Comments Thread For: Golden Boy Promotions Joins Boxing Promoters Association

[JBell11]

1) I posted my reply to you on December 11. You made the above-quoted reply only a few minutes ago. When you spoke of my taking three days to "proofread", are you sure you were not speaking of yourself?

Again, I apologize that you've taken the time to formally discuss this and truly I appreciate your diction it’s polished.

2) You keep on insisting that my first post was "poorly written" without even hinting at the reasons why you consider it to be so. On the other hand, I have taken the time to specify the flaws in yours. Had you done so, it would have been of much help to me.

It was poorly written. I already indicated to you that you mistyped; you can find your own post and re-read what was written. I won’t take the time to specify your “flaws”. Truly, my intent, was to address that you were not coherent.

3.) While you freely criticize others for their prose, you seem to think that you are exempt from the rules that you want others to religiously follow. (I notice you quickly edited your current post).

I did edit my post, I appreciate your acute review; I assure you it was nothing substantial. I didn’t criticize others’ posts, I merely identified yours; however, I did respond to the content of others’ posts.

4.) As far as I know, enactment is not required to form an organization that is not part of and/or funded by government. And, as far as I can tell from this thread, it is an organization that is the topic. The underlined portion above makes little sense especially if one considers that the organization is--in both intent and purposes-- a fait accompli, i.e., it is already in existence and that is why GBP is joining it.(Edit: Jake Donovan's article which started this thread explicitly states that the organization was founded last year).

Yes, that is correct the organization was found last year. Are you getting hung up on the word “enactment”? Ok, fine. “You can’t shoot something down without a track record or at least been deemed ineffective.”

5.) If you meant the promise of enacting rules...Well, such promises have been made, nay, trumpeted before when all those alphabet bodies announced their existence. To date they have managed to enact such things as "Silver Belt", "Gold Belt", etc. that defy comprehension but little, if any, of the substantive ones that were promised.

No, that’s not what I meant. I will move on.

6.) I do not consider myself in any position to propose means by which the sport can be improved for as long as the ones playing the game are the very same people--or, are people of the same ilk--as the ones who have done what they did to the game.

Fair enough.

7.)The US Congress has conducted hearings towards the goal of making the fight game fairer and safer for fighters. But it has not found means beyond enacting the "ALI ACT". I cannot think of myself as better than those respected legislators.

…and that is the problem the Ali and the Boxing Safety Act are not enforced. A collective organization with a board that comprises of different groups AND commissions should be formed.

8.) What little I know about boxing's history in the four decades of being a fan of the sport has made me cynical. My cynicism, however, has not been coupled with any pretension to know better than others. If that is found unhelpful, then, I'll take the criticisms resulting from that while bearing in mind that I am a consumer and not any part of the production of the product. I have the option to buy or not buy, producers have the responsibility to provide a product I am willing to buy.

I love the fight game but that love has not lent me any illusion that anything I can think of can help where better minds have failed.

When I encounter a sick person, I won't pretend to be a doctor and propose cures. I'll have a doctor see him. Granting that I can find a doctor.

Edit/Add: No disrespect meant by any of the foregoing comments, as well.

You obviously are a fan of the sport longer than I’ve been around so I respect your knowledge and insight. You also have a pre-disposition of the industry and its components; I can’t argue with you or your cynicism. We merely stand on both sides of the fence of realism and optimism. I also stand on the side of the fair and ethical treatment of the fighters. The fundamental ideas of the legislation (Ali & Boxer Safety Act) is what I believe in; I just want to see a code of ethics, action, accountability, a general organization that can govern the sport accordingly. An organization with a mission statement and/or business scope defining the goal or objectives with effective legitimate strategies and supporting processes with defined workflows. A set of policies and procedures…something and I believe the B.P.A is the start to that “something”.

-J

[grayfist]

I debated with myself if I should respond to your post or not. Against my better judgment, I now do.

1. I don't know whether I should thank you for thinking of my previous post as "polished" given that your statement lacks it. Evidence:

Again, I apologize that you've taken the time to formally discuss this and truly I appreciate your diction it’s polished (copied and pasted from your post, verbatim).

Don't you think that there should be a period between diction and it's? Perhaps you were typing too fast again?

Be that as it may, perhaps you should have bothered to put a period between diction and polished? And, capitalization may have been in order for it's.

2. Much as I try, I cannot find any sense for your apology for my taking the time to formally discuss this...(SEE, above).

You apologize for my taking the time? How much sense is there in that? You apologize because I took the time?

Perhaps that was just "poorly written" because you were "typing too fast"?


3. You continue to assert that my first post was "poorly written" because I "mistyped". I ask again: Where did I err?

You refuse to specify my errors and yet you pronounced your verdict? How much sense is there in that?

In law as it has to be in the rest of society, the one who makes the charge has the burden of proof. You called my first post "poorly written" and now call it incoherent. Yours is the burden of proof. Present the evidence. Prove your claim.

4. I have no obligation to review my first post although I have. It may be my deficiency that prevents me from seeing what you have seen and claims to continue seeing. So, show me.

5. While you may not have been critical of others' posts, you admit that you singled out mine to criticize it as "poorly written" even as you neither bothered to give other posts the same label nor evaluate your posts. Had you done so you would have been circumspect. Or, at least, a bit prudent.

6. You admitted that you did edit your post and added to that admission, your assurance that it "was nothing substantial". What "nothing substantial",exactly, did you edit?

I have an idea... I was in the process of pointing out the "gems" in your prose when all of a sudden they disappeared.

Neat trick.

7. If I may, here I go copying and pasting again what you wrote:

Yes, that is correct the organization was found last year. Are you getting hung up on the word “enactment”? Ok, fine. “You can’t shoot something down without a track record or at least been deemed ineffective.”

To begin with, "...the organization was found last year" is horribly written. Coming from someone who's critical of writing, this is, at the very least, a disappointment.

Just for the purpose of clarifying matters, was the organization ever lost? It had to be for it to be "found".

And, there's that gem of logic and clarity: "You can't shoot something down without a track record or at least been deemed ineffective." (SEE, above).

Parenthetically, I must emphasize that cynism is not tantamount to "shooting down". Cynism is passive; "shooting down" is, clearly, active. I said I am cynical. You even welcomed it.

I was not about to shoot anything down in this thread. Now, I am in the process of doing so but not, by a long shot, BPA.

With that said, I'll procede:

Tired as I am of pointing out your errors (SEE, the underlined. Shoot something without a track record? Who shoots what? The guy without a track record does the shooting?), I'll deal with the second part of that statement:

"...at least deemed ineffective."

THAT is exactly what we (I and the other posters) have been saying all along. WE DEEM IT INEFFECTIVE. Now, you are saying it.

Just to help you understand: "DEEM" is defined by INCARTA as, "consider to be: to judge or consider to be in a particular light (formal) (often used in the passive) * a plan that was deemed impractical from the very start."

Click, if you wish:

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861603236/deem.html

Why we have no high expectations (or, to put it better, why we have low --or zero-- expectations) of the organization, we have already enumerated. To put it succintly: We have seen similar things before so we DEEM it to be a rerun.

8. I copy and paste another relevant part of your post:

…and that is the problem the Ali and the Boxing Safety Act are not enforced. A collective organization with a board that comprises of different groups AND commissions should be formed.

Permit me to raise three important points to address this:

8.1. Enforcement is not the job of the legislature. Kids know that.

8.2. If you read the ACT you will find that there is nothing there that puts teeth to the legislation in terms of enforcement for legal reasons. Read the transcripts of the hearings, if you please, and you will find that to begin with, there is the matter of where do you vest police (enforcement) powers? The States? The Federal government? If the former, why should the law be from the federal Congress? If the States, how many of the States have uniform concerns and how can a State Law be applied throughout the USA?

Like I said, that is just for starters. For the rest, READ the minutes of the hearing.

8.3. A "collective organization with a board that comprises of different groups AND commissions should be formed" is not only badly written, it is without sense. An organization is a collective; it cannot be otherwise. An individual, by himself/herself, cannot be an organization. Thus, an organization has to be collective.

As for "a board that comprises of..." . Come again? "...that comprises of..." What?

And this comes from someone who was so quick to say that a post was "poorly written"?

You could have fooled me.

9. You say I am "hung up" over the word, "enactment". How could I be? How could I have been? It was the first time you used the word in this thread and, as a result, the first time that I reacted to it. It was not as if I harped on it. How could have I been "hung up" on a word that I could not have responded to prior to your last post? Notice--and emphasis is here given--that there were only two points in my previous post (which was in response to yours) that I spoke of the word and corrected your use of it. And that got me "hung up"?

If there's anyone that is hung, you are the one. On your own pittard.

Edit/Note: I admire your "best practices" advocacy upon which you hang everything you have said on this thread. Keep hanging on.

[JBell11]

Oh well...

[QUOTE=grayfist;9793814]I debated with myself if I should respond to your post or not. Against my better judgment, I now do.

QUOTE]

… and you’re condescending too? Fantastic! I did read your current post, and have no desire to refute. You continue to “harp” on the initial post and your concurrent action is to focus on grammatical errors. Insofar, I will exercise better judgment and not respond to your post. I do appreciate your time and effort, Grayfist.

Cheers!

[grayfist]

[quote=JBell11;9794518]

I debated with myself if I should respond to your post or not. Against my better judgment, I now do.

QUOTE]

… and you’re condescending too? Fantastic! I did read your current post, and have no desire to refute. You continue to “harp” on the initial post and your concurrent action is to focus on grammatical errors. Insofar, I will exercise better judgment and not respond to your post. I do appreciate your time and effort, Grayfist.

Cheers!

1. Condesceding, perhaps. Such is the best response for your arrogance.

2. I continue to deal with my initial post because that is the point of contention. If you have forgotten, this discussion stemmed from your statement that my initial post was "poorly written" and it continued because of your insistence that it was, even in the face of my "request" that you specify the reason or reasons for your eloquent description.

3. "Poorly written" directly addresses grammatical misuse or abuse. That is the meat of the sandwich on the table.

Yes, I continue to "harp" on it because of your insistence about the poverty of what I first wrote required that I must.

4. I don't know where you got the idea that "insofar" is one word. And, to be honest, I can't see why it is used in the manner that you use it. (SEE, your sentence quoted above).

5. If for no other reason than that you fell flat on your face every time you posted a reply to my comments on this thread, I agree that putting a stop to this exchange may be the smartest course for you to take.