is the point?

Seriously what is the point of that organisation, if 2 unlicensed fighters; one of whom is currently banned by the said organisation can fighter each other on British soil?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining; in fact, I'm glad that finally, there is a heavyweight fight that might be genuinely worth watching, but I'm just baffled by the whole situation.

So disappointed this is happening. It just lowers the sport further. Anyone who supports this fight, let alone pays to see it, is just encouraging the type of shameful behavior exhibited by this pair that has lowered the sport even further in this country. I will not pay a subscription to allegedly that month in protest. If you care about boxing, decency and sportsmanship, please give this one a miss.

Heiwa wrote:So disappointed this is happening. It just lowers the sport further. Anyone who supports this fight, let alone pays to see it, is just encouraging the type of shameful behavior exhibited by this pair that has lowered the sport even further in this country. I will not pay a subscription to Allegedly channel that month in protest. If you care about boxing, decency and sportsmanship, please give this one a miss.

Oh shouldnt you be concentrating on your vajazzal. The British board wanted to make the headlines handing out a harsh punishment and it bit them in the ass. If you think anyone is giving this fight a miss you must be on crack.

kingfinn wrote:

Heiwa wrote:So disappointed this is happening. It just lowers the sport further. Anyone who supports this fight, let alone pays to see it, is just encouraging the type of shameful behavior exhibited by this pair that has lowered the sport even further in this country. I will not pay a subscription to Allegedly channel that month in protest. If you care about boxing, decency and sportsmanship, please give this one a miss.

kingfinn wrote: Oh shouldnt you be concentrating on your vajazzal.

Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

kingfinn wrote: The British board wanted to make the headlines handing out a harsh punishment and it bit them in the ass. If you think anyone is giving this fight a miss you must be on crack.

Personally I think an example needed to be made of two unprofessional thugs who did further damage to a sport already losing popularity in this country. Are you really ok with what Chisora did both pre and post-fight? You think they deserve to be paid huge amounts on the back of their foul behavior? I'll be giving this fight a miss. I don't do crack.

kingfinn wrote:

Heiwa wrote:So disappointed this is happening. It just lowers the sport further. Anyone who supports this fight, let alone pays to see it, is just encouraging the type of shameful behavior exhibited by this pair that has lowered the sport even further in this country. I will not pay a subscription to Allegedly channel that month in protest. If you care about boxing, decency and sportsmanship, please give this one a miss.

Oh shouldnt you be concentrating on your vajazzal. The British board wanted to make the headlines handing out a harsh punishment and it bit them in the ass. If you think anyone is giving this fight a miss you must be on crack.

Why would they have wanted to do that? It was a headache that they could have done without. You think Allegedly makes a better judge and jury perhaps?

An example needs to be made? These are boxers, this is boxing not tiddly winks. I really fail to see what the fuss is about; they had a scuffle at a press conference and no-one was seriously injured. BIG DEAL. Last time I checked, the board did diddly squat to penalise Lewis when he threw a punch at Tyson in their press conference scuffle. Don't recall them refusing to let Tyson fight in the Uk either, despite having been convicted in a court of law of rape: a far worse crime than Chisora has ever been found guilty of.

Cholo_cws wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Heiwa wrote:So disappointed this is happening. It just lowers the sport further. Anyone who supports this fight, let alone pays to see it, is just encouraging the type of shameful behavior exhibited by this pair that has lowered the sport even further in this country. I will not pay a subscription to Allegedly channel that month in protest. If you care about boxing, decency and sportsmanship, please give this one a miss.

Oh shouldnt you be concentrating on your vajazzal. The British board wanted to make the headlines handing out a harsh punishment and it bit them in the ass. If you think anyone is giving this fight a miss you must be on crack.

Why would they have wanted to do that? It was a headache that they could have done without. You think Allegedly makes a better judge and jury perhaps?

To calm down the media outrage. In their opinion both Haye and Chidora brought the sport into disrepute and the harsh ruling for Chisora was merely keeping up
Appearances IMO.

black panther wrote:

Cholo_cws wrote:

kingfinn wrote: Oh shouldnt you be concentrating on your vajazzal. The British board wanted to make the headlines handing out a harsh punishment and it bit them in the ass. If you think anyone is giving this fight a miss you must be on crack.

Why would they have wanted to do that? It was a headache that they could have done without. You think Allegedly makes a better judge and jury perhaps?

To calm down the media outrage. In their opinion both Haye and Chidora brought the sport into disrepute and the harsh ruling for Chisora was merely keeping up
Appearances IMO.

If Chisora got a four month ban for biting a few years ago and seemingly hasn't learnt anything from it what do you expect the board to do?
Yes, it's not tiddlywinks but I don't see why boxers theses days are looked upon as fighting dogs who can't stop themselves.

black panther wrote:An example needs to be made? These are boxers, this is boxing not tiddly winks. I really fail to see what the fuss is about; they had a scuffle at a press conference and no-one was seriously injured. BIG DEAL. Last time I checked, the board did diddly squat to penalise Lewis when he threw a punch at Tyson in their press conference scuffle. Don't recall them refusing to let Tyson fight in the Uk either, despite having been convicted in a court of law of rape: a far worse crime than Chisora has ever been found guilty of.

Thank you for listing a few examples of why the sport is losing respect and popularity. Maybe if more action had been taken in the past re. the things you mention, then we would not have the situation we have now. But I guess it's just all about money anyway :(

Heiwa wrote:

black panther wrote:An example needs to be made? These are boxers, this is boxing not tiddly winks. I really fail to see what the fuss is about; they had a scuffle at a press conference and no-one was seriously injured. BIG DEAL. Last time I checked, the board did diddly squat to penalise Lewis when he threw a punch at Tyson in their press conference scuffle. Don't recall them refusing to let Tyson fight in the Uk either, despite having been convicted in a court of law of rape: a far worse crime than Chisora has ever been found guilty of.

Thank you for listing a few examples of why the sport is losing respect and popularity. Maybe if more action had been taken in the past re. the things you mention, then we would not have the situation we have now. But I guess it's just all about money anyway :(

Are people really put off boxing by scuffles at press conferences?

I thought people would be more put off boxing by the large amount of dodgy decisions and early stoppages as well as the best fighters avoiding each other.

All these things add up I guess :(

Horse wrote:

Heiwa wrote:

black panther wrote:An example needs to be made? These are boxers, this is boxing not tiddly winks. I really fail to see what the fuss is about; they had a scuffle at a press conference and no-one was seriously injured. BIG DEAL. Last time I checked, the board did diddly squat to penalise Lewis when he threw a punch at Tyson in their press conference scuffle. Don't recall them refusing to let Tyson fight in the Uk either, despite having been convicted in a court of law of rape: a far worse crime than Chisora has ever been found guilty of.

Thank you for listing a few examples of why the sport is losing respect and popularity. Maybe if more action had been taken in the past re. the things you mention, then we would not have the situation we have now. But I guess it's just all about money anyway :(

Are people really put off boxing by scuffles at press conferences?

I thought people would be more put off boxing by the large amount of dodgy decisions and early stoppages as well as the best fighters avoiding each other.

And the multiple titles - one thing people are forgetting is this isnt even a title fight, i cant recall a bigger non title fight than this.

kingfinn wrote:And the multiple titles - one thing people are forgetting is this isnt even a title fight, i cant recall a bigger non title fight than this.

It's for the vacant WBO International title (not to be confused for the more prestigious WBO Inter-Continental title).

Horse wrote:

kingfinn wrote:And the multiple titles - one thing people are forgetting is this isnt even a title fight, i cant recall a bigger non title fight than this.

It's for the vacant WBO International title (not to be confused for the more prestigious WBO Inter-Continental title).

Yeah thats not a world title thats just to show the fight is genuinely licensed and for FW's plans for chisora if he wins. I doubt they will be making too big a deal about it (i hope).