BoxRec

Thinking about running a general Inquest in the November issue, wide range of topics rather than the one we ran a few months back in which Steve Lillis, Ron Borges and myself gave views on the Klitschko-Haye fight.

I'm after questions on any boxing topic, plus the three BM writers you would like to see discuss them.

Fire away please!

The standard of officiating in British boxing.

It's time someone in a greater capacity than a member of an internet forum raised the issue - great opportunity for you here......

LeedsLad wrote:The standard of officiating in British boxing.

It's time someone in a greater capacity than a member of an internet forum raised the issue - great opportunity for you here......

Has to be number one at the moment

Lenny wrote:

LeedsLad wrote:The standard of officiating in British boxing.

It's time someone in a greater capacity than a member of an internet forum raised the issue - great opportunity for you here......

Has to be number one at the moment

Agreed wholeheartedly. There just seems to be issues week after week which are overshadowing the fights themselves.

1. Officiating in boxing.
2. Judging in boxing - should it be introduced that the judges involved are not of the same nationality as either fighter? Or have a mix or backgrounds, for instance all three judges can't all be British.
3. Drug testing in boxing.

I'm not convinced we need neutral judges, the standard of cricket umpiring hasn't improved since the introduction of neutral umpires for Test matches - granted they were starting at a much higher level than we would be.

I'd guess boxing has always had questionable/dodgy decisions, but in the days of two men and a dog attending a show at a working mens club with no TV coverage these kind of things could be swept under the carpet, but with the days of internet, camera phones etc a ''prospect'' being stood on his head and getting a win over a journeyman ought to be long gone.

It's a shame that the BBBoC are probably the world leaders when it comes to safety of both their own fighters and those from overseas, yet seemingly unashamedly on a par with Germany, Italy etc when treating ''away'' fighters on the scorecards.

If I was a promoter who was putting a fighter in a world title fight in the UK I'd be very wary about doing so unless my man stood a fair chance of knocking the Brit out.

The power of Promoters in Boxing.

They have the power (explicit or otherwise) to make or break fighters careers almost on a whim, they have fingers in the officials pies clouding punters confidence in the integrity of decisions.

How happy can the likes of Nathan Cleverly and Ricky Burns be when one minute they thought they would be showcased to both hardcore and casual fans on normal Sky, but now following a decision taken by their promotional representative, they will be watched by the proverbial man and his mangy dog?

And what of the prospect of fighters contracts being transferred to a different promoter allowing the original promoter to default on their liabilities without losing their core business? I'm sure it's happened before and wouldn't be at all surprised if it were to happen again.

Failing that, it has to be what can be done about the proliferation of titles making boxing at the highest level an increasingly opaque consideration for casual fans. What I would like to see in any kind of debate is not just a discussion of the problems and their causes, but some realistic solutions - ideas that can be taken to those with power (TV, Promoters) and given some kind of opportunity to be carried out.

Or Drugs in Boxing. An open, honest debate. It goes on in all sports, boxing is no different, so why is the testing regime so inadequate across the world? Boxing is a sport that involves hurting your opponent, Golf involves hitting a ball with a stick and the closest you come to your opponent is when shaking hands at the end of 18 holes of hard toil. Yet which of these sports has a coherent, consistent somewhat respected drugs testing policy and which doesn't?

I have many more issues, but that's the three that irk me the most.

Thanks for these chaps but they're a bit too general, need more direct questions - rather than 'the state of officiating' etc, could we think in terms of 'Is the state of officiating in British boxing high enough?' or whatever - and then give us a clue as to why you have asked that question and what aspects you would like us to discuss. King G's post re the Board is along the right lines, gives us a question and some points of reference within it. Thanks

King Geedorah wrote: get the promoters to sit down ahead of a the coming season, put tribalism at the door and work out how to push things forward for the greater good.

Now that's a meeting I'd pay PPV money to watch. Warren, Hatton, Hearn (Snr and Jnr), Maloney and Meaty Mick all in a room being told to work together? Flying pigs over a frozen lake in hell are more likely a sight.

A couple of you have mentioned drug testing, in relation to what? Any specific instances? I.E. Is Floyd's insistence on Pacquiao undergoing drug testing really so outrageous?

This is great by the way, thanks a lot, getting a few good points to discuss out of this — knew this would be a good place to come for intelligent questions

Glyn Leach wrote:A couple of you have mentioned drug testing, in relation to what? Any specific instances? I.E. Is Floyd's insistence on Pacquiao undergoing drug testing really so outrageous?

This is great by the way, thanks a lot, getting a few good points to discuss out of this — knew this would be a good place to come for intelligent questions

flattery will get you everwhere.

In relation to the drug testing, for me I would like to know if a set criteria of drug testing should be in place and followed by all worlwide, rather than having different rules being applied depending on where you fight.

My issues as questions:

- Is the power wielded by certain promoters negative for the sport in general?

- Are boxers given the best opportunity to make successful careers given the control wielded by their promoters?

- What could be done by the governing body to provide independent advice for boxers during contract negotiations? Ie, allow the balance of power to shift ever so slightly back towards the men getting into the ring?

- Should promoters have such power over the selection of officials for fights they are promoting?

- Should there be a set of minimum standards that promoters have to follow when putting on a show - things like seating and security are often inadequate in terms of punters comfort and enjoyment of a fight night. Looking after the paying public will have tangible benefits.

- Is the growth of subscription channels with a heavy boxing focus a good or bad thing for the sport?

- Should TV ignore alphabet titles and just commission fights based on the attractiveness of the bout itself?

- Is drug testing in boxing adequate?

- Should boxing adhere to WADA like almost every other sport on the planet? While I don't side with Floyd on the Manny testing debate, he does raise an issue that drug testing is inconsistent and is part of the fight negotiations. Every fight carried out anywhere in the world should have two fighters that are subject to the same testing regime and the same disciplinary process. That way it removes any doubt. What is stopping this process being applied in Boxing?

- Does Boxing need a single governing body, a la FIFA?

Glyn Leach wrote:A couple of you have mentioned drug testing, in relation to what? Any specific instances? I.E. Is Floyd's insistence on Pacquiao undergoing drug testing really so outrageous?

Yes, but because it should be across the board for all fighters. It shouldn't come down to one fighter demanding it for another.

And as fair as a specific suggestion goes, is the current standard of officiating in this country doing significant damage to the appeal of the sport? Will fans be turned off the sport for the lack of fair contests? When was it worse?

Lenny wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:A couple of you have mentioned drug testing, in relation to what? Any specific instances? I.E. Is Floyd's insistence on Pacquiao undergoing drug testing really so outrageous?

Yes, but because it should be across the board for all fighters. It shouldn't come down to one fighter demanding it for another.

And as fair as a specific suggestion goes, is the current standard of officiating in this country doing significant damage to the appeal of the sport? Will fans be turned off the sport for the lack of fair contests? When was it worse?

Cheers Lenny, that's the ticket

Lenny wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:A couple of you have mentioned drug testing, in relation to what? Any specific instances? I.E. Is Floyd's insistence on Pacquiao undergoing drug testing really so outrageous?

Yes, but because it should be across the board for all fighters. It shouldn't come down to one fighter demanding it for another.

And as fair as a specific suggestion goes, is the current standard of officiating in this country doing significant damage to the appeal of the sport? Will fans be turned off the sport for the lack of fair contests? When was it worse?

I actually think that we are blessed with some great officials in this country, with the noted exceptions being just that...exceptional. Maybe an additional question could be how can global standards of officiating be improved and made more consistent?

Some of the things I'd like to look at around officiating.

Is there such thing as a correct score in a round, or is subjectivity sufficient excuse?
What should be done if a card doesn't match up to expectations?
Do rules need changing as often the scoring criteria is ignored and fights are judged on workrate alone (Williams-Lara)?
Are judges given sufficient training/testing in the above, as opposed to scorecard comparisons against judges making the same mistakes?
Does the 10 point must system allow enough flexibility, or is flexibility a danger to consistency/control?
How can judges be protected against the power of promoters, and scoring for home fighters as a means of self preservation?
Why is there no consistency in punishments for low blows: Agbeko-Mares and Miranda-Despaigne - completely different refereeing (related to above?).

Glyn Leach wrote:A couple of you have mentioned drug testing, in relation to what? Any specific instances? I.E. Is Floyd's insistence on Pacquiao undergoing drug testing really so outrageous?

This is great by the way, thanks a lot, getting a few good points to discuss out of this — knew this would be a good place to come for intelligent questions

This Love to see BM take on this subject, no one else is. To what extent to we think there are steroid cheats in boxing ? There's only been a few caught ( Holy, Jones Jr, Vargas, Toney ) and unlike all other sports, they're pretty much allowed to just move on and forget about it - and with drugs like " clear" and the millions at stake - there's probably a LOT more. I think Floyd is right.

Read "Game of shadows" to see how it's destroying the whole reputation of baseball.

Yeah I agree it's a tough one to get a handle on, wishful thinking maybe - unless someone comes up with a credible whistleblower, you're on thin ice. But it's got to be bad news if boxing continues to ignore the "possible" problem.

RE: drug testing

I think it would be relatively easy subject to explain:

What Performance Enhancer would a boxer typically use?
In relation to boxing, the most obvious performance enhancer that a fighter would benefit from would be Erythropoietin aka EPO (a hormone naturally produced by the kidneys).

How does the Enhancer work?
The enhancer is injected under the skin and stimulates red blood cell production. The more red cells there are in your body, the more oxygen that can be delivered to the muscles. This delays the onset of fatigue, meaning an athlete can train harder and for longer. It effectively increases endurance and improves recovery time.

Pros / Cons of taking an Enhancer?
Tests in Australia have shown that improvements in an athlete's performance over four weeks would match those expected over several years.
Injecting the drug will thicken the blood. Increasing the likelihood of suffering blood clots, heart attacks and strokes is a real possibility.

Is EPO use detectable?
Yes, a blood test can determine if an athlete has an unusual blood profile (a high amount of red blood cells) that warrants further investigation. The abnormal profile could be caused by the use of EPO, some other blood boosting drug, or just be explained by the athlete being a genetic freak or living at altitude. The testers then perform the urine EPO test to determine whether the red blood cells have been artificially created (by use of the EPO) or are "normal" red blood cells. However the urine EPO test can often only detect EPO usage in the previous 48 hours.

Think that makes it pretty clear to the layman why random tests are preferred by Mayweather, but it does not explain why PBF seems to be hell-bent on blood tests as blood tests only highlights an unusual profile..

Macho makes a good point, the like of which could be applied to a few of the questions mentioned - if not regarding expertise, then in terms of space per question. We will have around 100 words each per question between the three of us so it doesn't make sense for us to tackle subjects that really require an article, the drugs one being a classic case in point (so expect an article). We're looking for short and sweet stuff really.

Glyn Leach wrote:Macho makes a good point, the like of which could be applied to a few of the questions mentioned - if not regarding expertise, then in terms of space per question. We will have around 100 words each per question between the three of us so it doesn't make sense for us to tackle subjects that really require an article, the drugs one being a classic case in point (so expect an article). We're looking for short and sweet stuff really.

I see your point, there is no way you would be able to go into the neccessary detail of "drug gate" in a 100 words. But I look forward to reading the article

Why is boxing the only sport ( I think ) where the participants openly boast about how easily they are going to win - that the other guy has absolutely NO chance at all. There is just NO WAY they can lose. Bet all your money on it.

Football, cricket, rugby, even tennis - it's all "we'll do our best ( or I'll do my best ) and hopefully get a result...etc etc " They're too scared to say the truth, in case they jinx themselves, or end up looking daft.

But it's the opposite in boxing ( most of the time )


NB..........I realise you can't really do an article on this, but it's an interesting question all the same.

My pet hate is the amount of fights that have to the action stopped to remove dangling tape from boxing gloves. We can put a man on the moon (well we could), so why can't the Great minds of boxing resolve this glove tape conundrum? I don't see why both boxers can't have a tubi-grip type bandage over the problem areas or the ref should have the necessary equipment on him (tape/scissors) to sort it out quickly.

Chambers2 wrote:My pet hate is the amount of fights that have to the action stopped to remove dangling tape from boxing gloves. We can put a man on the moon (well we could), so why can't the Great minds of boxing resolve this glove tape conundrum? I don't see why both boxers can't have a tubi-grip type bandage over the problem areas or the ref should have the necessary equipment on him (tape/scissors) to sort it out quickly.

Did the Appleby fight annoy you then i take it? lol

1. Commentary during live fights - who needs it? and how does it affect joe public's perception of boxing and the way fights should be scored?

2. Small hall shows/promoters - what can the big boys (promoters/TV Stations/mags and other media) do to give 'grass roots pro boxing' a lift and make small hall shows better attended/more interesting/profitable (there's good example that Jeff Thomas and Steve Goodwin came up with for their October 8th York Hall bill)

3. The proliferation of TV channels - are we being spoiled, or are they spoiling it? Where's it heading? Will all the main promoters eventually have their own TV Channel/Stream? How will the success/failure of allegedly affect Sky's interest in the sport? Is this good for boxing?

The writers should be Ian Mc, Glyn Leach and the sexual analogy obsessed lunatic Terry Dooley, because, without getting all arse-lickey, at least they are capable of offering a bit of insight, rather than just spewing out biased opinion and telling people what they already fkin know.