General MMA Chat/News mk3 - **No Spoilers Use Event Threads**

Mellor wrote: »

Is this real?
Seems like it's something you'd expect 15 years ago.

https://mma-insiders.com/irish-boxing-leadership-issue-stark-reminder-no-member-can-continue-to-compete-as-a-boxer-while-being-a-member-of-any-other-contact-sport/

Article goes on about IABA but the letter quotes AIBA rules.


Which, if true, is like blaming the FAI for FIFA rules.

Whelo79 wrote: »

Oh it's real. It's what worried sporting organisations do when they feel threatened by other sports. Similar to how the GAA used to ban 'their' players from taking part in soccer.

No. It's not exactly the same. I'd imagine it is due to safety concerns. Boxing is big on head injury protections. If you get KO'd or stopped due to head injury then you are effectively banned for a month. If you are injured doing some other contact sport, there is no way of them knowing that.

Whelo79 wrote: »

It's the lazy way out. "Let's ban then from other contact sports for their own safety".

A far more appropriate approach would be to have all combat sports come together and share their database of injury records. Any athletes cross competing must provide competition records in advance.

In the case of this young girl head strikes are prohibited in Muay Thai in her age bracket so her restriction from competing the other night was not based on fears of head injury.

Yeah let them come together and centralize their records, or at least allow cross over between those sports that have centralized records. That's a problem for the other sports though, not boxing! Boxing is well centralized and has controls in place. It's probably not going to be practically possible though. Especially with GDPR.



Look, that rule is probably in place for liability reasons. It is so that AIBA cannot be held negligent or liable if someone gets a head injury doing taekwondo one week and then gets a KO the following week in boxing. It is also a concern in the opposite case - where someone gets RSCH in boxing. In that scenario there are controls in place to effectively suspend for 28 days within boxing. The boxer could go the next week and compete in Kickboxing competition, get an injury and sue that the IABA did not pass the information on to the kickboxing situation



Maybe someone took the piss by stopping that girl from competing but there is a sensible and necessary reason why the rule is there

Mellor wrote: »

The letter is on IABA letterhead. And it's IABA who enforced the rule.

Not sure what significance you think that has. AIBA is the international governing body. If the IABA wants to be involved in any kind of international competitions or compete against teams from countries that are affiliated to AIBA, it has to be also be a member. It also has to abide by their rules. That should be easy to understand?

Mellor wrote: »

That makes sense at first glance, but it doesn't actually hold to scrutiny.

Muay Thai and other striking sports don't have head strikes for kids. Neither does MMA. So there's no head injury protection involved.

Additionally the rule also applies to non-striking sports like Judo, JiuJitsu, Akido, Sambo. Zero striking in those sports. Yet they are all explicitly excluded.

Kid gets RCSH in the stadium. IABA suspends him automatically for 28 days. Next week kid goes out and competes in Judo. Gets thrown down and bangs head. Gets sick. Turns out he shouldn't have been competing but Judo organization had no knowledge of RCSH. Sues IABA because they were negligent in not advising the kid specifically not to do Judo the next week.

Mellor wrote: »

You feigned confusing as to why the article was referring to AIBA. It's because the statement and letter came from the AIBA.
That should be easy to understand

Wasn't feigning ignorance about anything. Was pointing out that people were attacking IABA when it was stated in the letter that it was an AIBA rule. Hence it would be like attacking FAI for implementing a FIFA rule

Mellor wrote: »

Judo takes place on soft mats. If that were a concern, then rugby, hurling and soccer should be considered a much bigger risk. But there's no ban for any sports like that. Still not really holding up.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4508688/

Peer-reviewed cientific paper linked above wrote:

Pieter estimated the rate of cerebral concussions in young judo athletes as 2.38/1000 male athlete exposure and 2.92/1000 female athlete exposure.11) Furthermore, unfortunately, severe head injuries have often occurred in judo. Neurosurgeons in Japan reported 122 moderate to severe head injuries due to sports managed in an university hospital.3) They suggested that 20 patients were injured by judo and of them, four patients suffered from acute subdural hematoma. Nishimura et al. reported other 4 cases of acute subdural hematoma due to judo practice, patients were all young males aged from 14 to 24.9) Recently, in Japan, at least 30 severe head injuries have been reported from 2003 to 2010. Most of them (28 out of 30) suffered from acute subdural hematoma.8) Acute subdural hematoma associated with judo occurs primarily in adolescents and young adults due to the head contact to the tatami (judo mat).

And another one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388944

Other Scientific article wrote:

The five students, first-grade boy and girl of junior high school and two first-grade boys and one second-grade girl of senior high school, were hit on the head during extracurricular judo practice and were taken to the neurosurgery department of different hospitals. They were all novices or unskilled players. The initial diagnoses were ASDH in three cases, concussion in one, and headache in one. Although the surgeons, except in one case, prohibited the students from returning to play, the juveniles resumed judo practice soon. Some of them complained of continued headaches, but they kept practicing. Between 17 and 82 days after the first injury, they received the fateful hits to their heads, and they were brought to the emergency rooms. MRI and CT revealed ASDH in all;two of them died, and the other three remain in persistent vegetative state.

Mellor wrote: »

If KOs and RCSH is the concern why isn't the rule a ban for 28 days after RCSH or KO? If they are concerned about being negligent in not advising the kid specifically. Then just advise him specifically. After a stoppage, no other sports at all.

There is a ban. It should also be marked in the competitors card by the doctor at the tournament.

Mellor wrote: »

The rule isn't even about competing in other martial arts. It's a ban on being a member full stop. It's a ban on training in another martial art regardless of whether you compete.

Even if you competed years ago but no longer do. The ban still applies until you get permission from AIBA, and serve a 1-2 eating period. It's quite clear from the rule book that it has nothing to do with head injuries. It's from the same section that excludes professional boxer/fighters.

There is also the other reason of fairness in people being unfairly matched. You enter your 16 year old into their first novice competition, but then he gets battered by a fella who is officially in his first boxing match, but you find out has 50 savate fights or something like that.




BTW, pro boxers are no longer absolutely prevented from returning to box as an amateur. Which is why IABA is "Irish Athletic Boxing Association" rather than "Irish Amateur Boxing Association" after AIBA made all national bodies remove the word "amateur" from their name

Donald Trump wrote: »

Wasn't feigning ignorance about anything. Was pointing out that people were attacking IABA when it was stated in the letter that it was an AIBA rule. Hence it would be like attacking FAI for implementing a FIFA rule

It was the IABA preventing the child from competing. Or a representative on their behave.
Whoever waited until she made it to the final to raised the complaint didn't do it for her safety either.

I get that rules are rules. But it doesn't seem to be wildly known or enforced. So I feel bad for the kid.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4508688/

And another one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388944

The concussions rate in rugby is higher. So that essentially makes my point.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/03/12/bjsports-2017-098417

So if safety is the concern, why do they ignore team sports with concussion risk?

There is a ban. It should also be marked in the competitors card by the doctor at the tournament.

Great. So they complete avoid the issue above. No need to apply a blanket ban on top.

There is also the other reason of fairness in people being unfairly matched. You enter your 16 year old into their first novice competition, but then he gets battered by a fella who is officially in his first boxing match, but you find out has 50 savate fights or something like that.

That's an issue in amateur MMA also. You rely on the matchmaker to do his job.
I think there are better ways to legislate around it.
In jiu jitsu, people with previous grappling experience can't compete at novice.

BTW, pro boxers are no longer absolutely prevented from returning to box as an amateur. Which is why IABA is "Irish Athletic Boxing Association" rather than "Irish Amateur Boxing Association" after AIBA made all national bodies remove the word "amateur" from their name

Didn't the name change come about because they are running pro events now too. Like APB and WSoB.
Boxers can only fight in those events and retain amateur/Olympic status. If you fight in any non-AIBA pro event, actually once you agree to go pro at a later date. You are out of AIBA amateur boxing.
At least that's my understanding. Open to correction as you are probably more tuned into the latest.

Mellor wrote: »

It was the IABA preventing the child from competing. Or a representative on their behave.
Whoever waited until she made it to the final to raised the complaint didn't do it for her safety either.

I get that rules are rules. But it doesn't seem to be wildly known or enforced. So I feel bad for the kid.

Sure look, everyone feels bad for the kid. I'd imagine that most people turn a blind eye to it. But if a rival coach took the piss and raised an objection, they'd be forced to implement the rules

Mellor wrote: »

The concussions rate in rugby is higher. So that essentially makes my point.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/03/12/bjsports-2017-098417

So if safety is the concern, why do they ignore team sports with concussion risk?

Could be multiple reasons. But the crossover between judo and boxing in terms of skill would be about the same as crossover between judo and rugby. So the "preventing competition" logic would apply the same to rugby as judo. i.e if AIBA are worried about kids leaving boxing to go to judo, they'd also be as worried about them to go to rugby.

Mellor wrote: »

Great. So they complete avoid the issue above. No need to apply a blanket ban on top.

Well the point is that AIBA can only control entry to it's own tournaments.

Mellor wrote: »

That's an issue in amateur MMA also. You rely on the matchmaker to do his job.
I think there are better ways to legislate around it.
In jiu jitsu, people with previous grappling experience can't compete at novice.

That's ok for a club show. But when you get into competitions, it's open draw for your category.....come to think of it, I'm not sure exactly but I remember seeing competitions where it explicitly stated that people couldn't be in the novices if they had "fight" experience from other forms...but it didn't exclude them fully. It might just not have been compliant with the AIBA rules.

Mellor wrote: »

Didn't the name change come about because they are running pro events now too. Like APB and WSoB.
Boxers can only fight in those events and retain amateur/Olympic status. If you fight in any non-AIBA pro event, actually once you agree to go pro at a later date. You are out of AIBA amateur boxing.
At least that's my understanding. Open to correction as you are probably more tuned into the latest.

I think it evolved over time. That Cameronian fella who was previously a world champion, who beat Andy Lee in the Olympics - N'djikam

- (might have spelling wrong) entered the Olympics in Rio

Great night of fights for cage legacy in cork last night. John Byrne and the co main the pick of the bunch. No one there though, probably last time it'll be on in cork

Mellor wrote: »

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say judo.
As in, even current rules don't stop somebody competing in K1/Judo/etc the week after.

Well technically a fella could get RSCH and then the next day go and join Judo for the first time, revoke their boxing club membership and compete the next week in Judo. But that isn't likely.

If they are a member of a Judo club and get RSCH this week and go and do Judo the next week, in terms of liability the boxing club can say "but they broke our rules". That's just in terms of negligence. I am guessing why that is why the rule is in place. I am not saying it is a good rule- just that that is probably why it is there.
And on the other side, if they got a bang in the head last week in Judo, then get KO'd this week in boxing, the boxing can't be held negligent or liable just because they didn't have every boxer or parent sign a waiver form for every child before each bout. They can say - well we had rules in place to prevent this but the boxer deliberately skirted these. But if that rule was not in place then they probably could be. I'd say that a blind eye is turned in the vast vast majority of cases.



You might think it's ridiculous and assume that nobody would ever try to sue because it wouldn't cross your own mind to do so yourself but people will sue for negligence for anything and everything. Here is a completely off topic example where a horse rider fell off her horse and tried to sue both her hunt and the landowner. If you are not familiar with hunts - they are just groups of people who get together and ride their horses across farmers' land (many times without permission). In this case, the organizers basically explicitly told them "don't try to jump across that hedge". She went over and tried to jump across it, fell, and then tried to sue! She did not win because the judge found that the warning had been sufficiently communicated. If it had not been, she probably would have won her case for millions. To me it seems an obvious thing that it is possible to fall off a horse. It seems even more obvious that it is possible to fall off a horse if you try to make it jump over a hedge it can't make it over. But there you go - she still tried to sue the person who owned the land because the obstacle was "obvious and foreseeable". In other words, the owner of the land should not have had a hedge that she might try to jump across. Now, nobody suggested to her, or made her, jump across it. She just went and did it.



It's not really an issue I'd imagine in most cases. The child should not have been stopped from competing. And I'd imagine that is why the IABA in their letter mentioned trying to get a waiver or whatever for underage kids. But if another coach made an objection, then there was not much that they could do. I would put it down to bad form on the part of the objecting coach unless they were genuinely worried for the safety of their own kid due to the girls experience in Muai Thai. Some coaches might object of course on grounds of safety and others might just object out of badness or out of worry that their own boxer would be denied an opportunity by a better boxer. I'd have more time for the former but little for the latter. As an example, from what I recall, Tyson Fury wanted to try to qualify for the Olympics for Ireland. He entered into the seniors but was not allowed to compete due to an objection from (I think) Cathal McMonagle's (who was SH champion) club over his eligibility. I remember seeing his name on the published list of entrants because I had not heard of him previously and it was an unusual name. Fury had previously boxed for Ireland I think but the IABA had to act on the objection and follow up to check according to their own eligibility rules. By the time it was sorted, it was too late. I think that at the time, he hadn't documentary proof of eligibility and by the time he got his passport sorted, competition was over!

rob316 wrote: »

Great night of fights for cage legacy in cork last night. John Byrne and the co main the pick of the bunch. No one there though, probably last time it'll be on in cork

Was hoping to get down myself but other commitments meant I couldn't. Cage Legacy nights are usually decent enough, glad to see Gary Rooney ground out the win

Whelo79 wrote: »

Following up on this, one day after that announcement was made this is what happened!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1351745794975731&id=242097142607274

Nathaniel Wood sent her a little support video!

http://fightstoremedia.ie/ufc-star-sends-video-message-support-chloe-black-way-london/