Independent Leyton Orient Forum

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:19 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:09 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:50 pm

Sure, understand that and I have no issue with governing bodies implementing the toughest of regulations, whatever the sport. However, in this case a governing body has approved the fight based on its criteria and having done so it’s Benn’s choice.

Do I think he is being sensible? No, seems an unnecessary risk to me. But it must be his choice.

And no matter what governing bodies do to mitigate risk, they cannot eliminate it. Seem to recall only a few weeks back a driver got killed. Racing continued later on, the next day I believe. The nature of sport.

So my position is simple. Governing bodies do all they can to mitigate risk and set criteria as they see fit. People who meet that criteria should be free to choose.

But do you actually think they do all they can to mitigate risk? Why have the Biba licenced it and not the BBBC?

That I don’t know. Different bodies have different ideas and I don’t find that surprising. Never really understood the need for four boxing authorities means four different world champions at the same time. Probably down to money somewhere along the line. I dare say each of the four boxing bodies have different rules. Not to mention different countries having different rules. It’s just the way it is.

But that’s a different matter. The fight has been authorised by a legitimate body. Therefore Benn can decide for himself.

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:29 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:19 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:09 pm

But do you actually think they do all they can to mitigate risk? Why have the Biba licenced it and not the BBBC?

That I don’t know. Different bodies have different ideas and I don’t find that surprising. Never really understood the need for four boxing authorities means four different world champions at the same time. Probably down to money somewhere along the line. I dare say each of the four boxing bodies have different rules. Not to mention different countries having different rules. It’s just the way it is.

But that’s a different matter. The fight has been authorised by a legitimate body. Therefore Benn can decide for himself.

This has nothing to do with the four divisions. This is the national sanctioning body. Why do you think he went with the lesser known Biba rather than the BBBC?

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:07 pm "The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoc) is against the fight, which will be sanctioned by the rival British and Irish Boxing Authority (Biba)." (BBC).

Do you understand why Benn has gone to Biba for approval (and why Biba have accepted it), and why he has not gone to the BBBC?

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:11 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:07 pm "The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoc) is against the fight, which will be sanctioned by the rival British and Irish Boxing Authority (Biba)." (BBC).

Do you understand why Benn has gone to Biba for approval (and why Biba have accepted it), and why he has not gone to the BBBC?

I really wish you would stop saying do you understand. It’s quite arrogant, no, it’s bloody arrogant and seems to me that you believe you are the only person who really understands.

Best we stop now, maybe try some manners, I am replying quite politely.

For the record I do fully understand, I think the issue is you don’t.

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:53 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:11 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:07 pm "The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoc) is against the fight, which will be sanctioned by the rival British and Irish Boxing Authority (Biba)." (BBC).

Do you understand why Benn has gone to Biba for approval (and why Biba have accepted it), and why he has not gone to the BBBC?

I really wish you would stop saying do you understand. It’s quite arrogant, no, it’s bloody arrogant and seems to me that you believe you are the only person who really understands.

Best we stop now, maybe try some manners, I am replying quite politely.

For the record I do fully understand, I think the issue is you don’t.

You clearly don't, otherwise you would agree with the BBBC in that Benn shouldnt fight.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:33 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:53 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:11 pm

I really wish you would stop saying do you understand. It’s quite arrogant, no, it’s bloody arrogant and seems to me that you believe you are the only person who really understands.

Best we stop now, maybe try some manners, I am replying quite politely.

For the record I do fully understand, I think the issue is you don’t.

You clearly don't, otherwise you would agree with the BBBC in that Benn shouldnt fight.

I said a few posts back we were talking about two different things.

Benn chose the BiBa for his own reasons, of course, he had a better chance of getting approval, obvious. Been done before by boxers even switching the country of the fight I believe to get approval. Nothing new. Nothing wrong. Free country and people can choose as they see fit. Nothing to do with the BBBC.

The BBBC for their part have said they wouldn’t sanction the fight. We all know that. Been reported. But that don’t matter because nobody is asking for their approval. They are not relevant in this matter. Banging on about the BBBC is pointless because what they do or say makes no difference. Their opinions carry no weight in the matter. They are irrelevant.

If Benn meets the standards and has got approval from a recognised body, end of story. That is the point. He has met the standards of a recognised body. BBBC may not like losing control to a rival, tough. But he has got approval.

His fight is legitimate, appoved, sanctioned, OK. Therefore it’s his choice whether to fight or not, and accept the risks. The BBBC are irrelevant. I wonder if that is why they chose to comment.

the BBBC is irrelevant in this matter, They have been bypassed. Their opinions carry no weight. Benn is free to choose.

Red_Army wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:30 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:33 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:53 pm

You clearly don't, otherwise you would agree with the BBBC in that Benn shouldnt fight.

I said a few posts back we were talking about two different things.

Benn chose the BiBa for his own reasons, of course, he had a better chance of getting approval, obvious. Been done before by boxers even switching the country of the fight I believe to get approval. Nothing new. Nothing wrong. Free country and people can choose as they see fit. Nothing to do with the BBBC.

The BBBC for their part have said they wouldn’t sanction the fight. We all know that. Been reported. But that don’t matter because nobody is asking for their approval. They are not relevant in this matter. Banging on about the BBBC is pointless because what they do or say makes no difference. Their opinions carry no weight in the matter. They are irrelevant.

If Benn meets the standards and has got approval from a recognised body, end of story. That is the point. He has met the standards of a recognised body. BBBC may not like losing control to a rival, tough. But he has got approval.

His fight is legitimate, appoved, sanctioned, OK. Therefore it’s his choice whether to fight or not, and accept the risks. The BBBC are irrelevant. I wonder if that is why they chose to comment.

the BBBC is irrelevant in this matter, They have been bypassed. Their opinions carry no weight. Benn is free to choose.

What a load of nonsense. In pure factual terms, yes he has been licensed. But the reason he has been is that he has gone to a body with less stringent tests.

Of course the BBBC carry weight, they are the known body. Them saying they wouldn't sanction it will and should influence people in whether they watch or buy tickets.

So yes, Benn has a license. That doesn't make it right though.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:11 pm

Red_Army wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:30 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:33 pm

I said a few posts back we were talking about two different things.

Benn chose the BiBa for his own reasons, of course, he had a better chance of getting approval, obvious. Been done before by boxers even switching the country of the fight I believe to get approval. Nothing new. Nothing wrong. Free country and people can choose as they see fit. Nothing to do with the BBBC.

The BBBC for their part have said they wouldn’t sanction the fight. We all know that. Been reported. But that don’t matter because nobody is asking for their approval. They are not relevant in this matter. Banging on about the BBBC is pointless because what they do or say makes no difference. Their opinions carry no weight in the matter. They are irrelevant.

If Benn meets the standards and has got approval from a recognised body, end of story. That is the point. He has met the standards of a recognised body. BBBC may not like losing control to a rival, tough. But he has got approval.

His fight is legitimate, appoved, sanctioned, OK. Therefore it’s his choice whether to fight or not, and accept the risks. The BBBC are irrelevant. I wonder if that is why they chose to comment.

the BBBC is irrelevant in this matter, They have been bypassed. Their opinions carry no weight. Benn is free to choose.

What a load of nonsense. In pure factual terms, yes he has been licensed. But the reason he has been is that he has gone to a body with less stringent tests.

Of course the BBBC carry weight, they are the known body. Them saying they wouldn't sanction it will and should influence people in whether they watch or buy tickets.

So yes, Benn has a license. That doesn't make it right though.

No but it makes him legimate and free to fight if he chooses and the BBBC have no say in the matter. Their views are irrelevant and that is a fact. I’m dealing with facts, pure and simple.

It’s not for me to pontificate about whether it’s right, wrong, stupid etc for a 55 year old to box. mcColl still is at 54 and looking for a title shot. Plenty of other older fighters come out of retirement for “one last round”, to quote the Rocky film. Do I think it’s smart, no probably not. But I respect the fact that he has the right to choose.

I’m not and never have been someone who tries to run other people’s lives. This is a simple matter. He has been approved by a recognised body. Up,to him. He more than most know the risks. His choice. Nothing to do with the BBBC. Who knows, they could well be proved right but I hope not.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:48 am The fight has been called off due to Benn sustaining a shoulder injury. Maybe fate has decided he should let sleeping dogs lie.

StockholmO wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:13 am He risks brain damage. Bad idea.

spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:25 am

StockholmO wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:13 am He risks brain damage. Bad idea.

Every boxer does

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:41 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:25 am

StockholmO wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:13 am He risks brain damage. Bad idea.

Every boxer does

As do footballers.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:38 pm With heading the ball back in the shall we say "old days" the ball weighed a ton and had laces, made of real leather and when wet was even heavier still. I'm sure a few of the older gentlemen on here can verify this fact.

When I was a kid the mitre multiplex was a heavy ball - compared to today's ball.

Today's balls are like balloons, you can literally do what you want with them as they are so light.

So whilst I get what they are saying the ball tech or material make up has moved on considerably. So is it that heading the balls of today carrys far less risk than when I was a kid or when say my or his dad were kids?