Some great points Dece but I think number 2 in the "bad list" is just called being a realist. Boxing is a business, it doesn't mean you can't watch and appreciate it as a sport but you have to be aware what underpins the sport. You've seen all the "Why is xxxx ducking yyyy" threads in the GF, most of them could be answered with "Because the fight doesn't make business sense at this point in time". Pointing this out doesn't mean you view boxing as a business not a sport, it just means you are a realist.
One thing about Buncey. He's head and shoulders above the regular sport/boxing journalists who cover articles on boxing for popular newspapers. Brian Doogan is good as well.
great show buncey if i had to pick out some bad points as we all know the good ones 1. the show has a big british influence ie, last time out we had the winner of prizefighter on, and imo prizefighter dont appeal to the real boxing fan, i would advise you talk more about current world champions ie, mijares darchinyan is on this weekend and we didnt have your opinion on these two fighters and the fight itself, btw your opinion although sometimes your predictions can be wrong (who's aren't) is highly regarded
Well, this is Bunce's defence too! He says he is a realist and that's how it works. I'm as realistic as the next fellow, if not more, and I'm not denying that's how things are at all... ...but here's the thing: Bunce doesn't just say: "this is how things are and unfortunately we have to live with it"...but in fact he goes as far as to revel in this state of affairs and to praise it! A true boxing fan doesn't want fighter X or Y to make the best money possible by taking soft fights that make him look good, to duck bad risk/reward mandatories that could derail that fighter's perfect march towards glory, to discard belts because he doesn't want to rematch less well known or less marketable opponents who've actually beaten him but got robbed, etc. A true boxing fan wants the best fights to be made, full stop. A true boxing fan wants a Champ to fight his mandatories because that's what's best for boxing. A true boxing fan wants the fighter who got robbed to get a rematch, to have a chance to put things right. Bunce not only doesn't want the best fights to be made, but he revels in and praises the unfortunate fact which is: boxing is a dirty, corrupt, unfair business where you rarely get what you deserve - as if he was that fighter's promoter! I find that most perplexing and perverse. Bunce talks down the "ABCs" - "the scourge of boxing", but when the sanctioning bodies take a principled stand and enforce the rules for the benefit of the sport, giving unhyped fighters without influential promoters a fair crack at the whip, he talks those sanctioning bodies down, "because it's bad for business", praising the hyped prima donnas who pick and choose their way to the top for dropping the belts and picking and choosing instead. Why would a boxing fan do that? Why would someone who cares about boxing - "the sport" do that? Forgive me, everyone, if I am too harsh, but this is how I see it and it gets under my skin a lot. He is an important player in British boxing and he has a responsibility to "boxing - the sport"! He should act like it and fight for the interest of "the sport", not moan about "the sport" getting in the way of "boxing - the business", because he sounds more and more like someone who would happily turn boxing into a WWF style affair if it made more money, and I just cannot understand why!
Not the "true boxing fan" line please Dece!! The bottom line is boxing fans want mandatories fought when it suits them but they're quite happy to have he rules bent so a superfight can be made. I don't remember Hagler getting much grief for freezing out all the middleweights for 3 years when the fans were getting the Mugabe, Hearns and Leonard suoperfights? Maybe Bunce does revel in it too much, but at least you're getting the right answer. Those questions why certain fights arn't happening have easy answers if the person just thought about it for a moment. Boxing IS (and always has been) a business first and nothing is going to change that, accepting that doesn't mean I agree with it (or that I'm not a "true fan"!!) but it means I don't waste my time wondering why certain fights arn't happening.
I never said anyone should be against a fighter unifying instead of fighting his mandatory!! Again, there's a difference between not wandering why certain great fights aren't happening and revelling in the joy of those great fights not happening. At least I'm getting the right answers? Fine, let him remind us all, perhaps some people don't know, because they don't know the scene so well, but all independent, unbiased, knowledgeable commentators who remind us why a certain great fight isn't happening also include a line in there telling the world what fight the hard-core (if you don't like the precious word "true") fans really want and the casual fans should want, instead of helping to sell a soft money-spinner as an epic fight to the casual fan who doesn't know any better, as if they were promoters of that fight. Yeah, boxing business and every fight has to make business sense, but the best fights always make business sense. Also, a big part of the reason why boxing has taken a dive is that so many soft fights are sold as epic fights, when they're anything but...which makes the credbility of the business (if you don't like the expression "the sport") go down, and the product it sells lose value in the eyes of the punter. Sure, it might make more business sense packing the whole thing in and going the WWF route, but why the hell should us fans, true or not, want that, GazOC? What is our stake in this business except the enjoyment we get from the fights that are made? Bunce's boxing heaven is Germany, where they're raking it in making infinite soft WBO defences in front of huge crowds, with big TV backing...Why should I be interested in that kind of scene? :good
Its not "want", its about the realities of the sport. If you get asked 100 times why Jermaine Taylor is fighting Jeff Lacy and not the higher ranked Froch, what are you supposed to say?? Its a totally money driven decision. You're not stupid so if you already know that answer, firstly why are you asking the question and secondly what reply do you want to hear? The truth or some false "isn't it a shame, lets try and make a difference" line? I'll repeat Dece, most fans (real, hardcore or whatever) want mandatories when it suits them and want superfights when it suits them. You think the Lockett-Pavlik (a mandatory) fight would have gone down well with the fans if it had got in the way of Pavlik-Hopkins or Pavlik-Calzaghe?
Sorry to get lippy with you, I edited my post but you replied before I had a chance to do so. No, I don't want some lipservice statement about "oh, it's a shame; wouldn't it be nice if we can do something about it, but we can't; oh, what an unfair world, etc". As you say, it's pointless. What I don't want either is a supposed boxing fan pushing a fight down my throat because it makes business sense! Well, why the hell should I care? Why? Do I have a responsibility to contribute to enriching a certain fighter even when he is not fighting a fight I want to see? What? Am I his promoter or bank manager or accountant? Why should I be so happy that he fights a fight I don't care to see, instead of one I do want to see, just because he's raking it in? I just don't get it...So...why should I be happy to have this fight I don't want to see pushed down my throat not just by the promoter but by this supposed indenpendant commentator, who supposedly is a man of the people who "tells it like it is"? Most fans want the best fight to happen, whether they be mandatories, unification fights or not, yes. They want the best fights to happen even before it makes business sense to make that fight, yes. It's the promoter's job to make that fight at the exact moment that fight makes the best money for his fighter, yes. But it's not the commentator's job to talk down that fight until the promoters decide it's time for it to get hyped, is it? It's not the commentator's job to sell a fight that few people want to see just because the promoter has found a way of raking it in on the back of that fight, is it? And it's not the commentator's job to talk down good fights that cannot be sold for big bucks by promoters, is it? When a commentator talks down with great passion a great fight that isn't a money spinner, only to talk up with great gusto a soft fight that is a money spinner, you have to wonder about that commentator's judgement and interest/stake in the whole affair, don't you? About Locket...Locket was this amazing fighter who was going to beat Pavlik in a great competitive fight at MW, wasn't he? That's what Bunce said. But after Locket got humiliated, Bunce looked down his nose at him and put him in his place. Classy, huh? :good I'll read your reply with interest and pleasure, and take your points onboard, but then, let's talk about boxing, please, GazOC; how about that!
Well theres NO WAY I'm defending Bunce if he said Lockett had a decent chance against Pavlik!!! I know Bunce talks up the big money fights because a lot of the time thats his job but all he can do with the fights you want to see but arn't getting made is why they arn't getting made and a LOT of the time thats just down to money. I honestly look at this as "don't shoot the messenger...". Don't worry about the first post mate, I know you're one of the good guys and it can be hard to get the right tone in a post sometimes.
Another great post.That is how i feel too Decebal "how does this benefit me?they make more millions,but poor me hasnt even got a great fight....one of my few pleasures in life"....i cant stop it,but damned if im celebrating it.
Yes...I get into a debating mode sometimes, when all I am really interested in doing is making a clear, fair, argued point...sorry...it's a bad habit. I certainly shouldn't let myself fall into the trap of doing it with great posters such as yourself! :thumbsup Sorry, everyone, if I made my points too strongly...but I wrote two articles now about all that's wrong with boxing, so I kinda got into the subject and I've become oversensitized to the slightest clue that someone was contributing to the bad stuff...:good You all know me...I go overboard sometimes... Now, as interesting as Mr. Bunce might be as a subject of discourse or debate, I for one will stop here and go and post some stuff about boxing.
sorry if i go left of topic here...indulge me for a second.. last few posts has got me thinking about a fight i really wanted to happen...calzaghe v tarver...for me it was a natural fight for calzaghe to pick up a legitimate title at light heavy..instead of this jones fight... everyone i spoke to who knew anything about boxing always says, 'no way, jones is a much bigger payday' totally ignoring what would be a more legitimate fight i would have thought... but we can hope all we wnt for legitimate fights...money talks and thats that it seems...money means more than belts these days...i still think old school where nothing is more important than a belt...
Its swings and roundabouts, we lose some good fights because the money aspect doesn't make sense and we get a lot of good fights because they are pushed through because of the money they'll make. As I've said fans like mandatories when it gives them the fights they want but they also don't mind the rules getting bent when they want a superfight making. Most of the time big fights are made for financial reasons which means they are the fights that the fans want to see, if fights don't make sense from a money point of view then its usually because theres not enough fan interest. BLAME THE FANS!!!
Tarvers nearly as shot as Jones. If you're taking "old school" then Hopkins was the man at 175 (he beat Tarver) and Calzaghe beat him to be the man. Whatever you think of the two fights, Calzaghe didn't need Tarvers belt, his claim to THE Lt heavy title is stonger and easier to argue for than Tarvers.