Benn v Mclellan reversed

First topic message reminder :

Hi all

So with the whole Benn - Mclellan saga being re surfaced recently and the documentary the other night it got me thinking more about the person Mclellan was and who he would have become if the outcome of that fight was reversed.

Mclellan was painted by Steward as the most violent man he had trained (words may differ) and the general consensus was he was a nasty piece of work. I believe it when it was said that he went to the fight with Benn with every intention to kill him in there and that he took that attitude with him to every fight.

Now afterwards upon knowing Mclellan was in hospital Benn said 'rather him than me' and to an extent I can relate to him there as I believe Benn only took the mind to win into that fight and nothing else. Mclellans sister had also previously stated she wished Benn dies and questioned how he could sleep at night knowing what he did to which we found out - not very well. There was a lot of emotion when he met Mclellan and it's never nice seeing a warrior cry, a clear indication of remorse.

Had the roles been reveresed I do not believe Mclellan would have been as impacted as Benn and tbh I think he would have gloated (maybe not in public but deffinately to his peers) over what he accomplished. From dog fighting to running over birds to punching his trainers teeth out "just because thats the type of person he was" just goes to show he was an emotionless human being with a thirst for violence. Just how would his sister react to Mclellan if Benn had become brain damged? sat on her dis-illusioned perch thats where!

Not one of us want to see injuries to the extent that Mclellan has endured, but out of the 2 in this particular fight he has recieved more charity then should the injury be the other way round.

My point of this article is that Benn has no cause to feel responsible for what happened - in my eyes he was fighting for his life against a nasty SOB and since has done more for his opponent then what he would have recieved.

"Rather him then me" - well for me too

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

azania wrote:Correction Fist. I hate fox hunting and all other forms of killing animals for pleasure. But I do not hate the hunters.

Surely they are the cause though, Az?

Yeh, how can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters??! If there were no fox hunters there'd be no fox hunting - there is no 'vice-versa' to that!

It was legal (or is it still legal). I dont dislike people who carry out legal activities. I simply abhore all forms of hunting.

So your opinion on fox hunting changed over night when Labour made it illegal?? Pack of dogs under the direction of toffs on horseback rips a fox to shreads pre-ban, fine, post-pan, deplorable. You're making absolutely no sense on this subject.

What part of "I abhore all forms of hunting" do you fing difficult to understand? I cant stand cricket but I dont dislike cricketers.

So you're saying you can hate a crime but not the perpetrator of that crime? Than why bash Benn for (hearsay evidence only) hitting his missus/kids. By your definition hitting women/kids is abhorrent, but you can't dislike the hitter.

You hate hunting but not hunters, you hate cricket but not cricketers, ergo you hate wife-beating but not wife-beaters. Nice logic.

McClellan was a monster by all accounts, but i look at the fight for what it was and try to keep personal feelings out of it. Didn't like the roids accusation at the end, almost pointless puttting it in there, left a sour taste.

Seanusarrilius wrote:McClellan was a monster by all accounts, but i look at the fight for what it was and try to keep personal feelings out of it. Didn't like the roids accusation at the end, almost pointless puttting it in there, left a sour taste.

I agree

All I saw was another desperate excuse from a pi$$ poor trainer who is more to blame then anyone for the outcome which is even a view that McClellan's sisters now take.

If it was true why wait 10 years to accuse and where is this evidence he has???

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

azania wrote:Correction Fist. I hate fox hunting and all other forms of killing animals for pleasure. But I do not hate the hunters.

Surely they are the cause though, Az?

Yeh, how can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters??! If there were no fox hunters there'd be no fox hunting - there is no 'vice-versa' to that!

It was legal (or is it still legal). I dont dislike people who carry out legal activities. I simply abhore all forms of hunting.

So your opinion on fox hunting changed over night when Labour made it illegal?? Pack of dogs under the direction of toffs on horseback rips a fox to shreads pre-ban, fine, post-pan, deplorable. You're making absolutely no sense on this subject.

What part of "I abhore all forms of hunting" do you fing difficult to understand? I cant stand cricket but I dont dislike cricketers.

So you're saying you can hate a crime but not the perpetrator of that crime? Than why bash Benn for (hearsay evidence only) hitting his missus/kids. By your definition hitting women/kids is abhorrent, but you can't dislike the hitter.

You hate hunting but not hunters, you hate cricket but not cricketers, ergo you hate wife-beating but not wife-beaters. Nice logic.

Nothing proven that Gman fought dogs. His trainer said about the labrador, He also said Benn was on roids. You believe one but not the other. You believe the comment that suits your argument. Personally I dont think Benn was on roids. Not a chance.

I cant stand cricket, golf, bowls, motor racing. So according to you I should hate the participants.

A single mother steals some bread to feed her kid/s. Should we hate her?

Incidentally why did Benn include all the qualifications around him taking steroids. 'I didn't take them for this fight' 'I didn't take them while boxing'. Sounded dodgy to me, along with his whole manner when discussing it.

As TRUSS might say, it also had a feel of 'the lady doth protest too much'.

Ask yourself Az which of those two accusations is McClellans trainer most likely to know for a fact?

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

azania wrote:Correction Fist. I hate fox hunting and all other forms of killing animals for pleasure. But I do not hate the hunters.

Surely they are the cause though, Az?

Yeh, how can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters??! If there were no fox hunters there'd be no fox hunting - there is no 'vice-versa' to that!

It was legal (or is it still legal). I dont dislike people who carry out legal activities. I simply abhore all forms of hunting.

So your opinion on fox hunting changed over night when Labour made it illegal?? Pack of dogs under the direction of toffs on horseback rips a fox to shreads pre-ban, fine, post-pan, deplorable. You're making absolutely no sense on this subject.

What part of "I abhore all forms of hunting" do you fing difficult to understand? I cant stand cricket but I dont dislike cricketers.

So you're saying you can hate a crime but not the perpetrator of that crime? Than why bash Benn for (hearsay evidence only) hitting his missus/kids. By your definition hitting women/kids is abhorrent, but you can't dislike the hitter.

You hate hunting but not hunters, you hate cricket but not cricketers, ergo you hate wife-beating but not wife-beaters. Nice logic.

Nothing proven that Gman fought dogs. His trainer said about the labrador, He also said Benn was on roids. You believe one but not the other. You believe the comment that suits your argument. Personally I dont think Benn was on roids. Not a chance.

I cant stand cricket, golf, bowls, motor racing. So according to you I should hate the participants.

A single mother steals some bread to feed her kid/s. Should we hate her?

Errrrr. Didnt his sister say he fought dogs too?

The trainer was worse than rubbish. But he wasn't to blame for what happened. There were 5 doctors at ringside and they didn't spot anything. 20:20 is a wonderful thing. This is boxing. Repeated blows to the head does this.

No-one can be blamed.

Ghosty I dont think that trainer can seperate fact from fiction. With someone like him I discount it all. But I choose to believe he was involved in dog fighting. Doesn't make it fact though. Even though his sister said he probably fought dogs, I can be as pig headed as you and claim it doesn't make it fact. Thing is the people who said things about Benn have no axe to grind about him. Bravo he was in the army. But what they have said he did makes Gman dog fighting stuff trivial.

He's pm'd me. Azania has heard more stories than can be put into text in public - the stories are second hand, for sure - however - I was already aware of one of them.

They can't be put into print due to libel laws.

The point, as made to Az by pm - is that there's suspicions surrounding what Gman did - that unfortunately also can't be put into practice.

We can't paint either man as a saint before the fight - they weren't.

azania wrote:The trainer was worse than rubbish. But he wasn't to blame for what happened. There were 5 doctors at ringside and they didn't spot anything. 20:20 is a wonderful thing. This is boxing. Repeated blows to the head does this.

No-one can be blamed.

Ghosty I dont think that trainer can seperate fact from fiction. With someone like him I discount it all. But I choose to believe he was involved in dog fighting. Doesn't make it fact though. Even though his sister said he probably fought dogs, I can be as pig headed as you and claim it doesn't make it fact. Thing is the people who said things about Benn have no axe to grind about him. Bravo he was in the army. But what they have said he did makes Gman dog fighting stuff trivial.

It's a culmination of his training camp before - the tactics given to him - the way he was performing post 4th round - the signs that were there - the dejected look - the trainer should be seeing these things. Doctors do not know the fighter personally and I very much doubt they watch previous performances. As Manny stated if he was the trainer he doubts McClellan would be in his conditioning now.

G-Man didn't just dog fight did he - he dog killed from shooting one in the head because his dogs need to win to binding a labradors mouth to watch his dog rip apart. The man would also watch these fights back on tapes. He drove around a shopping mall running over ther birds because it was fun - he punched his trainers front teeth out because thats the type of person he was even though he paid for new ones

He was labelled the most violent person Manny has worked with in and out the ring - I dont think he would label him that lightly.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

azania wrote:Correction Fist. I hate fox hunting and all other forms of killing animals for pleasure. But I do not hate the hunters.

Surely they are the cause though, Az?

Yeh, how can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters??! If there were no fox hunters there'd be no fox hunting - there is no 'vice-versa' to that!

It was legal (or is it still legal). I dont dislike people who carry out legal activities. I simply abhore all forms of hunting.

So your opinion on fox hunting changed over night when Labour made it illegal?? Pack of dogs under the direction of toffs on horseback rips a fox to shreads pre-ban, fine, post-pan, deplorable. You're making absolutely no sense on this and almost any other subject.

Much better, thankyou

Ha. You cant help yourself can you?

Couldn't resist

Jonesy.

Gman was no saint. By all accounts he was a nasty piece of work. I'm not denying that and never will. As for his trainer, I tend to dismiss whatever he claims Mac did to him because that guy is as trusting as Clinton with an intern.

Haen said that I maintain that Benn was equally bad and in some cases depending on your morals, worse.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

azania wrote:Correction Fist. I hate fox hunting and all other forms of killing animals for pleasure. But I do not hate the hunters.

Surely they are the cause though, Az?

Yeh, how can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters??! If there were no fox hunters there'd be no fox hunting - there is no 'vice-versa' to that!

It was legal (or is it still legal). I dont dislike people who carry out legal activities. I simply abhore all forms of hunting.

So your opinion on fox hunting changed over night when Labour made it illegal?? Pack of dogs under the direction of toffs on horseback rips a fox to shreads pre-ban, fine, post-pan, deplorable. You're making absolutely no sense on this subject.

What part of "I abhore all forms of hunting" do you fing difficult to understand? I cant stand cricket but I dont dislike cricketers.

So you're saying you can hate a crime but not the perpetrator of that crime? Than why bash Benn for (hearsay evidence only) hitting his missus/kids. By your definition hitting women/kids is abhorrent, but you can't dislike the hitter.

You hate hunting but not hunters, you hate cricket but not cricketers, ergo you hate wife-beating but not wife-beaters. Nice logic.

Nothing proven that Gman fought dogs. His trainer said about the labrador, He also said Benn was on roids. You believe one but not the other. You believe the comment that suits your argument. Personally I dont think Benn was on roids. Not a chance.

I cant stand cricket, golf, bowls, motor racing. So according to you I should hate the participants.

A single mother steals some bread to feed her kid/s. Should we hate her?

Stop trying to back-pedal Az. If that single mom did something I found abhorrent (e.g. severe animal cruelty) then yes, I would hate her for it. Your statement about fox-hunting is completely at odds with your comments/views on Benn.

No back peddling here mate. Where does it state that I have to hate hunters as well as hunting. And please stop building straw men arguments. Benn during his heyday was a thoroughly nasty individual. Didn't like him as a person whatsoever. In many ways he and Gman were very similar types of people. One displayed cruelty to animals and the other displayed cruelty to humans (allegedly). So you decide who is worse (if at all).

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

azania wrote:Correction Fist. I hate fox hunting and all other forms of killing animals for pleasure. But I do not hate the hunters.

Surely they are the cause though, Az?

Yeh, how can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters??! If there were no fox hunters there'd be no fox hunting - there is no 'vice-versa' to that!

It was legal (or is it still legal). I dont dislike people who carry out legal activities. I simply abhore all forms of hunting.

So your opinion on fox hunting changed over night when Labour made it illegal?? Pack of dogs under the direction of toffs on horseback rips a fox to shreads pre-ban, fine, post-pan, deplorable. You're making absolutely no sense on this subject.

What part of "I abhore all forms of hunting" do you fing difficult to understand? I cant stand cricket but I dont dislike cricketers.

So you're saying you can hate a crime but not the perpetrator of that crime? Than why bash Benn for (hearsay evidence only) hitting his missus/kids. By your definition hitting women/kids is abhorrent, but you can't dislike the hitter.

You hate hunting but not hunters, you hate cricket but not cricketers, ergo you hate wife-beating but not wife-beaters. Nice logic.

Nothing proven that Gman fought dogs. His trainer said about the labrador, He also said Benn was on roids. You believe one but not the other. You believe the comment that suits your argument. Personally I dont think Benn was on roids. Not a chance.

I cant stand cricket, golf, bowls, motor racing. So according to you I should hate the participants.

A single mother steals some bread to feed her kid/s. Should we hate her?

Try thinking about context Azania.

What context? The allegations against Gman are hearsay also. He hasn't been charged with anything. The allegations I made about Benn is also hearsay. The point is I believe both. Many here choose to believe one without the other. Moreover the allegations against Benn to me is more serious than killing dogs.

Also there have been many strawmen arguments thrown in this thread. I responded with strawmen. Now you shout context. Get real mate.

I dont like hunting whether its fox, dear or grouse shooting. It doesn't transpire that because I dislike hunting that I must hate hunters. That is plainly silly. The thought of killing animals for fun appalls me.

I mean context:

I hate hunters because I think hunting is abhorent.

I don't hate cricketers because even though I hate cricket, I recognise that the act of playing cricket is inoffensive.

I hate the X factor but don't hate the participants.

I hate crime and hate criminals.

Get it?

Super D Boon wrote:I mean context:

I hate hunters because I think hunting is abhorent.I don't hate cricketers because even though I hate cricket, I recognise that the act of playing cricket is inoffensive.

I hate the X factor but don't hate the participants.

I hate crime and hate criminals.

Get it? You're just mental.

What is your problem. Do you see the error there? Quit the name calling as I have not referred to you in a derogatory manner.

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:I mean context:

I hate hunters because I think hunting is abhorent.I don't hate cricketers because even though I hate cricket, I recognise that the act of playing cricket is inoffensive.

I hate the X factor but don't hate the participants.

I hate crime and hate criminals.

Get it? You're just mental.

What is your problem. Do you see the error there? Quit the name calling as I have not referred to you in a derogatory manner.

No, I don't think anyone does Az. Just you. Maybe you're imagining it....?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:I mean context:

I hate hunters because I think hunting is abhorent.I don't hate cricketers because even though I hate cricket, I recognise that the act of playing cricket is inoffensive.

I hate the X factor but don't hate the participants.

I hate crime and hate criminals.

Get it? You're just mental.

What is your problem. Do you see the error there? Quit the name calling as I have not referred to you in a derogatory manner.

No, I don't think anyone does Az. Just you. Maybe you're imagining it....?

If you say so son.

Hate hunting = hating hunters. Is that your position?

Azania, I don't think you understand the concept of perspective.

Saying you hate cricket but don't hate cricketers is fine but it would come accross as very strange if you said you hate paedophilia but you don't hate paedophiles.

Besides, you HAVE refered to me in a derogatory manner telling me to "get real" and calling me "silly". You've upset me a great deal today actually!

Kiss and make up fellas

You've both got great opinions - and you're both equally in the right/wrong here

Super D Boon wrote:Azania, I don't think you understand the concept of perspective.

Saying you hate cricket but don't hate cricketers is fine but it would come accross as very strange if you said you hate paedophilia but you don't hate paedophiles.

Besides, you HAVE refered to me in a derogatory manner telling me to "get real" and calling me "silly". You've upset me a great deal today actually!

I understanding perspective very well. The issue here is killing animals whether legal (hunting) or god fighting (illegal) I dislike both and do not differentiate. Does it mean I hate hunters who take part in blood sports? Simple answer is no I dont.

I dont see dogs as being anything special where they should be given an exhaulted status over other animals, be it a rat or a panda.

Oxy, I'm never wrong. You should know that by now.

I dont see dogs as being anything special where they should be given an exhaulted status over other animals, be it a rat or a panda.

---------------

Oh well there we are. I think you're in a very small minority of people that see a rat as equal to a dog.

However, pandas are c**p! I would never hurt one but they make some massive hoo-ha about pandas coming to Scotland and yet they just lie around eating loads of bamboo (a crappy material with little nutritional value) and they can't even be bothered to procreate more than about 2 days of the year. Rubbish animals.

But still, I hate panda hunting therefore I hate panda hunters.

Super D - the male Panda that they've brought to Scotland - he's a hero! He's fathered over 100 children. Given how little panda's procreate - he must be either an extremely randy panda - or - he has super-sperm.

Either way - what a Spartan panda. The Ron Jeremy of the panda world.

oxring wrote:Super D - the male Panda that they've brought to Scotland - he's a hero! He's fathered over 100 children. Given how little panda's procreate - he must be either an extremely randy panda - or - he has super-sperm.

Either way - what a Spartan panda. The Ron Jeremy of the panda world.

The former king of Swaziland had over 140 children. 36 wives also.

Super D Boon wrote:I dont see dogs as being anything special where they should be given an exhaulted status over other animals, be it a rat or a panda.

---------------

Oh well there we are. I think you're in a very small minority of people that see a rat as equal to a dog.

However, pandas are c**p! I would never hurt one but they make some massive hoo-ha about pandas coming to Scotland and yet they just lie around eating loads of bamboo (a crappy material with little nutritional value) and they can't even be bothered to procreate more than about 2 days of the year. Rubbish animals.

But still, I hate panda hunting therefore I hate panda hunters.

What's the difference between a chiuaua (those little mexican dogs) and a large rat. Some people keep rats as pets and some eat dogs. Try killing a cow to have your steak in parts of India. Or take a dog into the house of a devout muslim. Its a cultural thing.

Dogs are more intelligent than rats. They have more awareness, more sense of being, more "life" than say a rat.

As we are ALL animals in the biological sense then what says we can't have human hunting? What gives us the right NOT to be hunted over other animals such as deer?

Is a field mouse more important than a giraffe?

Super D Boon wrote:Dogs are more intelligent than rats. They have more awareness, more sense of being, more "life" than say a rat.

As we are ALL animals in the biological sense then what says we can't have human hunting? What gives us the right NOT to be hunted over other animals such as deer?

Is a field mouse more important than a giraffe?

My point exactly. Why hunt any? I dont like or agree with blood sports. But I do not hate people who take part in it. I have nothing against those canadians who club seal pups to make coats. Doesn't mean I support their activity.

So would you not HATE the people who practice human hunting? Or just hate the practice of human hunting?

Anyway, I'm off for the night. Have a good one. I think you need to go to bed Azania being a very old man of 99. Explains a lot.

Bye.

Super D Boon wrote:So would you not HATE the people who practice human hunting? Or just hate the practice of human hunting?

Anyway, I'm off for the night. Have a good one. I think you need to go to bed Azania being a very old man of 99. Explains a lot.

Bye.

Strawman.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:I mean context:

I hate hunters because I think hunting is abhorent.I don't hate cricketers because even though I hate cricket, I recognise that the act of playing cricket is inoffensive.

I hate the X factor but don't hate the participants.

I hate crime and hate criminals.

Get it? You're just mental.

What is your problem. Do you see the error there? Quit the name calling as I have not referred to you in a derogatory manner.

No, I don't think anyone does Az. Just you. Maybe you're imagining it....?

If you say so son.

Hate hunting = hating hunters. Is that your position?

I genuinely can't see how you can differentiate between the crime and the perpetrator, that's what I'm saying. If someone's doing something I think is wrong, then I don't like them because they're doing something that offends me. Can you honestly say you could like a bad person even though you don't like what they do (molest kids!)?

bad person = pa ed o phile

ridiculous you can't type a word that's been in the dictionary for decades!

I couldn't even comment (on topic) about a wefewee having special needs!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:I mean context:

I hate hunters because I think hunting is abhorent.I don't hate cricketers because even though I hate cricket, I recognise that the act of playing cricket is inoffensive.

I hate the X factor but don't hate the participants.

I hate crime and hate criminals.

Get it? You're just mental.

What is your problem. Do you see the error there? Quit the name calling as I have not referred to you in a derogatory manner.

No, I don't think anyone does Az. Just you. Maybe you're imagining it....?

If you say so son.

Hate hunting = hating hunters. Is that your position?

I genuinely can't see how you can differentiate between the crime and the perpetrator, that's what I'm saying. If someone's doing something I think is wrong, then I don't like them because they're doing something that offends me. Can you honestly say you could like a bad person even though you don't like what they do (molest kids!)?

Put is this way, I've been to some far flung countries in my time. I recall once just outside Masvingo national Park in Zimbabwe. I saw the effect of elephants going thru a smll holding corn farm. Literally put the farmer out of business for the season badly affecting his livelihood. He wanted to kill the elephant but was barred by CITES. If he had done so it would have been illegal. Personally I would have shot the elephant and sold the tusks. But that's me. Now I have sympathy fo rthat farmer. Is he a bad person?

Regardless. I will repeat, blood sports are bad/ People involved in it are not bad. Gman imo is not a nice person. But I wont judge his character on his prediliction for dog fighting. Rather dog fighting that beating up kids.

TopHat24/7 wrote:bad person = pa ed o phile!

Pete O File I call them

I always say to my brother kids on facebook etc "watch out for Pete"

Mcclellan is an American, an African American to be precise and never during his career did he raise the second "c" of his surname in recognition of its Gaelic origins.

HIS correct spelling is Mcclellan.

Many things happened during that fight that were wrong, I was at the fight and many others of the era with the same motivation, watching two men trying to smash the shoite out of each other with maximun brutality. I paid my money with the absolute expectation that I would see a feckin good tear-up.

I feel a certain amount of shame about that now, but I do not feel responsible and neither should Nigel Benn.

Here's the deal, that fight and many before and after were sensationalised by their respective promoters for the sole purpose of selling tickets, the way they put bums on seats was by emphasising the potential brutality of the match.

Neither Benn nor Mcclellan were paragons of virtue, they weren't expected to be either, that wouldn't sell tickets, they were expected to beat the living bejaysus out of each other and unfortunately that very nearly happened.

I don't think anyone paying to watch fights of that nature actually went looking to see fighters brain-damage or kill each other, but at the same time, when I look back, I know the prevention of such injury was not high on the list of priorities.

Two men who wanted to fight each other to fund a living and find a sense of self worth in the boxing order of merit came together to "have it off"; they each climbed into the ring with the sole intention of smashing the other into defeat, before they climbed between the ropes they were responsible for their own actions, once in the ring their safety rested with the responsibility of others, as clear a case of Habeas Corpus as there is.

They were failed, Mcclellan was the victim, Benn was the instrument, but there were numerous perpetrators at fault, Mcclellan's corner were guilty, the ref was guilty, the promoters were guilty and the BBBC under whose scrutiny the match was held were guilty.

The fault doesn't lie with the men in the arena, it lies with the men who built it.

PJHolybloke wrote:Mcclellan is an American, an African American to be precise and never during his career did he raise the second "c" of his surname in recognition of its Gaelic origins.

HIS correct spelling is Mcclellan.

Many things happened during that fight that were wrong, I was at the fight and many others of the era with the same motivation, watching two men trying to smash the shoite out of each other with maximun brutality. I paid my money with the absolute expectation that I would see a feckin good tear-up.

I feel a certain amount of shame about that now, but I do not feel responsible and neither should Nigel Benn.

Here's the deal, that fight and many before and after were sensationalised by their respective promoters for the sole purpose of selling tickets, the way they put bums on seats was by emphasising the potential brutality of the match.

Neither Benn nor Mcclellan were paragons of virtue, they weren't expected to be either, that wouldn't sell tickets, they were expected to beat the living bejaysus out of each other and unfortunately that very nearly happened.

I don't think anyone paying to watch fights of that nature actually went looking to see fighters brain-damage or kill each other, but at the same time, when I look back, I know the prevention of such injury was not high on the list of priorities.

Two men who wanted to fight each other to fund a living and find a sense of self worth in the boxing order of merit came together to "have it off"; they each climbed into the ring with the sole intention of smashing the other into defeat, before they climbed between the ropes they were responsible for their own actions, once in the ring their safety rested with the responsibility of others, as clear a case of Habeas Corpus as there is.

They were failed, Mcclellan was the victim, Benn was the instrument, but there were numerous perpetrators at fault, Mcclellan's corner were guilty, the ref was guilty, the promoters were guilty and the BBBC under whose scrutiny the match was held were guilty.

The fault doesn't lie with the men in the arena, it lies with the men who built it.

Why? It wasn't built specifically for boxing.

When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger; always has, always will do.

The man who refers to himself as wise is rarely so.

That's an old Chinese proverb and I'm not Chinese, so by your rationale I'm on barley.

I didn't appreciate the condescending tone of your post is all, so chose to pick up on your shoehorned phrasing.

This is what I meant by "those who built the arena".

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt, circa 1910.

Scottrf wrote:I didn't appreciate the condescending tone of your post is all

:potkettleblack:

Appreciate I'm bandwagoning here...sorry Scott

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I didn't appreciate the condescending tone of your post is all

:potkettleblack:

Naaa, not at all.

(maybe a bit but only to people who DKSAB not to a whole set of people I don't know)

88Chris05 wrote:Have met a fair few people who think that McClellan got exactly what he deserved in the Benn fight. Personally, I wouldn't go that far, but I'll admit that I feel a hell of a lot less sympathy for him than I do for other boxers who have fallen to similar injuries.

A vile human being, by most accounts. No doubt a lot of people today would want to bang the 'he was a loving family man, always looked out for his siblings, never disrespected his mother etc' drum for him (call me daft, but isn't that just a natural / expected human train anyway!?), but to me it's clear he had a truly sadistic side. Whether it's his love of watching dogs die a brutal and bloody death, or taking his pre-fight trash talk way too far (promising to knock someone out or send them through the ropes in to the ringside seats is one thing, promising to make orphans of their children quite another), he just seems a truly nasty piece of work.

Despite this, I still think he'd have at least a shred of decency inside him, so I wouldn't go so far as to say he'd have felt no pain or anguish if it had been Benn fighting for his life and subsequently living with such injuries. But I do imagine he'd have slept easier than Benn has done.

Well said.

Am i the only one who finds a sense of irony in a bunch of boxing fans, a sport where people are paid to batter each other, getting all sensitive about fox hunting .

I can't stand it myself but guess it doesn't make much difference to the fox if the dogs rip him apart or the chicken farmer poisons or shoots or gases him. As for the actual topic:

Mcclellan was clearly not a very nice bloke, but look at the backgrounds of most boxers and what they do for a loving... its asking a bit much to expect them to crochet for a hobby. Benn never struck me as mr nice guy, i don't know the rumours az refers to so can't comment but it wouldn't shock me if true, he wouldn't be the first. I'm certainly not buying the argument that benn's automatically a good guy because he joined the army and they sent him to northern ireland. His transformation from squaddie to godsquadder certainly seems to have improved his general demeanour from his fighting days... but i can't say one guy deserved the life mcclellan now has over the other. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

As for the blame debate. I went to the fight expecting a tear up (well that and because it had a great undercard should the fight finish early as it so nearly did). The end result didn't make me feel too clever then or now.

No-one and everyone is to blame. No one individual, not the ref... he'd be pilloried if he's stopped a close fight, not the corner, they'd have been equally lambasted for pulling out a guy that was leading and not taking a beat down, not benn, not mcclellan, not the board or the doctors. This sort of thing just happens sometimes. We have a blame culture that always needs a perpetrator. Sometimes there isn't really one.

Incidentally, if you watched the documentary the other night, you might have noticed a clip of mcllellan in training, he blinked in a manner not unlike he did in the fight... so it was hardly an obvious 'tell' for the problems he was having, as has been suggested retrospectively.

I feel sympathy for mcclellan, for benn, for the ref and the trainer, (even if he is an idiot). I probably feel most sympathy for the family who became carers.

A fight with no winners really.

milkyboy wrote:Am i the only one who finds a sense of irony in a bunch of boxing fans, a sport where people are paid to batter each other, getting all sensitive about fox hunting

If the foxes chose to get hunted I wouldn't have a problem.