WSB AND AIBA ARE PROS

[ABC BOXING]

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/if-loma ... ord-222071

[scallum]

If he got paid per each bout then he is a professional fighter

[yu265545]

What does it matter whether you get paid by the bout, or paid by the month, or paid by the season? When you are paid to box, you are professional - simple as that.

Even the WSB calls themselves professional boxing!! - see their press release:

http://www.worldseriesboxing.com/index. ... nal-boxing

If he got paid per each bout then he is a professional fighter

[Tarquin Tarpaulin V]

There are a number of boxers eyeing genuine professional careers that will be horrified to hear that they will have losses on their record from the start.

[yu265545]

Ask Terrell Gausha about that. He thought he was making his professional debut on Showtime and was announced as being 5-2. On the undercard of Jacobs-Lorenzo on Fox Sports he was announced as being 10-2 after his win.

Yet, Boxrec still lists his record as 5-0
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

[scallum]

Ask Terrell Gausha about that. He thought he was making his professional debut on Showtime and was announced as being 5-2. On the undercard of Jacobs-Lorenzo on Fox Sports he was announced as being 10-2 after his win.

Yet, Boxrec still lists his record as 5-0
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

I wonder why sum are not considering wsb as not being professional?

[yu265545]

Ask Terrell Gausha about that. He thought he was making his professional debut on Showtime and was announced as being 5-2. On the undercard of Jacobs-Lorenzo on Fox Sports he was announced as being 10-2 after his win.

Yet, Boxrec still lists his record as 5-0
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

I wonder why sum are not considering wsb as not being professional?

Good question. There was a thread about it in the records form and some of the mods/editors were arguing that WSB involved restrictive contracts (could not fight outside of WSB) and thus that made them non-professional. I think that is all bogus. They are fighting a pro-style without headgear or vests using a three point must system - and getting paid for it.

AIBA definitely does NOT want WSB fights to be counted as pro, as any half-decent fighter with professional aspirations will not risk a loss on their record to participate.

Has AIBA gotten to BOXREC somehow? If someone knows Boxrec owner John Sheppard they should ping him - I would love to know his thoughts on this.

[crusader]

What does it matter whether you get paid by the bout, or paid by the month, or paid by the season? When you are paid to box, you are professional - simple as that.

Even the WSB calls themselves professional boxing!! - see their press release:

http://www.worldseriesboxing.com/index. ... nal-boxing

If he got paid per each bout then he is a professional fighter

By that logic, a 5 year old paid by a parent to compete in a sanctioned bout with headgear would be a professional boxer and should therefore have their record on this site. Most high level amateurs receive some type of payment to compete, and by taking your approach international amateur boxing largely seizes to exist.

I think it's currently much better to use rules and organization involvement as criteria to distinguish between amateur and professional boxing. In this sense, amateur and professional denote different rules and the involvement and type of involvement of specific groups (national organizations, commissions, etc). If payment is considered, there must be distinctions between factors such as payment systems or types.

None of this is inconsistent with your claim that WSB bouts should be considered pro bouts and listed on BoxRec, but I don't think 'professional' boxing should be defined simply by whether a boxer was paid to compete.

[ABC BOXING]

crusader,
in the 60's we use to do Wrestling shows around a state the guys were just friends and we got caught by the State autorities and they stopped us for doing shows without a license of this state. months later we all went to court and i tried explaing to the judge that we weren't professional just kids trying to make extra cash well he listened to us and said you guys made money doing this unlicensed sport so you guys are professionals slamed his hammer down on his desk and $200 fine and don't get caught doing this again without a state permitt and license. We never wrestled ever again.
But going by the way you say "I don't think professional' boxing should be defined simply by whether a boxer was paid to compete". is an interesting comment i might try that statement next time they catch me being a John and send me before a judge and i say "I don't think your honor just because she got paid made her a prostitute.
Oldest profession in the World next to boxing!!!
A Pro is a Pro doesn't matter the profession.

[crusader]

Prostitution is defined by the exchange of sexual services for payment, but boxing is not prostitution and there is no distinction between professional and amateur prostitution.

Professional boxing cannot simply be defined by receiving payment in exchange for boxing, because many amateurs are paid in some way to compete. If you think that payment equates to professional boxing, you must also hold that a five year old paid a dollar by his father to compete is a professional boxer, and that Lomachenko has been a pro for many years and probably already has a pro record of around 100-1.

[ABC BOXING]

Prostitution is defined by the exchange of sexual services for payment, but boxing is not prostitution and there is no distinction between professional and amateur prostitution.

Professional boxing cannot simply be defined by receiving payment in exchange for boxing, because many amateurs are paid in some way to compete. If you think that payment equates to professional boxing, you must also hold that a five year old paid a dollar by his father to compete is a professional boxer, and that Lomachenko has been a pro for many years and probably already has a pro record of around 100-1.

I don't know one kid in america that would fight for one dollar. that father should be held for child labor laws

[crusader]

Maybe the father pays his son a dollar because he thinks it will motivate the son or draw him more towards boxing; maybe the son loves boxing anyway and would fight even for free.

Offering payment doesn't imply that someone is forcing another to do something.

[yu265545]

I think there is a difference between being awarded a monetary prize for amateur success (i.e. winning a gold medal) and being paid a salary to box (over an above covering your gear, training/coaching, travel, per diem, etc.). If any country actually paid a boxer a salary, then that boxer should not be considered a amateur. Yes, I know in the real world many amateur boxers are paid, especially in former Soviet countries, but that is under the table - not in the open.

If the theoretical 5 year old was being paid to fight by his parents, and boxing was the 5 year old's profession, then he would cease to be an amateur. If being paid means, having money to buy gear, gym time, lunch during training, accomodations, travel to and from tournaments, and a gift for winning a tournament, then no, getting paid would not make him a professional.

Here is the definition of amateur by dictionary.com

Amateur: a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

I think its clear, getting a salary to box, or being paid by the fight makes you a professional. Just because it is secretly going on behind the scene does not change the definition.

If he got paid per each bout then he is a professional fighter

[/quote]

By that logic, a 5 year old paid by a parent to compete in a sanctioned bout with headgear would be a professional boxer and should therefore have their record on this site. Most high level amateurs receive some type of payment to compete, and by taking your approach international amateur boxing largely seizes to exist.

I think it's currently much better to use rules and organization involvement as criteria to distinguish between amateur and professional boxing. In this sense, amateur and professional denote different rules and the involvement and type of involvement of specific groups (national organizations, commissions, etc). If payment is considered, there must be distinctions between factors such as payment systems or types.

None of this is inconsistent with your claim that WSB bouts should be considered pro bouts and listed on BoxRec, but I don't think 'professional' boxing should be defined simply by whether a boxer was paid to compete.[/quote]

[ABC BOXING]

I was told that Cubans fighters can not keep the money they earn for WSO fights. Does anyone have information if this is true.

[crusader]

I think there is a difference between being awarded a monetary prize for amateur success (i.e. winning a gold medal) and being paid a salary to box (over an above covering your gear, training/coaching, travel, per diem, etc.). If any country actually paid a boxer a salary, then that boxer should not be considered a amateur. Yes, I know in the real world many amateur boxers are paid, especially in former Soviet countries, but that is under the table - not in the open.

There is a difference between being paid an award and being paid to box, but plenty of amateurs are paid in the latter sense.

Amateur boxing has long denoted a set of rules, regulations, and organizations that differ from those of professional boxing, not simply a lack of payment compared to professional boxing; you may see this as a misnomer, but that doesn't change the fact that amateur boxing is qualitatively different from professional boxing, and in ways other than pay. In saying that amateurs should be considered pros if they're paid to box, you're ignoring these differences and much of the history of amateur boxing. In fact, you're going so far as to redefine what it means to be an amateur boxer and you are trying to force your definition upon others.

Here is the definition of amateur by dictionary.com

Amateur: a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

I think its clear, getting a salary to box, or being paid by the fight makes you a professional. Just because it is secretly going on behind the scene does not change the definition

Amateur has multiple meanings, one of which denotes inability. Does this mean that someone who competes for money under professional rules but lacks ability should be considered an amateur boxer and not a professional boxer? No, because in boxing terms like 'amateur' don't refer just to one's ability; they also refer to the set of rules under which someone competes. Likewise, that amateur is defined in some senses as engaging in something without payment doesn't preclude it's use in another sense to refer to a type of boxing governed by specific rules.

If the theoretical 5 year old was being paid to fight by his parents, and boxing was the 5 year old's profession, then he would cease to be an amateur. If being paid means, having money to buy gear, gym time, lunch during training, accomodations, travel to and from tournaments, and a gift for winning a tournament, then no, getting paid would not make him a professional.

As I state above, amateur boxing encompasses far more than a lack of payment regardless of how amateur in used in a non-boxing sense. Professional boxing also encompasses more than payment, as you can have a professional bout that appears on BoxRec without being paid for it; theoretically, you could be the IBF/WBO/WBA/WBC heavyweight champion without ever being paid to compete.

Going by the use of amateur and professional boxing as defined by their rules and organizations (which you fail to give solid reasons for not accepting), it is nonsensical to say that he is competing in professional boxing if he is fighting under characteristically amateur rules against opponents who are not receiving money, and are thus amateurs competing in amateur boxing by your view.

Moreover, if he's being paid to box it shouldn't matter what his money allows him to do or what he spends it on, as you claimed above that simply being paid to compete makes one a professional.

[locoxelbox]

It was a long time ago amateur boxers were simply amateurs. Most National Team Boxers of, let´s say the top 60 nations in the world, are payed a monthly salary to box. As long as it comes from the National Federation, the Olympic Committee, the Sports Ministry or similar there is no problem. There is also a lot of price money in different tournaments. I was recently in Russia where they payed 3000 dollars for gold, 2000 for silver and 1000 for bronze. The best boxer received a new Toyota Corolla and the three best boxers received some other price as well. I have seen many amateurs having personal sponsors as well. The German Bundesliga has payed good price money for several decades. Depending on the merits of the boxer he can win a couple of thousands for a win. The Klitschkos boxed there before turning pro. Dual Matches use to pay some money and even club shows can pay good money. I know boxers who never fought in club shows unless they got paid. In Argentina all amateurs get paid even from their first fight as a novice. Sometimes they don´t get paid in cash but they get like 10-50 tickets they can sell to friends and family and keep the money. An Olympic medal or even a world or european championship medal can mean getting a house, a car or even a life pension in some countries. I think in the US the Olympic Committee pays the top three ranked boxers a monthly stipend.
On a side note cuban boxers usually get to keep 25% of the money they receive abroad, the rest goes to the state. I don´t know if this apply for the WSB though.

[yu265545]

Crusader:

My understanding of your argument is twofold: 1. Rules/Style and not payment should be definitive of whether someone is pro or amateur. 2 Plenty of amateurs are paid to box already

Regarding your first point, I have stated in other posts that the similarity in rules that WSB shares with pro-boxing (no headgear and vests, pro-size gloves, 3 point must system, etc,) is all part of the argument why WSB should be considered professional. That being said, payment to me is a critical aspect of it, not just the rules. Let me provide you with an example that is far more realistic than any you have provided.

Lets say that WSB decided to keep the same format as Olympic boxing as we have known it for the last couple decades - headgear, vests, and computerized scoring, refereeing. However, each fighter was paid $50,000 a bout to participate. Would you still say that they are amateurs simply because the rules and format is the same as traditional amateur boxing?

You suggest that I am ignoring amateur traditions, but have not the rules continuously evolved? Highlights of fights from the 1970's show fighters without headgear and look close to professional for me. Computerized scoring only was introduced in the 1990s. Is amateur boxing from the 2012 olympics similar to when George Foreman and Cassius Clay were winning gold in the 1950's/60's?

Lets look at examples from other sports. NCAA basketball is not significantly different than NBA basketball in rules and style, and yet as soon as there is evidence of an NCAA player receiving monetary compensation there is a major scandal, the player is punished and awards are even erased from the record books.

Now I have qualified my statement to say that there is a difference between being paid to box as a salary and simply having your expenses covered. In my view, anything beyond makes you a professional boxer. We will just have to disagree over this point.

Your second point, and supported by examples by locoexelbox, is that there is already payment going on so we should just accept that this changes the definition of amateur to allow for the receipt of compensation. To me, that is akin to saying that travelling at 20kms over the posted rate is not speeding simply because the majority of drivers do it and police will not bother to penalize you for it. Technically it is still speeding. The definition remains the same but the rule is just openly flouted.

The whole point of this thread is to respond to statements that WSB is not professional boxing simply because the boxers are compensated. Regardless of our difference of opinion on this point, do you agree that WSB should be considered professional bouts and included in the boxrec database?

[crusader]

Regarding your first point, I have stated in other posts that the similarity in rules that WSB shares with pro-boxing (no headgear and vests, pro-size gloves, 3 point must system, etc,) is all part of the argument why WSB should be considered professional. That being said, payment to me is a critical aspect of it, not just the rules. Let me provide you with an example that is far more realistic than any you have provided.

Lets say that WSB decided to keep the same format as Olympic boxing as we have known it for the last couple decades - headgear, vests, and computerized scoring, refereeing. However, each fighter was paid $50,000 a bout to participate. Would you still say that they are amateurs simply because the rules and format is the same as traditional amateur boxing?

If that is considered pro boxing, it would be due to the involvement of certain groups and administrative actions (e.g. a state commission sanctioned them as pro bouts) and not simply due to the payments involved. Amateur boxers have long been paid to box, and your example would not represent the introduction of payment where it hasn't previously been.

As I state, amateur boxing has long been distinguished from professional boxing due to many factors other than pay. In a boxing sense, amateur tends not to refer to the absence of payment, nor does it usually refer to inability; someone isn't considered a competitor in amateur boxing simply because they're limited, even though that would fit a technical definition of the term. Using amateur in the sense of inability, a 2-15 journeyman paid each bout and competing under professional rules could reasonably considered an amateur boxer, and if his opponent is similarly limited it's appropriate to say they're competing in an amateur boxing match. This obviously ignores the fact that such a use of amateur, though consistent with what is listed in the dictionary, isn't the sense in which the word tends to be used in boxing.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Wladimir Klitschko an amateur boxer if he received no payment for his future world title bouts? If his opponents were paid, would it be a case of him boxing as an amateur and them boxing as pros?

You suggest that I am ignoring amateur traditions, but have not the rules continuously evolved? Highlights of fights from the 1970's show fighters without headgear and look close to professional for me. Computerized scoring only was introduced in the 1990s. Is amateur boxing from the 2012 olympics similar to when George Foreman and Cassius Clay were winning gold in the 1950's/60's?

Lets look at examples from other sports. NCAA basketball is not significantly different than NBA basketball in rules and style, and yet as soon as there is evidence of an NCAA player receiving monetary compensation there is a major scandal, the player is punished and awards are even erased from the record books.

Holding through time are (1) differences between the rules that govern professional and amateur bouts and the involvement of different organizations involved in the administration of each type of boxing, and (2) the payment to boxers regardless of whether they're generally considered professionals or amateurs. You, however, are ignoring the two differences, both of which have been used to distinguish between amateur and professional boxing, and you are trying to draw the distinction on a factor that has long been common to each type of boxing.

Your point about basketball ignores the crucial fact that basketball is not boxing, and that amateur takes on a unique meaning when it is used in a boxing sense. The distinction between amateur and pro basketball may be payment, but numerous examples suggest that hasn't been so in boxing and many amateur boxers receive large monetary compensations without scandal.

Would there be such an outrage if it were discovered that a player's parents, each having no official involvement with the team, are paying the player $50 for each game he plays? Would that make him a professional and mean that his NCAA games are professional games? Would he get kicked off the team or spark outrage for competing in the NCAA while being payed to do so? I doubt it, but if the scandals are due to being paid any amount, you'd expect scandal this case.

Additionally, would it be inappropriate for an NBA player who receives no payment to call themselves a pro? Would it be appropriate for me to tell people I'm a professional basketball player if someone pays me a dollar to play a pick-up game? According to you, the answers are humorously yes and no respectively, unless the logic you apply to basketball differs from that which you apply to boxing.

Your second point, and supported by examples by locoexelbox, is that there is already payment going on so we should just accept that this changes the definition of amateur to allow for the receipt of compensation. To me, that is akin to saying that travelling at 20kms over the posted rate is not speeding simply because the majority of drivers do it and police will not bother to penalize you for it. Technically it is still speeding. The definition remains the same but the rule is just openly flouted.

Allowing for compensation doesn't change the meaning of amateur boxing, even if one sense of the word amateur is to engage in something without pay. Likewise, it wouldn't be nonsensical to call a skilled unpaid boxer an amateur, even though amateur is defined in one sense as characterized by inability.

You are ignoring the sense in which amateur is used in boxing, and you are trying to graft other uses of the term onto boxing. Amateur boxing is not and has almost never been used as synonym for boxing without compensation; it has long been used effectively to encompass other differences that I've run through several times. You may see this use of amateur as a misnomer, but that doesn't mean you can arrogate to yourself the power to render its use invalid when it's been used this way for many yeas and generally accepted.

Your speeding analogy is infelicitous because it involves people's driving actions but nothing about how the term has been used over the years. Speeding hasn't, to my knowledge, been acceptably used in a sense that requires actually being caught; rather, it simply means traveling excessively fast relative to the prescribed limits. Had it generally been used to denote being caught for traveling too fast, it wouldn't necessarily be erroneous to say that one is speeding only if they're noted speeding.

The whole point of this thread is to respond to statements that WSB is not professional boxing simply because the boxers are compensated. Regardless of our difference of opinion on this point, do you agree that WSB should be considered professional bouts and included in the boxrec database?

I'll have to do more research and thinking on the issue to answer confidently, but considering them pro bouts isn't incompatible with anything I've said and there are differences between WSB bouts and typical amateur bouts unrelated to pay.

[ABC BOXING]

Great responces from all making good points on conversations but i still know a pro is paid and if he does a freebee he is already a pro so it doesn't matter. Rules doesn't make pros Money, gifts and paying sponsors to each person makes you a pro. If they don't keep records of their fights doesn't matter they still are pros.

[crusader]

Why is he still a pro if all his bouts after a certain point are unpaid? And if he's still a professional, why wouldn't someone with many amateur bouts who starts getting paid to fight still be an amateur?

[Tarquin Tarpaulin V]

The WSB differentiates itself from amateur boxing as the intention and presentation is that of a commercial business. Amateur boxing, irrespective of the exchange of money, is gauged by success with sponsor money a by product to the overall ethos.

Interestingly AIBA, a not for profit organisation has it's headquarters in Lausanne a known haven for companies that do not wish to expose their financial affairs to public scrutiny.

[ABC BOXING]

Crusader,
I think Canadian, England, Euros, Russia, Mexican, South American, American dictionaries all have the same meaning.

am·a·teur


/ˈamətər,-ˌtər,-ˌCHo͝or,-CHər/


noun

noun: amateur; plural noun: amateurs



1. a person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.

synonyms:

nonprofessional, nonspecialist, layman, layperson; More


dilettante;

informalgreenhorn

"the crew were all amateurs"

antonyms:

professional




•
a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity.


"that bunch of stumbling amateurs"




synonyms:

bungler, incompetent, bumbler More


"what a bunch of amateurs"





antonyms:

expert





adjective

adjective: amateur



1. engaging or engaged in without payment; nonprofessional.

[crusader]

I've addressed semantics in detail above, but if we accept that an amateur is purely someone who engages in a pursuit unpaid, I don't see why we couldn't reasonably label someone like Wladimir Klitschko an amateur boxer should he fight the rest of his bouts without compensation. We could then say that an amateur is defending the WBC/WBA/IBO/IBF titles against professionals and that each of those bouts is simultaneously a professional and amateur bout.

If you think it's inappropriate to label Klitschko an amateur in this case because he had some pro bouts, you have to explain why it's appropriate to label him a pro when he first had 140 amateur fights.

[Tarquin Tarpaulin V]

I think you are complicating things Crusader.

If I pay a woman I do not know for sexual services it's a business arrangement.

If I buy my wife a pair of shoes in exchange for sexual activity it's not.

If I box with the intention of making money, i'm a professional.

If I box and receive financial assistance i'm an amateur.

If I mow my mother in laws lawn and she gives me £20 i'm not a landscape gardener etc., etc.,


The qualification criteria for the Rio Olympics has yet to be set. If as AIBA suggest, APB (AIBA Professional Boxing) boxers can gain entry to Rio then the same opportunity must be afforded to the existing professional organisations.

I wonder however, if the obvious push, particularly in relation to the Cuba v Mexico match and the announcement of the Fightfax records to promote the WSB as professional is a veiled attempt to imply that professionals have already boxed in the Olympics and therefore the APB is simply an extension of that practice. That a precedent has already been set.

Would that in turn allow the existing professional organisations to take retrospective legal action?

[crusader]

I think you are complicating things Crusader.

If I pay a woman I do not know for sexual services it's a business arrangement.

If I buy my wife a pair of shoes in exchange for sexual activity it's not.

If I box with the intention of making money, i'm a professional.

If I box and receive financial assistance i'm an amateur.

If I mow my mother in laws lawn and she gives me £20 i'm not a landscape gardener etc., etc.,


The qualification criteria for the Rio Olympics has yet to be set. If as AIBA suggest, APB (AIBA Professional Boxing) boxers can gain entry to Rio then the same opportunity must be afforded to the existing professional organisations.

I wonder however, if the obvious push, particularly in relation to the Cuba v Mexico match and the announcement of the Fightfax records to promote the WSB as professional is a veiled attempt to imply that professionals have already boxed in the Olympics and therefore the APB is simply an extension of that practice. That a precedent has already been set.

Would that in turn allow the existing professional organisations to take retrospective legal action?

I don't see how I'm complicating the issue, and I don't think taking a complex approach to the issue is undesirable. Another poster said that simply being paid to box makes one a professional boxer, so if you were true to that logic being paid to mow your mother's lawn should make you a professional landscaper; you hold that it doesn't, and I agree.

I think it's tenuous to label one a pro boxer simply if they box to make money. There are countless examples of amateurs (in the sense that Lomachenko was an amateur at the 2008 Olympics) being paid in numerous ways to compete and many amateurs compete to earn a living. I don't see how this makes it inappropriate to label them amateur boxers who are competing in a sport with significantly different rules, regulations, and structures than professional boxing. I think it's too simplistic to just equate amateur boxing with unpaid boxing given that amateur boxing has long denoted far more than a lack of payment for competition. It also leads to scenarios in which the same bout could simultaneously be an amateur and professional bout depending on why the boxers are competing and how payment is distributed.