BoxRec

Esham has been nominated to box for the EU feather title against holder Alex Miskirtchian, last time out Pickering was KO'd in 3 by Oleg Yefimovych for the full EU title.

Miskirtchian isn't in the same class as Yefimovych , but it looks like boxers are lining up to add the name of Pickering to there records.

Old bones Ian wrote:Esham has been nominated to box for the EU feather title against holder Alex Miskirtchian, last time out Pickering was KO'd in 3 by Oleg Yefimovych for the full EU title.

Miskirtchian isn't in the same class as Yefimovych , but it looks like boxers are lining up to add the name of Pickering to there records.

Sad. He's done. I'd love to see him pull a surprise off though and get one FINAL payday.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:Esham has been nominated to box for the EU feather title against holder Alex Miskirtchian, last time out Pickering was KO'd in 3 by Oleg Yefimovych for the full EU title.

Miskirtchian isn't in the same class as Yefimovych , but it looks like boxers are lining up to add the name of Pickering to there records.

Sad. He's done. I'd love to see him pull a surprise off though and get one FINAL payday.

yeah, can't see this working out too well.

He should have really retired after the Sean Hughes victory - big big warning signs in both fights that he wasn't the fighter he was.

But... I am sure he knows what he is doing and he has the right to earn a living.

Hope he retires after going out in one last hurrah, but dont see it happening

stujones wrote:
But... I am sure he knows what he is doing and he has the right to earn a living.

Spot on

hope he pulls this off a credit to the sport a quality guy

Londonirish wrote:

stujones wrote:
But... I am sure he knows what he is doing and he has the right to earn a living.

Spot on

Sorry, but the weight of history is against you...

Deserter wrote:

Londonirish wrote:

stujones wrote:
But... I am sure he knows what he is doing and he has the right to earn a living.

Spot on

Sorry, but the weight of history is against you...

What that he dont know what he's doing and aint got right to earn a living?

Londonirish wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Londonirish wrote:

Spot on

Sorry, but the weight of history is against you...

What that he dont know what he's doing and aint got right to earn a living?

So my question to you is where do you draw the line? You know better than anyone the risk every boxer takes stepping in the ring - it's not a 'normal' living because the risks are disproportionately higher.
If you follow your logic, any boxer can continue indefinitely if they wish to. Do you not think that some fighters actually need protecting from themselves at some point? If not, you're on very dangerous ground in moral terms as far as I'm concerned.

Deserter wrote:

Londonirish wrote:

Deserter wrote: Sorry, but the weight of history is against you...

What that he dont know what he's doing and aint got right to earn a living?

So my question to you is where do you draw the line? You know better than anyone the risk every boxer takes stepping in the ring - it's not a 'normal' living because the risks are disproportionately higher.
If you follow your logic, any boxer can continue indefinitely if they wish to. Do you not think that some fighters actually need protecting from themselves at some point? If not, you're on very dangerous ground in moral terms as far as I'm concerned.

As long as he wents to fight then its up to him, he passes Medicals etc then i dont see a Problem.. He knows the Risk's simple as that, who am i you or anyone else to tell him to stop..

Londonirish wrote:As long as he wents to fight then its up to him, he passes Medicals etc then i dont see a Problem.. He knows the Risk's simple as that, who am i you or anyone else to tell him to stop..

x2

Martin has a point, obviously - but I'm with Deserter on this. Mainly because we don't want people to get hurt. He's a shell of his former self.

I always like Esham, he was a great fighter and a lovely fella to boot. It's sad to see him being used as a 'name' for peoples records :(

Coco wrote:

Londonirish wrote:As long as he wents to fight then its up to him, he passes Medicals etc then i dont see a Problem.. He knows the Risk's simple as that, who am i you or anyone else to tell him to stop..

x2

Politely disagree with you both. You only have to look at Howard Clarke in recent weeks to see evidence of someone who should have been prevented from carrying on. The history of boxing is littered with such sad cases.

Deserter wrote:

Coco wrote:

Londonirish wrote:As long as he wents to fight then its up to him, he passes Medicals etc then i dont see a Problem.. He knows the Risk's simple as that, who am i you or anyone else to tell him to stop..

x2

Politely disagree with you both. You only have to look at Howard Clarke in recent weeks to see evidence of someone who should have been prevented from carrying on. The history of boxing is littered with such sad cases.

While I do sympathise with your view, do you not think that if someone had tried to stop Clarke before he decided to retire - that there'd have been uproar about stoping someone without just cause, "denying me the right to feed and clothe my family" etc etc?

I just feel people need to be more responsible for their own actions.... and if Pickering passes all the medicals and various requirements - what more can the board do?

"T.M.K"

T.M.K wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Coco wrote: x2

Politely disagree with you both. You only have to look at Howard Clarke in recent weeks to see evidence of someone who should have been prevented from carrying on. The history of boxing is littered with such sad cases.

While I do sympathise with your view, do you not think that if someone had tried to stop Clarke before he decided to retire - that there'd have been uproar about stoping someone without just cause, "denying me the right to feed and clothe my family" etc etc?

I just feel people need to be more responsible for their own actions.... and if Pickering passes all the medicals and various requirements - what more can the board do?

"T.M.K"

And ironically I sympathise with your view as well, as I believe one of the worst traits of modern society is people absolving themselves of individual responsibility, and related to that the issue of the 'nanny state' in terms of telling people how to run their lives.
However, much like compulsory seatbelts etc, I just feel there's too much overwhelming evidence that many of the fighters who end up damaged are the least best placed to be objective about the risks and so the line needs to be drawn for them.
I appreciate this is the classic 'shades of grey' issue rather than in being clearly black and white, but I'd be interested to know if you really believe it's just down to the individual only?
For example, if a boxer suffered a series of KOs and was in his early 40s, but opted to continue for another five years of basically being a punching bag, would you be comfortable with that as it's down to his self-determination?
It's true in other facets of life as well - would you legalise all drugs on the basis that it's up to the individual if they want to take them or not, or would you feel that some people need protecting from themselves. Would you allow every individual to carry a gun? etc, etc, etc.

A boxer whose been in the game since the age of 8 !!! over 20 years doing something he loves.

All he knows is boxing,won many Amateur titles and won many pro fights ,even belts.

His peak has come and gone & now continues to box to earn a living

You take away the 6oz Gloves from a fighter who has pass all medicals would be morally wrong,but you let him continually boxing when he is only going to lose badly would also be wrong.

An ex-Champ wont go into Journey Man Mode,he wont take the count/Knee,An ex-champ will fight till the end which then becomes dangerous for his health.

Sadly for most boxers,Boxing became their bread & Butter.Some boxers continue to box because they don't know what else to do.

Looking over my Post,its looks complete nonsense but you might get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Michael Brodie came out of retirement and fought Mark Alexandra and should have went into retirement again before being Knock Out By Crolla.If Brodie wanted to come back again and passed the Boards Med's,Should he be allowed to fight on or stopped for his own good.

I do understand what people are saying, but there is fights out there that he can win, he aint the worst Feather Weight in the Country so if they are allowed to box then why should'nt he. Is this a Case of how good he use to be? Yes he aint as good as that anymore, but if this is what he wants to do to still make a living then its he's choice....
If he started off shit no one would have a problem. If he wants to be an opponent then imo its up to him. He does know the Risks which has been there from day one, if he was to except that he'd be an opponent then i think it could even be safer for him now, he'd be turning up with No preassure to win so he would'nt have to put as much into it, get on the offensive and not take any punishment, if he was to try and get back to British Euro level then i think he would get hurt, it is a seriously hard weight..

The only problem I have with what you saying is Esham's age. At 33 he's not ancient, so I do wonder if its age as to why he cannot do the things he used to..... I would be less concerned if he was 37 and in this form (if that makes sense) cause you say the reason why he isn't the fighter he was, is cause of a hard career..... and thats worst than just age IMO.

However, essentially I agree - he has passed all the tests, knows how to handle himself. He shouldn't be prevented from making a living. Just I am always more concerned with fighters being shot at a young age continuing.

i had a good chat to esham last night, he has been plagued by personal problems for a good few years now, but tells me that his head is now clean and he thinks he can turn back the clock, i heard talk that he is fighting moran? .. and esham says that if he cant beat moran then he is finished as a fighter.

so...he knows the score !!

he has sparred recently with john murray and im told esham handled himself very well !!

Deserter wrote:

T.M.K wrote:

Deserter wrote: Politely disagree with you both. You only have to look at Howard Clarke in recent weeks to see evidence of someone who should have been prevented from carrying on. The history of boxing is littered with such sad cases.

While I do sympathise with your view, do you not think that if someone had tried to stop Clarke before he decided to retire - that there'd have been uproar about stoping someone without just cause, "denying me the right to feed and clothe my family" etc etc?

I just feel people need to be more responsible for their own actions.... and if Pickering passes all the medicals and various requirements - what more can the board do?

"T.M.K"

And ironically I sympathise with your view as well, as I believe one of the worst traits of modern society is people absolving themselves of individual responsibility, and related to that the issue of the 'nanny state' in terms of telling people how to run their lives.
However, much like compulsory seatbelts etc, I just feel there's too much overwhelming evidence that many of the fighters who end up damaged are the least best placed to be objective about the risks and so the line needs to be drawn for them.
I appreciate this is the classic 'shades of grey' issue rather than in being clearly black and white, but I'd be interested to know if you really believe it's just down to the individual only?
For example, if a boxer suffered a series of KOs and was in his early 40s, but opted to continue for another five years of basically being a punching bag, would you be comfortable with that as it's down to his self-determination?
It's true in other facets of life as well - would you legalise all drugs on the basis that it's up to the individual if they want to take them or not, or would you feel that some people need protecting from themselves. Would you allow every individual to carry a gun? etc, etc, etc.

I nodded with all you wrote my friend,

I think a trusted manager (mind you, a boxer can just change) and a decent governing body do have their resposibilities, but ultimately if they set tests in place and the boxer passes I just don't see what else they can do. I really does, in the end, land with the fighter and their choice.

"T.M.K"

rhino222 wrote:i had a good chat to esham last night, he has been plagued by personal problems for a good few years now, but tells me that his head is now clean and he thinks he can turn back the clock, i heard talk that he is fighting moran? .. and esham says that if he cant beat moran then he is finished as a fighter.

so...he knows the score !!

he has sparred recently with john murray and im told esham handled himself very well !!

Yep spoke to Esham - even mentioned this bloody forum and we both had a chuckle about it!!!

I have to be honest I dont want to see the lad box again solely because I like him - I dont want to be a coward and say to him "whatever" when really I mean please dont box again.

Esham is a top man - one of the nicest people around - I just want to see him make the right decision for him not anyone else.

If he is that determined to box again then - he surely must see these comments on here as he visits the place and others will have given him their thoughts - then let the lad be.

the saddest thing about the night spud, was when dominic ingle said to me 'i dont want you and spud falling out again '... i smiled and said to dominic that if he sponsored it i would fight you but you would have to lose a shed load of weight !!

dominic and esham, in unison said 'oh i dont know, there is not much in it' !!! ...... i was gutted....

but esham did promise to be my chief second !!!

Deserter wrote:

Coco wrote:

Londonirish wrote:As long as he wents to fight then its up to him, he passes Medicals etc then i dont see a Problem.. He knows the Risk's simple as that, who am i you or anyone else to tell him to stop..

x2

Politely disagree with you both. You only have to look at Howard Clarke in recent weeks to see evidence of someone who should have been prevented from carrying on. The history of boxing is littered with such sad cases.

Massive differences , though.

Clarke took MANY fights, taking many purses and losing.

Yes, Pickering perhaps isn't as good as he once was- but still, he's a capable fighter. I don't see how he's in any more danger now, than before.

Taking fights that he probably won't win is VERY different from taking fights when he shouldn't be boxing any more at all. It's best not to confuse the two.