Did Flintoff degrade pro boxing?

[jimmypince]

No more than what the alphabet boys have done with their ridiculous money making Titles/belts and IJL perhaps.

[johnmaff36]

Originally Posted by doug.ie

yes and no.

so...i suppose that means yes.


no... no problem with the publicity, the sky documentary or even him been given a pro license and having a go....he worked hard, so fair play.

yes... to have seasoned pro's at a good domestic level play undercard to that was selling the sport in a cheap and degrading way....and although others dont agree, i have seen yet another change in barry mcguigan, who i would never have thought would have done this...use someone like flintoff to get his promotional company involved in a big event...mcguigan is the very man, the spokesperson for boxing, who would be very vocal in his disapproval if anyone else had done that.

Agreed 100% on mcGuigan

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by doug.ie

foreman fought 5 men but in an exhibition....glorified public sparring sessions......would prizefighter, that we see nowadays, have been allowed in the 70's, if foremans five fights were not allowed to be ??

I like your passion, but what is now known as 'Prizefighter', was rampant in the late 60s and early 70s in this Country. In fact it almost brought pro boxing down, with excellent fighters like Buchanan on the verge of quitting because they could not make ends meet as a 'pro' fighter.

......and what happened with the old rule that a professional boxer can only have one fight per week at most, that used to be the rule, right ?....

Peter Buckley...

they can make up rules and break them and make new ones as they go along...'they' being the controllers of boxing, the promoters.........what do they have to do for you to say "well..that is a bit corrupt alright" ??

That is the way, and always will be. I would say because of such things as the Internet, Boxing is as 'honest' now has it has ever been.

[doug.ie]

were the prizefighter type scenarios of the 60's and 70's professional fights and ended up on pro records ??

did peter buckley fight more than once a week ?

in which way was has the internet made it more honest ?...is having more than one world champion in a governing body honest ?....is having the likes of matthew hatton boxing for a world title at a weight he doesnt normally campaign at while other more deserving boxers miss out honest ?....is a man who looks at least a little schooled in the sport dropping a cricketer who is trying out boxing and then standing off him in a very suspicious manner, on a televised main event, honest ??
if bunce was here he'd be saying "boxing is a business, i keep telling you...not a sport, a business"...and he's right...but it's no honest business.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by doug.ie

were the prizefighter type scenarios of the 60's and 70's professional fights and ended up on pro records ??

Young pro Heavyweights in particular were 'trooped' round the Country fighting each other on bill after bill in one night tournaments. The only difference is they were not recorded on their pro records. On top of this, you had the somewhat 'infamous' tournaments to find a 'white man' to beat Johnson in the USA in the early 20th Century.

did peter buckley fight more than once a week ?

Yes, generally once a week, but if you look at his mid 90s record, sometimes twice.

in which way was has the internet made it more honest ?

It adds transparency to a sport. I would go to a show in the 80s/90s and Duff et al, would make some 250lb American Heavyweight 25/2 when he was probably closer to 2/25, or the infamous Mexican road sweepers that littered the records of the British prospects of the time. Boxrec et al has helped sort that problem out. Also sites like this link fans, who then can help connect things together with their little bit of the jigsaw, tht helps make the whole picture.

...is having more than one world champion in a governing body honest ?....

That is an oxymoron, governing bodies well state 'technically' they have one 'world champion', they just have others to 'supplement' them. The reality like it always was, money talks. This golden era of eight World Champions in eight weight divisions, did not happen but for a short period post World war II.

having the likes of matthew hatton boxing for a world title at a weight he doesnt normally campaign at while other more deserving boxers miss out honest ?

That has always been the way. Why did Ray Leonard get a shot at Middleweight, a division he had never fought in? How did he get a ranking, after having not fought for nearly three years? How did he get to fight for two titles at different weights (that again he had never fought in), in one fight (Lalonde)?

....is a man who looks at least a little schooled in the sport dropping a cricketer who is trying out boxing and then standing off him in a very suspicious manner, on a televised main event, honest ??

Was the Gastineau/Anderson thing honest? Was Resto/Collins honest? Was Chavez/Whitaker honest? The Flintoff thing was on the level. Somebody with your boxing intelligence knew what to expect pre fight. And unlike some of the examples I gave, no one was killed as a result.

if bunce was here he'd be saying "boxing is a business, i keep telling you...not a sport, a business"...and he's right...but it's no honest business.

Not too many businesses I know, are what I would call honest, and yes that includes boxing.

[pathmanc1986]

In all of this, Maloney annoyed me.

the cheek of a man who has got people from Latvia etc boxing licenses to fight experienced former international amateurs complaining about Flintoff getting one. Wanker

[doug.ie]

tbooze...you make a good repsonse as always fella.

the fact that those tournaments weren't recorded on pro records, it makes my point for me on that.

did buckley really fight more than once a week ??....i thought the rule used to be only one fight per week and only once per month if a boxer was ko'd....i'll happily stand corrected if i'm wrong on that.


you say - "It adds transparency to a sport. I would go to a show in the 80s/90s and Duff et al, would make some 250lb American Heavyweight 25/2 when he was probably closer to 2/25, or the infamous Mexican road sweepers that littered the records of the British prospects of the time. Boxrec et al has helped sort that problem out."
....but we constanly hear about some of these latvian's etc who have records that are 'supposed' to have been made up from behind closed door bouts....sparring sessions basically.



you say - "That is an oxymoron, governing bodies well state 'technically' they have one 'world champion', they just have others to 'supplement' them. The reality like it always was, money talks. This golden era of eight World Champions in eight weight divisions, did not happen but for a short period post World war II."
but its worse now than ever though...we often get fights like even last weekend...cotto vs trout...billed as for the wba world title and the announcers etc dont mention the presence of a true world champion at that weight and organising body...even for people who follow the sport closely its hard to follow......is trout the wba world light middle champ as everything declared him last weekend on the fight broadcast...or is it mayweather ??


you say - "that has always been the way. Why did Ray Leonard get a shot at Middleweight, a division he had never fought in? How did he get a ranking, after having not fought for nearly three years? How did he get to fight for two titles at different weights (that again he had never fought in), in one fight (Lalonde)?"
this makes my point for me...its as bad as ever today...the amount of belts makes it even worse now.


you say - "Was the Gastineau/Anderson thing honest? Was Resto/Collins honest? Was Chavez/Whitaker honest? The Flintoff thing was on the level. Somebody with your boxing intelligence knew what to expect pre fight. And unlike some of the examples I gave, no one was killed as a result."
agreed.....but are you sure the flintoff thing was on the level....you sure his opponent couldnt have tried just a little bit more ??


you say - "Not too many businesses I know, are what I would call honest, and yes that includes boxing."
agreed.

[dandur55]

I can't vote because it's a trick question, I think the answer it's like Yes and No
Flimtoff main event = disgrace, he tried his best in one of the hardest sport to compete

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by doug.ie

the fact that those tournaments weren't recorded on pro records, it makes my point for me on that.

So making 'Prizefighter' exhibitions bouts is a starting point to resolve this horrible mess. I hate these things, always have.

did buckley really fight more than once a week ??....i thought the rule used to be only one fight per week and only once per month if a boxer was ko'd....i'll happily stand corrected if i'm wrong on that.

Looking at Boxrec (which is excellent, but not perfect) Buckley fought twice a week in 1994. But after this as you suggest there was at least seven days between each bout. As he fought so often excatly seven days apart, I am willing to wager, the rule you talk of (fighting only once a week) came in, in 1995. As for stoppage I agree it is a months ban.

you say - "It adds transparency to a sport. I would go to a show in the 80s/90s and Duff et al, would make some 250lb American Heavyweight 25/2 when he was probably closer to 2/25, or the infamous Mexican road sweepers that littered the records of the British prospects of the time. Boxrec et al has helped sort that problem out."
....but we constanly hear about some of these latvian's etc who have records that are 'supposed' to have been made up from behind closed door bouts....sparring sessions basically.

That is quite possible, indeed probably, but it is a step in the right direction, and yes there is still a long way to go.

you say - "That is an oxymoron, governing bodies well state 'technically' they have one 'world champion', they just have others to 'supplement' them. The reality like it always was, money talks. This golden era of eight World Champions in eight weight divisions, did not happen but for a short period post World war II."
but its worse now than ever though...we often get fights like even last weekend...cotto vs trout...billed as for the wba world title and the announcers etc dont mention the presence of a true world champion at that weight and organising body...even for people who follow the sport closely its hard to follow......is trout the wba world light middle champ as everything declared him last weekend on the fight broadcast...or is it mayweather ??

I used to have a party trick in the late 80s, where I could reel of all the alphabet champs of the time. Sad I know. But since the WBO got some sort of legitimization in the game and on TV, I have stopped caring about who is champ (unless it is obvious), and just take each fight on face value. Mayweather is brilliant, Trout looks like he might become something special, who is champ? I do not know, and do not care. But I am sure Mr Mendoza has an answer.

you say - "that has always been the way. Why did Ray Leonard get a shot at Middleweight, a division he had never fought in? How did he get a ranking, after having not fought for nearly three years? How did he get to fight for two titles at different weights (that again he had never fought in), in one fight (Lalonde)?"
this makes my point for me...its as bad as ever today...the amount of belts makes it even worse now.

At least Hatton was fighting regularly before his shot. Leonard just waltzed in and screwed the likes of Graham and Olajide at the time.

you say - "Was the Gastineau/Anderson thing honest? Was Resto/Collins honest? Was Chavez/Whitaker honest? The Flintoff thing was on the level. Somebody with your boxing intelligence knew what to expect pre fight. And unlike some of the examples I gave, no one was killed as a result."
agreed.....but are you sure the flintoff thing was on the level....you sure his opponent couldnt have tried just a little bit more ??

Why would he try? He was there to lose, I suspect we both knew that pre fight. That is not exactly unusual in boxing.

Think of it like this.

Flintoff attracted a decent crowd to the Manchester Arena. Many of whom would not of gone if Flintoff was not there. Because of this, more money came into the sport, and although it would be naive to think the Promoter did not have his huge slice of the cake, because the cake was bigger, there were a few more crumbs left on the plate than normal for the 'honest pro' trying to make ends meet on the undercard. Surely that is a plus?

[dazzpowder]

embarrrassing to himself couldn't even watch the whole thing it looked like a celebrity white collar boxing show.

[doug.ie]

thanks for the reply tbooze....i was nodding my head in agreement until the very last bit.

"Flintoff attracted a decent crowd to the Manchester Arena. Many of whom would not of gone if Flintoff was not there. Because of this, more money came into the sport, and although it would be naive to think the Promoter did not have his huge slice of the cake, because the cake was bigger, there were a few more crumbs left on the plate than normal for the 'honest pro' trying to make ends meet on the undercard. Surely that is a plus?"

which brings me back to the "at what price?" argument....is making professional boxing a circus worth the money in brings in short term ?

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by doug.ie

thanks for the reply tbooze....i was nodding my head in agreement until the very last bit.

"Flintoff attracted a decent crowd to the Manchester Arena. Many of whom would not of gone if Flintoff was not there. Because of this, more money came into the sport, and although it would be naive to think the Promoter did not have his huge slice of the cake, because the cake was bigger, there were a few more crumbs left on the plate than normal for the 'honest pro' trying to make ends meet on the undercard. Surely that is a plus?"

which brings me back to the "at what price?" argument....is making professional boxing a circus worth the money in brings in short term ?

Yes, boxing always has had that side of the business. Butterbean in the 90s was a bigger star in the States than a Leija, Johnson or Hopkins*. That seems unfair, but it was what the paying public wanted, and Arum duly used his cash cow.

I see no difference with the Flintoff thing. It gets some mainstream press for the sport, and sells tickets. And who knows some of them fans may hang on and grow to love the 'other side' of the sport.

There is a thread at the moment that is talking about what the boxing world looked like when you first got into it.

[URL]********eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=446761[/URL]


Now nobody has mentioned the Bean yet, but even over on this side of the pond, I dare say a few fans first experience of the sport was watching the self proclaimed 'King of the four rounders'.

But who is going to admit to that? You are just going to say Naseem, Calzaghe, Lewis, Trinidad et al, if you were of that vintage. In a decade's time a few new fans from Friday night will be talking about Mayweather, Pacquiao, Froch and Haye as what got them into the sport, conveniently forgetting the night they watched their Ashes hero try his hand at the Greatest sport in the World.

Flintoff providing he does not get hurt, is doing the sport a favour.

*Pre 2001

And thanks, it is always nice to have a debate with a proper fan of this sport.

[doug.ie]

thanks tbooze.....not sure i'm with you on that, but well put, fair play.

[makkipalwan]

no, not really he did ok but at one point I thought he was gonna do the splits like that kid in 'Chuck and Larry' film. If that had happened that woulda been very degradin

[achillesthegreat]

No, he showed that a former elite sportsman with 4 months of the BEST preparation looked utterly terrible in an incredibly limited pro format (2 minute rounds versus another hand picked novice).

If anything, he showed how hard boxing is and how perhaps even "10,000 hours" may not be enough to master our beloved sport!