Billy Walsh quits ** SEE MOD WARNING #643 BEFORE POSTING

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, I totally agree. They do believe it and they don't really get all the fuss that's created about the High Performance Unit, probably think it's overkill, too much money spent on it and on Billy Big Boots coaches. And whether we like it or not, it's a view not just confined to the IABA board as a glance back through this thread would show, plenty of people here wondering what all the fuss was about when the story broke, sure we're just losing one guy, what's the big deal, they'll appoint someone else and we'll all move on etc

It's the kind of attitude that invites the gradual slipping of standards, the fatal compromise of complacency, the thing Billy Walsh always went out of his way to guard against. There are some very good coaches out there but it takes a great coach or manager in whatever discipline - a Billy Walsh, a Brian Cody, a Willie Mullins - to ensure that never happens. They just don't get what they've lost in there and I don't suppose they ever truly will.

Eamonn Coghlan touched on this yesterday, referring to the "small mindedness" of the IABA, and he should know, having had a nightmarish time of dealing with committees when he tried his hand at sports administration.

Their comments are very revealing. Their mindset is along the lines of "What's the big deal? There are twenty boxing coaches in Ireland who could do Billy Walsh's work". They actually sounded perplexed at times in the last week at the huge fuss that was being created.

It would be like the board of the IRFU trying to force Joe Schmidt out of his job, adding he would be more than replaceable, that there would be dozens of rugby coaches out there who could do his job just as well.

Coghlan referred to small mindedness but I would add "mediocrity" too, these guys are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Visionaries they are not.

walshb wrote: »

These points are very important, but maybe there are many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position. After reading all this and listening toboth sides I feel that Billy "talked" himself out of the position just as much as the IABA "talked" him out of it. He had issues, problems. That is part of life and work and people. Now, it seems that either those issues were too much, and were too much because the IABA were bang out of order towards Billy, or they were too much because Billy pushed too hard and forced the hand of the IABA. Forced the IABA to fight back and stand its ground. The ISC then got overly involved and created a bigger mess. They took sides instead of mediating. They took sides right for the get go. That was not right. And all because ONE man was having an employmemnt issue. They were happy to go along with everything when Billy was in the position.

"Many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position." I honestly don't think you even believe this. I mean, no disrespect to Zaur but it's not the job he's suited for, too many distractions from what he's best at. If there's even one adequate replacement out there, well great, but I haven't heard anybody name him yet.

And it seems to me, it's fine for the IABA and their supporters to paint the ISC as villains, taking sides, provoking the IABA into reaction, going beyond their remit. But this isn't the case. They do their job which is to find an arrangement acceptable to both sides, this is what happens, and then that deal is scuppered because one side is changing terms as they go along - those are the facts! It's only after the process has completely broken down, when there's no prospect of agreement, that they express their frustrations in public. One ISC member makes an intemperate remark for which he later apologises, but we still have to endure a load of IABA bellyaching over it. It was one remark, the guy said sorry. Old, old news.

I'm just shaking my head at this comment: "They were happy to go along with everything while Billy was in the position." If you don't read or feel the need to read what's been said in statements and before committees, there's probably no point here. The ISC has repeatedly stated it was unhappy since at least the London Olympics, but what can it do? Come barging in, saying all this is wrong, IABA needs to get its house in order, and it's told to f'off, stop meddling in our business (which they can't even fund properly ffs). Look what happens when they are actually invited in to intervene, god only knows what bedlam would be unleashed if they did so uninvited. You show no appreciation of how the system actually works day to day.

I hate to say it, but I feel I'm been a bit broken down by the IABA supporters on here. In a very minor way, I think I'm getting a taste of how Billy Walsh must have felt in his job

walshb wrote: »

I don't think I am an IABA supporter because I am somewhat fence sitting. I have been impartial here. I have praised Billy several times, as well as feeling that he may well have been more the victim in this affair.

I have no issue with people being for one side over the other as long as they analyse the facts from both sides Dobal Trump makes some very pertinent points. There is just so much nonsenes information in all of this. I will strip away all that and form an opinion. Nothing right or certyain with my opinion, just a belief.

If I was to break it down I'd say the root of all this was money-finances and jealousy and ego.Those three elements created this mess. The jealousy I reckon is a jealousy towards Billy and his success and public perception for that success. The money, without doubt this was an issue with Billy, as well as the IABA. The ego-wanting power was also something with Billy. He rocked the boat on this one. Was he entitled to rock the boat? Yes. But that doesn't mean he was right to, or that the IABA should have allowed themselves to be rocked.

And the ISC were the chiefs. Couple of big egos there muscling in far too much.

Fair enough on a lot of that. But "The money, without doubt, was an issue with Billy." How many times does Billy have to say the money wasn't an issue for you to believe him? Why "without doubt", why are you so certain about that when you fence sit on so much else, that you are basically saying Billy isn't being truthful when he gives his account?

The fact of Irish sport is that if there was no ISC, and money was just doled out to the sports without any sense of accountability, it might as well just be flushed down a great big hole in the ground. It's not perfect and you'll always get organisations who, seemingly, can't arrange any funding for themselves and are happy to take as much government money as they can but then tell the overseers to butt out when questions need to be asked.

If you know your history, you'll know the ISC had a very troubled beginning in 1999 when the politicians were basically using it as a football, but it has gradually found its feet, made mistakes - including during this debacle - but all in all it is basically doing a very difficult and delicate job quite well. They're far from perfect, but they are very much entitled to a defence as much as the IABA in this issue. They have handled a tough situation pretty well imho.

walshb wrote: »

Billy started the money issue. He created this issue. That is agreed, no? He got a huge offer from the States. Presented it to IABA and it snowballed from there. Yes, according to Billy and ISC it was not about the money afterwards, but the IABA thinkk differently. They were happy to sweep the money-financials under the carpet, but no way was it a non issue just because they said so.

I'm depressed about the money issue, because it was the IABA who created the money issue, not the other way around. They did so by not paying Billy for the job he was doing, just for the sake - I'm guessing - of either saving a few quid or keeping him in his place, maybe both, two birds with one stone and all that. And that's not just my opinion. That's the verdict of the independent report commissioned after the 2012 Olympics, which the IABA participated in and signed off on. They were recommended to sort out Billys position there and then, which they patently failed to do. They created the conditions in which their employee's frustration and unhappiness was allowed to fester. They take the lion's share of the blame. I will argue this point until I am blue in the face.

To be honest, your whole position perplexes me. You're aiming daggers at the Sports Council, yet haven't given any specifiic instances of where they exceeded their brief or acted out of order. A few pages back, you conceded that the IABA went into negotiations without any intent to reach agreement - "going through the motions", were your exact words as I recall - and yet you don't seem to have come to the conclusion that this was an entirely dishonourable strategy and shines a very dim light on how the IABA conducts its business. Yet you seem to believe this but don't have any issues with the IABA over it. As I said, perplexing.

walshb wrote: »

These points are very important, but maybe there are many Billy Walsh mindsets ready to take up the position. After reading all this and listening toboth sides I feel that Billy "talked" himself out of the position just as much as the IABA "talked" him out of it. He had issues, problems. That is part of life and work and people. Now, it seems that either those issues were too much, and were too much because the IABA were bang out of order towards Billy, or they were too much because Billy pushed too hard and forced the hand of the IABA. Forced the IABA to fight back and stand its ground. The ISC then got overly involved and created a bigger mess. They took sides instead of mediating. They took sides right for the get go. That was not right. And all because ONE man was having an employmemnt issue. They were happy to go along with everything when Billy was in the position.

But it's obvious what went wrong here. Billy Walsh is a phenomenally successful and world class boxing coach (the USA have just had him take over their amateur boxing progamme). As soon as the IABA got wind of the fact that the USA were looking for him and that he was seeking a payrise, they should have bent over backwards to secure him. That is what would have happened with any functioning and forward thinking board. The attitude should have been "This guy is absolutely brilliant, we must do everything in our power to keep him, to lose him would be a catastrophe".

Everything that happened subsequently would suggest they thought that "well, no, this guy is entirely replaceable and it would be far from a catastrophe if we lose him, he's just another cog in the wheel, and besides he's starting to get too big for his boots and we can't be having that."

Strazdas wrote: »

Everything that happened subsequently would suggest they thought that "well, no, this guy is entirely replaceable and it would be far from a catastrophe if we lose him, he's just another cog in the wheel, and besides he's starting to get too big for his boots and we can't be having that."

And I don't see anything at all wrong if that is how they thought. They, not me. They are the ones involved.

Strazdas wrote: »

That is where I would accuse them of complete mediocrity. To think that losing a world class boxing coach (one who has just been signed by an Olympic superpower to head up their programme) is of little or no consequence and that there are twenty Irish coaches who could replace him is mind boggling stuff.

No, it is not. You are not that close to the HP-IABA-Team set up and Billy. The IABA are a lot closer. The HP is a team. Maybe they really do believe that Billy is replaceable. I find it bizarre the amount of credit being heaped upon him by people who are simply counting medals. No doubt, he was influential, and me personally would bet that he was very influential, but in no way would I say that is not replaceable. It's a very individual sport. The boxers win the medals. Their prep and team aid and help them. According to some mickey mouse could train the lads to medals.

Strazdas wrote: »

Why have USA Boxing come looking for him then and offered him a big salary? There must be hundreds of boxing coaches in the US who they could offer the job to.

Desperation?

I don't know. You'd have to ask them.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Or you could just read their statement. It's all in there, read between the lines and you know they just can't believe their luck in being able to land a coach with Billy's record from one of their main rivals so close to the Games.

Whatever about their statement there is no guarantee that their medal haul improves in Rio. I may be wrong but the U.S have not topped the medals in boxing since Seoul, 1988. Cuba missed those games. Since then their medals have dwindled.

Now, if Billy does not get results that won't make him a bad coach or an average/ordinary coach. It's so much more about the boxer and the talent, as well as the subjectivity of the sport and judging.

Could it be a simple case of "We are not performing well the past 25 years. LooK at the Irish. Their medals have been steady and they are doing very well. We have tried several coaches and systems. Our medals are still not increasing. Let's try Billy. Sure what is the worst that can happen? We keep losing?"

To me it's an air of desperation on the part of team USA.

Far too much emphasis is being placed on medals and the U.S. offering Billy a contract.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Of course there are no guarantees, everybody knows that. I doubt the USA have brought him in so they can suddenly target a swathe of medals in Rio. It's surely with a more long-term vision in place, with any success next year considered a bonus.

You're talking about USA men's boxing, where Billy is employed as womens' head coach. Now it may well be that he's involved in the men's side as well, that has been suggested in a couple of reports, but I don't know that. It would probably be the next logical step for him anyway if this job goes well.

I suppose it could be along the lines you are suggesting, arra sure let's just give this guy a spin and see how it goes, you never know, or else they have been observing him for several years, seen how the Irish HP program has developed into one of the best in the world and finally landed their man.

Or maybe they had a discussion along these lines "hmm those Irish are doing really well, they've obviously got a world class set-up there, we should try and recruit some of their people. Now who will we get? I don't know about that coach, he could just be a Billy Big Boots hogging all the credit. Maybe we should be looking at the whizz kids on the board instead, they're probably doing all the work and getting none of the credit. Hmmm this is a really tough one, i don't know who we should go for..."

Yes, I was wrong. Right now it is women's boxing. Which in a way doesn't make huge sense. There are only 3 weights there, and really, if they were clever they would have tried to recruit Pete Taylor.....It's only the 2nd games where the women will compete. Is it a case of the U.S simply being daft-desperate? As mentioned, surely in the whole of the country they could come up with someone to take the job? Maybe they tried others and they didn't want it.

In a nutshell I think the offfer from U.S. boxing is not all that significant as regards something to bolster the side of Billy Walsh. Maybe to many others it's a real indicator of his worth, and maybe the U.S. know more than me. Anyway, let's wait and count the 3 gold medals being handed out in Rio. I believe it is only 3 weights again. So, that is 12 medals as far as I know, unless they bring in a 3rd place box off.

The men had their worst ever olympic showing in London with 0 medals, and the women won 2/12 medals; a gold at MW and a bronze at Fly

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I was wrong. Right now it is women's boxing. Which in a way doesn't make huge sense. There are only 3 weights there, and really, if they were clever they would have tried to recruit Pete Taylor.....It's only the 2nd games where the women will compete. Is it a case of the U.S simply being daft-desperate? As mentioned, surely in the whole of the country they could come up with someone to take the job? Maybe they tried others and they didn't want it.

In a nutshell I think the offfer from U.S. boxing is not all that significant as regards something to bolster the side of Billy Walsh. Maybe to many others it's a real indicator of his worth, and maybe the U.S. know more than me. Anyway, let's wait and count the 3 gold medals being handed out in Rio. I believe it is only 3 weights again. So, that is 12 medals as far as I know, unless they bring in a 3rd place box off.

The men had their worst ever olympic showing in London with 0 medals, and the women won 2/12 medals; a gold at MW and a bronze at Fly

The USA are actually relatively strong on the womens side in terms of winning medals. Their two Olympic medalists are still around (although one was beaten in their trials but I think has a back door option). Both won gold at their last World Championships

As for the girl moving down to compete at lightweight and might end up facing Katie Taylor.....let's just say that I'd like to see her box

price690 wrote: »

Was she successful at 64kgs?

I take it she will be a big lightweight? Who is she?

I'd have to check but I think Mayer won the Olympic trials last week? There was a bit of controversy after she beat the 18-year-old who looks a future star in the semi-final, a lot of commentators seemed to believe the younger boxer should have won the fight.

I think Mayer isn't in Katie's class, but it's not guaranteed she'll have the Olympic place yet, although I wouldn't claim that as gospel.

Edit: The trials aren't actually completed yet, so not quite accurate in that. Jajaira Gonzales is the kid I was referring to, she looks a potentially top class contender and she's still in contention for Rio, but would she have the smarts for Katie Taylor at his juncture? Very doubtful to say the least.

walshb wrote: »

That's fair enough. No matter spin is put on it I think it's far too overplayed. 2020? We could all be dead by then.

I would point out that the opinions you're giving about Billy would be shared by about 1% or 2% of Irish sports fans going by the overwhelming reaction across a variety of mediums in the last ten days. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in a minority of 1% of course - debate and differences of opinion are healthy - but you'll not find many agreeing with you that Walsh's departure is of little consequence to Irish boxing.

Strazdas wrote: »

I would point out that the opinions you're giving about Billy would be shared by about 1% or 2% of Irish sports fans going by the overwhelming reaction across a variety of mediums in the last ten days. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in a minority of 1% of course - debate and differences of opinion are healthy - but you'll not find many agreeing with you that Walsh's departure is of little consequence to Irish boxing.

Yes, and of these perecentages there will be a large lot that are simply anti rules and regulations and anti organisation. Many who also are backing one man based off medals and success etc. The one man vs. the system brigade. Backing the underdog brigade etc. So, really, percentages of who supports who is a nonsense in these kinds of issues. I don't pay much attention to it.

Me: As I said, from what I know of it I reckon Billy was hard done by.