Nigel Benn comeback fight
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:53 pm
Benn plans to fight again in November , 55 years old and over 20 years since he last fought , idiotic in my 
mind
mindThe Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
mind37 i read somewhere .RBMarshall wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:54 pm Is it a an opponent of a similar age does anyone know?
Think it’s the British and Irish boxing board or something odd like that. McCall it seems is 54 and looking for a title.wants to take on the guy who retired his son. Some fighters just keep on going despite the risks. Don’t understand personally but it’s their life and providing medically fit then their choice I guess.Thor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:34 pm He is apparently fighting bika who has been active fairly recently and is a tough fight for him.
The BBBC will not sanction the fight for fairly obvious reasons, so he's using the Irish board to get a licence.
Benn was one of my favourite fighters, but this is tempting fate, he has nothing to prove, maybe the fire still burns, maybe he wants to prove something to himself? I wish him well.
Yes nut McCall is still fighting.
Apparently this is not the case. Just built a big house in Australia. Mind you, maybe that’s why he’s short of cash. Nice house, no furniture.
40 year old Sakia Bika , last fought 2 years ago .RBMarshall wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:54 pm Is it a an opponent of a similar age does anyone know?
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:17 am Richie Woodall was saying you just can't take punches at 50+ in the same way as you could in your 30s, no matter how fit you are.
Obviously he'd spark out YouTubers but this is clearly different, isn't it?
I would be so worried for him and any guy fighting at that ageProposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:17 am Richie Woodhall was saying you just can't take punches at 50+ in the same way as you could in your 30s, no matter how fit you are.
Obviously he'd spark out YouTubers but this is clearly different, isn't it?
Absolutely we should be encouraging people to be fit and to be as fit as him, but not to take punches to the head especially at that age. I love boxing and go all the time, but your career is done and over by your mid 30’s for a reason.Beradogs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:30 amProposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:17 am Richie Woodall was saying you just can't take punches at 50+ in the same way as you could in your 30s, no matter how fit you are.
Obviously he'd spark out YouTubers but this is clearly different, isn't it?
Agree. But surely we should be encouraging anyone that wants to be this fit and active in mid 50’s. Hospitals are full of middle aged men and women who can barely breathe. Obviously it is dangerous but life is for living. He knows the risks.
Can you tell me why the BBBC have not licensed this fight, and said that it would be very unlikely to do so if approached? Do you understand that whilst there are regulations in place, they mitigate risk, not remove it?dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:18 pm I’m in favour of him being able to decide so long as he meets the medical requirements to fight. He knows the risks, his choice. The alternative, we stop footballers from heading balls as we know prolonged heading can lead to brain damage. Maybe we should ban motorsport due to the dangers, or skiing. The list of dangerous activities is endless.
It is right an proper for authorities to set standards, irrespective of age. If people meet these requirements and are fully aware of the dangers then it’s their choice.
I remember his brother, Onya.BIGRON wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:59 pm40 year old Sakia Bika , last fought 2 years ago .RBMarshall wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:54 pm Is it a an opponent of a similar age does anyone know?
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.Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:31 pmCan you tell me why the BBBC have not licensed this fight, and said that it would be very unlikely to do so if approached? Do you understand that whilst there are regulations in place, they mitigate risk, not remove it?dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:18 pm I’m in favour of him being able to decide so long as he meets the medical requirements to fight. He knows the risks, his choice. The alternative, we stop footballers from heading balls as we know prolonged heading can lead to brain damage. Maybe we should ban motorsport due to the dangers, or skiing. The list of dangerous activities is endless.
It is right an proper for authorities to set standards, irrespective of age. If people meet these requirements and are fully aware of the dangers then it’s their choice.
There is a strong case for looking at how football can minimise brain injuries related to heading. Motorsport has also gone through a long journey to reduce risk. Rugby and American Football are other example where rules are being changed to mitigate against risk.
But do you actually think they do all they can to mitigate risk? Why have the Biba licenced it and not the BBBC?dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:50 pmSure, 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.Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:31 pmCan you tell me why the BBBC have not licensed this fight, and said that it would be very unlikely to do so if approached? Do you understand that whilst there are regulations in place, they mitigate risk, not remove it?dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:18 pm I’m in favour of him being able to decide so long as he meets the medical requirements to fight. He knows the risks, his choice. The alternative, we stop footballers from heading balls as we know prolonged heading can lead to brain damage. Maybe we should ban motorsport due to the dangers, or skiing. The list of dangerous activities is endless.
It is right an proper for authorities to set standards, irrespective of age. If people meet these requirements and are fully aware of the dangers then it’s their choice.
There is a strong case for looking at how football can minimise brain injuries related to heading. Motorsport has also gone through a long journey to reduce risk. Rugby and American Football are other example where rules are being changed to mitigate against risk.
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.
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.Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:09 pmBut do you actually think they do all they can to mitigate risk? Why have the Biba licenced it and not the BBBC?dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:50 pmSure, 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.Red_Army wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:31 pm
Can you tell me why the BBBC have not licensed this fight, and said that it would be very unlikely to do so if approached? Do you understand that whilst there are regulations in place, they mitigate risk, not remove it?
There is a strong case for looking at how football can minimise brain injuries related to heading. Motorsport has also gone through a long journey to reduce risk. Rugby and American Football are other example where rules are being changed to mitigate against risk.
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.