Boxing: The 300 Foot View
In a sport where both fans and participants are conditioned to focus upon the immediate challenge in front of them, there continues to be a glaring omission of any long-term thinking. No steering group, strategic planning, holistic approaches within boxing. In short, the sport of boxing is used to getting stuck in the reeds, the weeds and the daily needs without often taking the time to look over the landscape and consider the view from 300 feet above.
This presents itself in a multitude of ways. Death of a fighter, drug test failures, mega fights happening, mega fights missed, areas of the sport creaking under financial pressure and needing support. Each hold the boxing headlines for a week, perhaps a fortnight, before attention shifts to the next story. No lessons learned, no debrief to correct failures.
In the foreground, sycophants whose income is reliant on the sport being a success make themselves prominent to tell us how successful the sport currently is, with all the enthusiasm of someone whose income is reliant on it being so. Speaking their truth into existence to ensure the gravy train continues, blocking with such precision the notion that changes to the status quo may, whisper it, benefit those taking part. Raising the tough questions to those who can make a difference, or even to the eyes and ears of the money paying fan, may pierce the illusion.
While others work out their fantasy fights of 2021 that are almost certain to not come off, I look at the 300 foot view of the sport and some of the areas (there were plenty more) where efforts could be focussed to ensure longer term success in a sport of short-term focus.
The Ringside Charitable Trust have been fundraising now for several years with the intent of opening a rest and care home that provides support to boxers who fall on hard time once their time in the ring comes to an end. There are countless stories of one-time ring generals in the sport who struggle to adapt to life once the crowds stop cheering and they are no longer heroes, either nationally or locally. Alcohol and drug dependencies, injuries and depression are common themes of ex-boxers and the Ringside Charitable Trust are looking to change the way in which folk who can no longer fight are looked after.
It is a hugely ambitious project, to invest in and maintain a 36-bed residential facility for the mentally and physically unwell. Fund raising continues even in these hard times, while the Trust also try to engage with those at the top of the UK sport to support a facility that intends to take away some of the pain from those who once entertained us. Proposals have been provided to the upper echelons, asking for small percentage contributions where fight purses start becoming substantial. Without headlines around the issue, it becomes a victim of short-term planning. It may require the next long-term damage of a participant to apply the pressure to relevant people and bring the topic to the table.
Of the less visible risks of boxing, concussion and brain damage (CTE) may be the one that raises its head soonest. The topic is trendy: football has acknowledged the dangers of heading a ball (albeit a sport that has evolved since the latest research group were playing) and acted. The NFL have seen the very real issue both physically and financially of handling concussion protocols and have, belatedly, moved the conversation and action to tackling the problem.
Boxing, a sport where one main route to attaining the goal is to punch the opponent in the skull, has done little to work towards a safer environment. Of course, the dissenting voices (let's deal with them first) will always say 'you can't - it's a sport where that is the aim. Take part or don't, but don't adjust the sport'. I hear the voices; I reject the reasoning. The old guard will tell you that it is nothing more than stopping fighters cutting too much weight, which of course is a factor that has to be considered.
But that reasoning also pre-supposes that NOTHING further can be done to enhance safety. So now consider the potentials. The NFL handed out grants to leading researchers worldwide to investigate the traditional helmets worn by players and could they be made safer. Apply the same theory to boxing: how many hours of sparring are taking place around the country? When was the last time that the materials used were interrogated, researched as to whether they are the most appropriate? In American Football, one potential design solution is to utilise new 4D printing materials to change the flex of the helmet upon impact and reduce the potential of damage. Apply the same principles to head gear in sparring, or potentially even the gloves. Without conducting the research we don't know what is possible and we don't know the benefits.
What is mad? The people specialising in the 4D printing technology research are based at Cardiff University, a seven-minute walk from the BBBoC offices, and have previously reached out to their neighbours to open discussions. Their RSVP was never returned. This isn't a sport where change is embraced and new ideas welcomed until there is a headline to support it. Don't try and drive the agenda unless you have a recent tragedy to back up your point.
Drugs in boxing will always be a ferocious subject. We know the cycle (pun intended); fighter fails drug test, moral outcry, Promoters take a side dependant on stable affiliation, UKAD decide punishment based on size of fighter's wallet and ability to contest. It is at times baffling that UKAD, seemingly so blunt in their approach and ability to prosecute, are left carrying the burden. Perhaps it suits all parties to outsource the problem to an organisation who only test a small percentage and lack the killer instinct (or budget) when it comes to finishing the job. Those in the sport don't have to burden the responsibility for testing and can justify their involvement by pointing at the premiere UK anti-doping body. There is no better organisation in the UK to undertake the programme, worryingly.
Other sports also use UKAD. Their end goal isn't to render an opponent unconscious, it is to run faster or score more. It isn't to punch harder for longer and focus upon downing the other side. UKAD are government funded with thin resources. Whether they are fit for purpose to govern a sport that has more money available than they do (same can be said for other sports too of course) is open to debate. What we know will happen in the short-term is sacrificial lambs be offered to the doping gods (read: Liam Cameron) while the lingering fear is that the wolves are feasting.
The final part to consider the longer-term impact, positive and negative, is management. Under BBBoC rules a licenced Manager must have held another licence for a minimum of three years to then apply to become a boxing Manager. Reasoning being, presumably, that those people have proven themselves trustworthy to the Board and familiarised themselves with the rules over time, to now apply for what is deemed the most important role outside of the ring: Manager.
A grey area has emerged over time, where those without a licence have found a place for themselves managing a boxer’s career without going through the process. The most prominent is Sam Jones, guiding the career of Joe Joyce amongst others, but he is one of many. Others may be working to get sponsors, or advertising a fighter, or handling negotiations away from the spotlight. All are doing it without falling under the jurisdiction of the BBBoC.
Good or bad? It’s a subjective point. Some will say that it is bringing the sport into the 21st century, allowing those with commercial acumen to start helping boxers exploit financial potential. Without the rules and regulations, they can work more freely to help those risking their lives. However, there is also no accountability. The Board do a great job of holding contracts to account. If boxers or Managers make a commitment to one another, the Board are there to ensure no foul play or interference. That relies upon all participants signing up to their code though. They have no say over those without licences and although can stop some of the formal involvement, are powerless to stop the less documented.
It makes a fascinating friction. The old guard vs the new school. Rules ignorers vs adherers. Perhaps the sport should embrace free thinking and the ability to work outside of the traditional green book and welcome input from other sources. Maybe they could expand the rulebook to have those individuals inside the tent pissing out, not outside the tent pissing in. The appeal over time will be for more individuals to eschew the Board rules and work to their own, so it seems logical to adapt and find a way to govern all.
There were plenty of other areas that could be looked at from a wider perspective. The transition from amateur to professional boxing, engagement within the sport outwards to Government, an audit of the money circulating within boxing. All have merit and no doubt will capture the headlines at some point. Boxing’s challenge is to harness the conversation and build change.