Comments Thread For: Whyte vs. Chisora - British Board Wants Extra Safety Measures

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

The British Boxing Board of Control wants extra safety measures in place for the upcoming fight between British heavyweight rivals Dillian Whyte and Dereck Chisora. They have asked promoter Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Sport to avoid the two fighters having any "face-offs" in the upcoming pre-fight promotions. The British Board fears that a violent situation may erupt if the two boxers are placed too close to reach other.
[Click Here To Read More]

[Kungfu Panda]

Like a muzzle on Dell Boy?

[thack]

Let's hope they are as active with the gloves on as they were on with them off.I see the boards side as they both are volatile, Eddie just wants more of it when really there's no need as an injury could occur similar to Tyson v lewis and then a postponement and maybe then not even the fight.We know they don't like each other, lets just see the fight.

[Weltschmerz]

They can set up a fence like they did with Haye-Chisora,

[SteveM]

Somewhere deep in boxing's past, I seem to recall it was a sport for gentlemen to settle their differences.
What happened?

[bboy80]

Somewhere deep in boxing's past, I seem to recall it was a sport for gentlemen to settle their differences.
What happened?

Media, fame, pantomime for extra media etc etc. Same old crap from Chisora.

[PivotandRoll]

Somewhere deep in boxing's past, I seem to recall it was a sport for gentlemen to settle their differences.
What happened?

Nope.....Literally never.

The earliest known depictions of boxing is in Sumerian paintings dated to the 3rd millennium BCE. The earliest evidence for fist fighting with any kind of gloves can be found on Minoan Crete 1650 BCE and on Sardinia, if you consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains 2000BC.


The Greeks believed it was a game played by the gods and thus added it to the Olympics in about 668BC.

Boxing was a popular spectator sport in Ancient Rome. In order for the fighters to protect themselves against their opponents they wrapped leather thongs around their fists. Eventually harder leather was used and the thong soon became a weapon. The Romans even introduced metal studs to the thongs to make the Cestus which then led to a more sinister weapon called the Myrmex (limb piercer).

The Roman form of boxing was often a fight until death to please the spectators who gathered at such events. However purchased slaves and trained combat performers were valuable commodities, and their lives were not given up without due consideration. Often slaves were used against one another in a circle marked on the floor. This is where the term ring came from. In AD 393 boxing was abolished due to excessive brutality. It was not until the late 17th century that boxing re-surfaced in London.

The first documented account of a bare-knuckle fight in England appeared in 1681 in the London Protestant Mercury, and the first English bare-knuckle champion was James Figg in 1719. Early fighting had no written rules. There were no weight divisions or round limits, and no referee. In general, it was extremely chaotic.

Seems to me you were fed a line of bull**** and ate it willingly....Boxing's past is not a pretty one littered with gentleman....

[SteveM]

Nope.....Literally never.

The earliest known depictions of boxing is in Sumerian paintings dated to the 3rd millennium BCE. The earliest evidence for fist fighting with any kind of gloves can be found on Minoan Crete 1650 BCE and on Sardinia, if you consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains 2000BC.


The Greeks believed it was a game played by the gods and thus added it to the Olympics in about 668BC.

Boxing was a popular spectator sport in Ancient Rome. In order for the fighters to protect themselves against their opponents they wrapped leather thongs around their fists. Eventually harder leather was used and the thong soon became a weapon. The Romans even introduced metal studs to the thongs to make the Cestus which then led to a more sinister weapon called the Myrmex (limb piercer).

The Roman form of boxing was often a fight until death to please the spectators who gathered at such events. However purchased slaves and trained combat performers were valuable commodities, and their lives were not given up without due consideration. Often slaves were used against one another in a circle marked on the floor. This is where the term ring came from. In AD 393 boxing was abolished due to excessive brutality. It was not until the late 17th century that boxing re-surfaced in London.

The first documented account of a bare-knuckle fight in England appeared in 1681 in the London Protestant Mercury, and the first English bare-knuckle champion was James Figg in 1719. Early fighting had no written rules. There were no weight divisions or round limits, and no referee. In general, it was extremely chaotic.

Seems to me you were fed a line of bull**** and ate it willingly....Boxing's past is not a pretty one littered with gentleman....

Good on you for a good come back! ... what I said was half tongue in cheek before I'd even finished my first coffee of the morning.

[PivotandRoll]

Good on you for a good come back! ... what I said was half tongue in cheek before I'd even finished my first coffee of the morning.

Thanks, was just an excuse to discuss some actual boxing on this site for once. Hope you enjoyed your coffee and the short if unwanted history lesson .

[SteveM]

Thanks, was just an excuse to discuss some actual boxing on this site for once. Hope you enjoyed your coffee and the short if unwanted history lesson .

No, not unwanted. All is good. I didn't know all of that ancient history. I am not a big fan on boxing history, I relate much more to what has happened during my lifetime - what I can actually see and experience.

For me, boxing is all about wearing gloves although I know gloved boxing evolved from bare-fist brawling. The Queenberry rules changed brawling from savage encounters to regulated "fair-play" contests - so naturally those who participated were considered more gentlemanly than those who fought under other rules or no rules.