What have the board done wrong exactly?

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by brown bomber, May 13, 2012.


  1. dftaylor

    dftaylor Writer, fanatic Full Member

    20,730
    1
    May 7, 2010
    What a drama queen!
     
  2. Bill C84

    Bill C84 Boxing Junkie banned

    10,219
    1
    Sep 11, 2011
    I have a theory that Glue Glove is in fact Joan Collins, its all starting to add up.
     
  3. daveyboy1609

    daveyboy1609 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,901
    634
    Apr 6, 2009
    Jeff, just wondering, if you got offered the Sam Webb fight on the bill would you take it, even with the threat of losing your license?
     
  4. glue glove

    glue glove Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,517
    3
    Jun 9, 2010
    :lol: :nut

    Don't like Snickers...
     
  5. Macca L20

    Macca L20 Active Member Full Member

    1,154
    0
    Oct 9, 2009
    The board are so naive it's unbelievable. They probably think a few
    people who are already anti-boxing slagging the fight off in the papers
    justifies their actions and Frank is sitting there with a team of lawyers
    poring over every possible outcome. He will have them right off.
     
  6. brown bomber

    brown bomber 2010 Poster of the Year Full Member

    30,856
    17
    Jul 1, 2006
    Not now he looked a bit tasty vs hall :lol:
     
  7. daveyboy1609

    daveyboy1609 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,901
    634
    Apr 6, 2009
    :lol: He's well open for the Thomas Hook of Doom though! :good
     
  8. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    In that sense that goes for all sports; The FA, Uefa, Fifa etc. They need governance and authority, if not, the sport could become anarchic, and if the State were to then get involved, it is possible the sport would be banned.

    Depends how you define 'power'. I would say at the very least they have some power.

    Well our own 'Princess' blew that one clean out the water.

    The is simply ridiculous, they clearly are up to this point in time. I do not know how you can say otherwise.


    What do you mean by 'fact'? The facts to me, suggest the BBB of C have for sixty years or so, had a huge influence in deciding who fights in the UK. What 'facts' have you got to show otherwise?

    Frank has been very clever here, and seemingly clearly outmaneuvered the BBB of C. But this could be a very dangerous precedent. The BBB of C is a leader in safety for the sport, and unfortunately that does not come cheap. It would be very disappointing if Frank et al use this situation to cut corners in the cost of safety for the boxers.
     
  9. Relentless

    Relentless VIP Member banned

    65,864
    16
    Mar 5, 2006
    i dont see why both haye and chisora get their licenses taken away for a minute of rage, they both got angry and started fighting, if cameras weren't there it wouldn't have been a problem.
     
  10. dftaylor

    dftaylor Writer, fanatic Full Member

    20,730
    1
    May 7, 2010
    Those standards were largely set by Frank. As well as helping the board survive post-Watson, he funded MRI scans out of his own pocket to meet the safety regulations he fought for.

    He was years ahead of fighter safety, making most of his fighters a good living while keeping them safe. Unlike say, Eddie Hearn who put Darren Barker in with a guy who battered the hell out of him. Or has put Carl Froch in with another guy who will hammer him when he needs a rest. Or saint Ed's dad, whose poor safety provisions meant Michael Watson nearly never walked again.

    And who was there to sort it out? Frank.

    He may be a slimeball at times, but he cares about the health of his fighters. He won't be cutting corners.
     
  11. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    Haye did not get his licence taken away, he did not have one at the time. With Chisora's past record, it was hardly an 'isolated' incident. Cameras or no cameras the BBB of C would still have had to investigate. Also there are the two other incidents before that, involving Chisora and each Klitschko brother.

    Chisora possibly does need help, perhaps that ban would of forced him seek that help, if he was unable to make a living at something he is clearly very good at.
     
  12. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    I hope you are right. Frank has almost taken the BBB of C out the game twice (in the early 80s with the WBA agreement, and then with Marsh and the IBF). I hope he is not looking to make it third time lucky, as I think that could be disaster for the sport. As no governance would lead to State intervention, and that could lead to the door opening for those who wish to see the sport banned.
     
  13. dftaylor

    dftaylor Writer, fanatic Full Member

    20,730
    1
    May 7, 2010
    Do you enjoy spouting paranoid rubbish?

    The board will survive if it modernises. It's not in anyone's interests to get rid of them. But they rule on behalf of their members. Something they're not doing.
     
  14. Relentless

    Relentless VIP Member banned

    65,864
    16
    Mar 5, 2006
    i heard they refused to give haye another license
     
  15. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    No governing body, would lead to some form of State intervention, which could open up the debate for the anti-boxing lobby. That theory needs to be considered.

    Generally the board does an excellent job, there is no need for revolution. The Board, like society needs and is constantly evolving. This shock that Frank has given it, is no help to the sport as a whole, particularly long term.