Should governing bodies revoke fighters licences?

On the back of Roy Jones getting brutally Ko’ed yet again at the weekend it has raised the perhaps inevitable question as to when fighters should call it a day. Have not seen the Jones fight from the weekend but have read the reports and from those it seems clear that Jones yet again displayed either the inability to absorb or avoid a shot, depending on your perspective, a weakness he has shown in varying degrees since the Glen Johnson fight some years ago.

Whilst most right minded people I would agree Roy should have hung them up some time ago and the longer he hangs around the more he has the look of an accident waiting to happen. However, for me this raises the interesting question of when, if ever should a governing body or the bodies on en masse revoke a fighters licence. In recent years this is not without precedent as Evander Holyfield was briefly suspended due to diminishing abilities, however he has now been allowed to continue in his quest to trample on fight fans memories of the fighter he once was, something he is doing with remarkable efficiency.

On the face of it the case for the governing bodies suspending licences would seem obvious and an act of common sense and compassion. However in a litigious society such as we live in today can such a stance ever be justified and it does pose the question would the governing bodies be leaving themselves open to lawsuits for restriction of trade etc. Does also pose the question that the likes of Jones and Holyfield are adults and as they are still apparently capable of passing the medicals prescribed by the governing bodies they should be able to fight. You could also argue that whilst Roy and Evander are obviously mere shadows of their former selves are they any less talented, even at their advanced years than countless journeymen who fight across the world week in week out.

You would also have to acknowledge that as their results get worse the level of opponent they will face will decrease in ability so their risk of harm must surely diminish. However whilst I can see the validity of all these arguments I would not be sure I agree with them because for me the cumulative effect of too many brutal KO’s will have a long term effect, also as hugely high profile fighters any damage they accumulate or finish their career with has a damaging effect on the public image of the sport, something it can ill afford. Should also be noted that most professional journeymen such as Peter Buckley know their roles in fights and don’t necessarily turn up to win and so develop their styles to reflect this and in the case of Buckley become quite adept defensively, something Holyfield and Jones do not because no matter how delusional it may be they are still in there trying to win fights.

So what do people feel, is there ever a case for governing bodies revoking a fighters licence in the case of a Jones or Holyfield or should fighters be responsible as adults for their own decisions.

Who is supposed to revoke their license? If it's a governing body, surely that only matters if they are fighting for titles?

BBBofC I believe wont let you fight over 40 in almost all cases, but wouldn't be fair on and someone like Hopkins. Meldrick Taylor was slurring long before that so can't really be done on age. America doesn't have an organisation like this.

If you mean the state athletic commission, there is no consistency between them. Holyfield isn't allowed to fight in some (NYSAC for eg), but others will let him. Margarito was stripped in California, but never given his license back there I don't think, he just fought elsewhere. If a boxer can make money on their name, somewhere will let them fight.

No worldwide boxing commission: no control.

Fighters, ultimately, need to take responsibility for their own actions. Providing they can pass the required tests they themselves know how they feel within themselves and need to decide accordingly.

Adults make mistakes everyday. I know drinking is bad for me, doesn't stop me drinking copious amounts at the weekend. It is my right to do so, and to take the right away is not something governing bodies should have the right to do.

There is certainly a case for such a power to be in the hands of the governing bodies in my view, Jeff. One has to be careful about the various restraint of trade laws that apply, slightly differently, in various countries. Nevertheless, I would like to see certain sanctions applied when a fighter has suffered three consecutive knockouts, say - it ought to be possible to impose at least a suspension of licence, while it is determined whether or not it is in the interests of the sport and the individual that he should proceed.

It is a similar thing with the question of age. When one drives a car past the age of 70, one is forced to undergo an annual check-up to ensure that one has the necessary faculties to drive in safety. Windy can provide chapter and verse on that one! After a comparable boxing age (40? 42?) such a test could be applied to all licensed boxers. Obviously, men such as Hopkins (and Archie Moore and Foreman, in past years) would repeatedly sail through this sort of test. However, at this type of age, your abilities can disappear almost overnight, hence the need for regular monitoring. Someone like Holyfield is a difficult one - no sooner does one feel that he's shot, than he turns in a highly creditable performance against someone who ought to have slaughtered him.

As I say, it's horses for courses here, but I definitely think that the ultimate sanction of withdrawing a licence for the fighter's own safety should be available to world governing bodies, as they are to organisations such as the BBBC.

Thought that was already the case Captain? Two consecutive knockouts and you can't fight for a month, three and it's a year, or something similar? Never seems to be followed though, not sure if it's just a BBBofC rule, worldwide or just outdated?

I haven't checked, but it may be that it's just the BBBC, Scott. In the case of someone like Jones, who has both been knocked silly in many of his recent outings AND is now pushing 42, it must surely be time for someone to take the decision out of his hands.

I'll ask a journeyman who should know, seeing as it's pretty much their job to avoid it!

The captain's merciless sideswipe duly noted, I shall summon what remains of my faculties to say that I believe the answer would lie in the setting up of a board of a given number of qualified personnel and experts, ( doctors, fight insiders, etc., ) who can make a decision on the merits of each individual case. Something along the lines of a parole board, I suppose.

This would appear to alleviate potential problems from such anomalies as the captain has pointed out.

Difficult one to answer Rowley. In principle, I think the governing bodies should revoke licences when it is patently obvious that a fighter is "shot" as is clearly the case with RJJ. But, if they are passing the medicals then what grounds do the governing bodies have? I am not an expert on matters of law, but I would assume that, as you rightly point out, they would be opening themselves up to all sorts of legal ramifications.

RJJ is so far gone it is frightening. He is a walking KO at the moment and I seriously worry for his health. Holyfield, paradoxically, seems to be more than capable of holding a punch as well as he ever did and I shudder to think how much damage he has/is doing to himself.

Perhaps the promoters need to take a stance against this kind of thing but that is unlikely to happen whilst there is still money to be made which is, unfortunately, still the case.

It is a really contentious issue and the only thing that is crystal clear is the damage it does to the sport as a whole.

I know the waters are muddied with a lack of joined up governance across the world but it just seems the world and his dog know Jones has no business being in a ring anymore, seems staggering to me he is allowed to seemingly carry on regardless. Hate to sound cruel but if he ends up seriously damaged it is ridiculous as everyone can see it coming yet nobody seems interested in doing anything.

Problem is it affects the poorer breed of fighter who can't pay a good professional to represent him..

If there is nothing physically wrong with a guy then surely he can sue for restraint of trade......

It's a subjective call by the board to decide when a fighter can't fight anymore....who's to say he can't feed of lower fighters in the chain who have licences!!

There is too much leverage and suspect opposition for a board to say a fighter can't compete and as we've seen with John Higins and Linford christie.. Sporting Board's/assoc will always bottle such decisions unless it is a journeyman fighter who has no chance of rebuttal....

The answer is no unless he's medically screwed. As for professionals like Doctors making judgement calls well Doctors can be "bought" for the other side as well......

No is the answer..

they need stricter tests to pass, but while there isnt one controlling power in boxing then there going to struggle. if a fighters fails one more stricter test he goes finds some where else that will let him fight (and they earn alot of money in the process)

its all about the money in boxing and while it is, there will always be people willing to put boxings lives at risk to earn it. ali is another example, his own doctor said he shouldnt fight against holmes. people around him disagreed ali got another doctors opinion

Ultimately no I dont think they should.

I would prefer to see effective frameworks put in place to deal with medical and financial aspects that put boxers at risk especially later in their careers. At present there may such institutions but its not widespread nor particularly effective.

Im not sure what the medicals boxers are subjected to entail but it must not emphasise mental deterioration as it seems obvious that while somebody like Holyfield may be in good physical shape, mentally hes looking like a certainty for brain related illness like Parkinsons or Alzhaimers. The medical centres which carry out the medical examinations on boxers should keep databases on mental and physical performance which are accessible worldwide, and in the event of obvious deterioration the boxers and commissions should be notified and advised.

I would also like to see some kind of basic rules in place from commisions, sanctioning bodies or boards of control that advise boxers as to their financial obligations and so on to ensure taxes are paid in due course. Stipulating that world champions and contenders must have an accountant or some such rule would be a decent start.

My sympathy is limited for fighters that squander their fortunes on luxury items but there are also genuine cases of fighters being ripped off or unaware as to tax obligations and so on that leave them broke later in their career.

Seems to be mainly wishful thinking though.

Good article Rowley, one to nudge everyone's conscience.

I personally think they should be allowed to revoke a licence if it is the right thing to do. Not necessarily the sanctioning bodies, but as others have said I think it would be beneficial allround if the States inaugurated a proper board of control of commission with universal power.

I accept that, as you've mentioned, any such body would have to fight off a few legal ramifications, but for me that's a relatively small price to pay if it means improving the sport. A while ago I posted an article on the old 606 highlighting how America could have learned over the years from Britain and how much of a tighter ship we run over here, and I stand by that; America, before now, should have drastically changed their approach to this kind of thing.

I can understand people's point that just as it is our right to drink, smoke or eat junk food, it is a boxer's right to box if they so desire. But boxing is a profession, not a past time. Every day Joe's such as you or me can lose our jobs if we are, for whatever reason, incapable of performing correctly and to an expected standard within it - and I don't think boxers should be exempt. And I'm not just applying this logic to the likes of Jones or Holyfield, either. Journeymen, of course, are a vital part of boxing's make up and structure, but if they are losing half a dozen fights in succession, all by knockout or stoppage, then I'm firmly of the belief that there is no good to come from them being in the ring.

Sadly, I doubt anything like this will ever be put in to place. It's been left so long that it's got to a stage where it probably isn't viable. However, there is absolutely no reason why stricter and more regular physical testing can't be put in to place for boxers of an extremely advanced age, aside from a few fighters moaning now and then that the tests are a waste of time (which they wouldn't be). I also see no reason why the captain's suggestion of a temporary suspension and / or review of a fighter's licence can't be implemented should a fighter lose, say, three fights on the trot by soppage, or being more commonly utilised if it already does exist, which Scott alluded to.

It's a yes from me, although I doubt many will agree.

So what about someone like Ricky Hatton then? He DID suffer two stoppages, one particularly bad, but his licence wasn't revoked due (directly) to anything which went on between the ropes. The reason his licence was revoked was for purely punitive reasons after he was filmed allegedly using cocaine. If he was to return to 'fighting' fitness, should HE be allowed to fight again? He's younger than people like Morales, Barrera, Jones, and a similar age to Enzo Maccarinelli.

They're all cleared to fight, but the first two have been in numerous wars over the years, and the latter two seem unable to stand upright for thirty minutes once the first bell has rung.

Personally I DO wish there were SOMe kind of body in place to stop people like RJJ doing more damage to both their legacy and their health, but as Truss and others have said; the legal ramifications are a formidable stumbling block.

I recently just finished my dissertation on changes in the boxers brain in comparison to alzeimhers and parkinsons disease patients. I know it's hardly a conclusive study as it was only a few months work, but it did show how modern techniques of imaging have improved so much, even the smallest of microhaemorrages are now viewable.

As mentioned above, legally it would be nigh on impossible to refuse someone a license, especially if a yearly brain scan came back negative for any faults, but an fMRI scan after every 5 bouts, with stringent bans if a person shows any flaws will ultimately improve the safety. If they are obviously past their best but pass these scans, then let them continue. Who is anybody to say that they can't continue, when medically there is no signs to say they shouldn't?

What do you study and did you use peer reviewed literature? Are you able to share it once it's been marked?

I just finishing a neuroscience degree. It was purely literature based as I'm a final year student and wouldn't have a clue how to sucessfully image anything. Yeah, I'd assume I would be able to share it.

Augie Sanchez springs to mind, suffered three KO losses and was denied a licence there after, why do it to him but not Jones?

Yeah they should Holyfield's the worst example, everyone's asking him to retire but he's allowed to carry on, he needs to be saved from himself, he will be knocked spark out soon. Have absolutely no sympathy at all whatsoever for Jones, has ripped the fans off enough by making big money whilst shot, in my eyes he knows to retire, it aint the referee's fault he wants to keep fighting for un-needed money.

Jones needs the money. Hes bankrupt and owes millions in taxes.

manos de piedra wrote:Jones needs the money. Hes bankrupt and owes millions in taxes.

I've said it before and received some stick for it, but I'll say it again: I simply don't have much sympathy for people in that situation. Plenty people who make money keep hold of it.

BALTIMORA wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Jones needs the money. Hes bankrupt and owes millions in taxes.

I've said it before and received some stick for it, but I'll say it again: I simply don't have much sympathy for people in that situation. Plenty people who make money keep hold of it.

Doesnt really matter if you have sympathy or not. The point is hes fighting on because he needs the money. Not because he enjoys getting knocked out or wants a luxury mansion in the Bahamas.

I dont have a great deal of sympathy for people who squander vast fortunes either by and large but in some cases these athletes just arent aware of financial matters or tax matters associated with large amounts of money. Its not even neccessarily fighters at the highest level. I listened to Glenn McCrory recently about how he basically had no idea he was supposed to pay x amount of tax on his fight earnings and was working in a pub when he got hit with a tax bill he had no chance of paying. He had to basically become a punchbag for Lennox Lewis as a result.

I know what you mean, but it does frustrate me when people do that. I mean it's not like there isn't a precedent set already of what not to do when you make vast sums of cash.

Back onto the subject of licences-it's a really tough one to call, 'cause a fighter might be well shot before they start to have bad MRI results. We have to wait for bad results though to say 'that's enough' but by that time it may already be too much.

I suppose if the commissions were to refuse to renew licences then that may help things, but there's too much money to be made in letting RJJ or Mosley or whoever continue fighting.

I think the only real justification is on medical grounds (although I might make exception for Audley).

Its very difficult to gauge though. Has there been mental damage, if so how much, if so how significant must it be?

The problem with Jones and Holyfield and the like is they are being measured against a very high past when they were spectacularly good. But as rowley says, they are still probably better now than the large majority of boxers who ply their trade. Holyfield arguably beat Valuev for a world title not so long ago for example.

The primary concern should be avoiding brain damage and long term injury really so I think the emphasis should be on trying to track brain deterioration and damage. However even that might not be easy as the argument is by the time its noticeable its probably too late, or it only takes one fight to case serious damage.

There doesnt appear to be an easy solution but I think the revocation of licences would cause as many issues as solve.

For me the difference between Jones and Holyfield is the manner in which one of them seems to have very little punch resistance. Counter argument I suppose is that Holyfield could simply be sustaining more damage from spending more time vertical, but I think it's perhaps a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I wonder sometimes just what crosses the minds of boxers like Jones Jr and Enzo Macc when they watch their KO losses back.

Each boxer is different, look at Jake LaMotta well known for the damage he took in fights and even at the age of 89 has yet to show any real effects of his boxing career. Id have to say that Jones is the more worrying case out him and Holyfield because of his lack of punch resistance.

Is better punch resistance neccessarily a good thing though. It means Holyfield is absorbing more punishment.

Looking at how Holyfield appears in interviews now I think its already too late for him and he appears slightly brain damaged/punch drunk.

With Jones, hes taken far less punishment overall. When he does get hit hard he just collapses and avoids further blows.

Yeah that's kind of what I meant, manos. It's the old 'loaded gloves are safer' type argument. It all depends how much damage those KOs are doing to Jones though.

It depends entirely on the individual, Benitez took relatively little punishment in his career yet suffered badly from dementia while there's guys who almost took beatings for a living and it didnt effect them

Genetics does play a role as well. One study i've read has shown a correlation between the presence of a certain gene and dementia pugilistica.

6oldenbhoy wrote:Genetics does play a role as well. One study i've read has shown a correlation between the presence of a certain gene and dementia pugilistica.

This makes sense. Both Jerry Quarry and his brother, Mike, succumbed to the condition.

Its hard to say though. Some individuals are naturally more predisposed to mental illness/damage.

But its like with smoking. Some people get lung disease when they are in their fifties but every so often there is a guy that smoked 60 a day and lived until he was 90. But if that guy didnt smoke maybe he would have lived until 100 or 110.

LaMotta has had a good run but Im sure without all the punishment shipped in the ring he would have had even better mental faculties and may have lived even longer.

My issue with Holyfield is that he actually sounds like a guy who is brain damaged now. People said similar things about Ali towards the end of his career so I wont be at all surprised if Holyfield ends up with serious problems in the near future.

Different for each person and having seen interviews with Lamotta he's always been very sharp and quick of thought, it's hard to judge how boxing has effected someone like that but it's a traversty that Holyfield and Jones are still being licenced.

Sometimes you have to save boxers from themselves. So perhaps they should be allowed to.

But it worries me that this comes from the back of RJJ getting KO'd again. Concers are primarily because he was a once great fighter who clearly is past his best and is a danger to himself and his legacy. The question is; do people want his licence revoked because of who he was and him fighting now is simply a shell of his former self.

What about the professional opponents who get KO'd regularly and fight for wages? No call for them to have their licence revoked.

If RJJ wants to fight on and he passes all available medical tests it is therefore up to him to do so. We shouldn't discriminate because of once great boxer is making an a$$ of his legacy.

It's a fair point, azania. I would say that at each level of the boxing game, you have people who would be better served finding an alternative career. Clearly, at the lowest levels we are talking about journeymen who are not even that, but rather tomato cans with arms and legs. Here, I would apply the three successive KO rule stringently and if there was no improvement after suspension, remove the licence sine die.

As you go up the scale, it's more a matter of keeping an eye on performance degeneration. In terms of age, it would be as I suggested earlier.

captain carrantuohil wrote:It's a fair point, azania. I would say that at each level of the boxing game, you have people who would be better served finding an alternative career. Clearly, at the lowest levels we are talking about journeymen who are not even that, but rather tomato cans with arms and legs. Here, I would apply the three successive KO rule stringently and if there was no improvement after suspension, remove the licence sine die.

As you go up the scale, it's more a matter of keeping an eye on performance degeneration. In terms of age, it would be as I suggested earlier.

It's also very difficult to enforce this type of ban. Was Danny Williams not given a licence by the Latvian board of control to compete in his last bout after the bbbc refused him one?

captain carrantuohil wrote:It's a fair point, azania. I would say that at each level of the boxing game, you have people who would be better served finding an alternative career. Clearly, at the lowest levels we are talking about journeymen who are not even that, but rather tomato cans with arms and legs. Here, I would apply the three successive KO rule stringently and if there was no improvement after suspension, remove the licence sine die.

As you go up the scale, it's more a matter of keeping an eye on performance degeneration. In terms of age, it would be as I suggested earlier.

I dont know if you can apply such a rigid rule anywhere. Not just that, is it fair. If a tomato can boxer gets KO's 3x in a row and he is still fit enough to fight and a promoter offers him a wage to fight, he should have that right.

The key issue is if they are healthy enough to fight. If they are useless and get KTFO but healthy then they should fight.

Look at Abrahams. He has lost 3 times in a row. If those defeats were KOs then his licence may be revoked. But because he stood up and probably took more punishment for 12 rounds, he keeps his license. It doesn't add up.

Sometimes its better to get KO'd that stand for 12 rounds.

RJJ situation is bad though seeing as he got beaten up and KOd in 10.

I accept that there are no easy methods here, and that labour law would make almost any regulation decidedly tricky. M'learned friends would say that there have been plenty of occasions when sports governing bodies have imposed rules that sail pretty close to the legal wind at times but have still stood up to the scrutiny of a court.

Ultimately and in the ideal world, it seems to me that fairness doesn't come into it when it comes to a boxer who is simply useless but continues to offer himself as a human sacrifice. A duty of care is legally owed by boxing authorities to the sport's practitioners, certainly in this country. If a perpetual no-hoper has lost, for the sake of argument, half a dozen consecutive fights by KO and then is killed in his next outing, you are getting dangerously close to corporate manslaughter territory.

The answer to the conundrum, as our debates are showing, is damned difficult. I do feel that the authorities have got to be seen to be doing more than nothing, however.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I accept that there are no easy methods here, and that labour law would make almost any regulation decidedly tricky. M'learned friends would say that there is an argument wherein sports governing bodies can impose rules that sail pretty close to the legal wind at times but still stand up.

Ultimately and in the ideal world, it seems to me that fairness doesn't come into it when it comes to a boxer who is simply useless but continues to offer himself as a human sacrifice. A duty of care is legally owed by boxing authorities to the sport's practitioners, certainly in this country. If a perpetual no-hoper has lost, for the sake of argument, half a dozen consecutive fights by KO and then is killed in his next outing, you are getting dangerously close to corporate manslaughter territory.

The answer to the conundrum, as our debates are showing, is damned difficult. I do feel that the authorities have got to be seen to be doing more than nothing, however.

I just dont think it should be scaled due to ability or ATG status. Its sad seeing RJJ take a beating from guys he would beat with his hands literally behind his back. He is damaging his legacy. That is why I suspect some are calling for his licence to be revoked.

If he was some Johnny Tomatocan, there wouldn't be any calls.

Dont get me wrong. I like RJJ. He is one of my favourite all time fighters. Ali is my #1, with RJJ, Duran, Homles and Hagler at the next level.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:It's a fair point, azania. I would say that at each level of the boxing game, you have people who would be better served finding an alternative career. Clearly, at the lowest levels we are talking about journeymen who are not even that, but rather tomato cans with arms and legs. Here, I would apply the three successive KO rule stringently and if there was no improvement after suspension, remove the licence sine die.

As you go up the scale, it's more a matter of keeping an eye on performance degeneration. In terms of age, it would be as I suggested earlier.

It's also very difficult to enforce this type of ban. Was Danny Williams not given a licence by the Latvian board of control to compete in his last bout after the bbbc refused him one?

Williams has never entered Latvia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-mgQXbRmTc Can't see why he shouldn't be able to fight from this interview if I'm honest. Decent and grounded guy, and knows his limits. But yeah, shows the differences between commissions, as he didn't want to reapply through the BBBofC as presumably Latvia was easier.

Scottrf wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:It's a fair point, azania. I would say that at each level of the boxing game, you have people who would be better served finding an alternative career. Clearly, at the lowest levels we are talking about journeymen who are not even that, but rather tomato cans with arms and legs. Here, I would apply the three successive KO rule stringently and if there was no improvement after suspension, remove the licence sine die.

As you go up the scale, it's more a matter of keeping an eye on performance degeneration. In terms of age, it would be as I suggested earlier.

It's also very difficult to enforce this type of ban. Was Danny Williams not given a licence by the Latvian board of control to compete in his last bout after the bbbc refused him one?

Williams has never entered Latvia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-mgQXbRmTc Can't see why he shouldn't be able to fight from this interview if I'm honest. Decent and grounded guy, and knows his limits.
But yeah, shows the differences between commissions, as he didn't want to reapply through the BBBofC as
presumably Latvia was easier.

Yeah I agree Scott, if the guy passes the required medicals associated with the bbbc, then let him fight. From what I've read I don't think the bbbc were ever going to renew his license, but havent disclosed the reasons why. I would link articles but I haven't a clue how to do it from my phone.

When foreign boxing boards start giving out licenses without examinations, it brings a shadiness to the sport which it could do without. It also undermines everything other boards of control are doing to ensure boxers safety.

Unfortunately without a Worldwide board their will always be a board who grants fighters a licence.

Before the Pac fight Margarito was stripped of his licence in California and when he reapplied he was refused. He then went to Texas and was granted his licence only a fortnight later.

Some good points, the only thing I would add beyond what you have already said is the point about journeymen. As I said in my original thread for me the distinction between a professional opponent and the likes of Jones is the professional opponent knows their role and that they are in effect there to lose and so many tailor their style accordingly, as many like the Buckley's become quite cute defensively and whilst they lose a lot they tend not to ship too much. With a guy like Jones who is trying to win this is not always the case.

Also the other problem is whilst they don't really have it anymore there name carries enough cache to mean they are very often, whilst not fighting the top tier of fighters they are still probably fighting a better level of fighter than their receding talent deserves and so are put more in harms way than should perhaps be the case. Is a tricky one but would probably agree with the Captain's suggestion that three KO's should result in some sort of ban or at least a licence meeting with the relevant authorities.

rowley wrote:Some good points, the only thing I would add beyond what you have already said is the point about journeymen. As I said in my original thread for me the distinction between a professional opponent and the likes of Jones is the professional opponent knows their role and that they are in effect there to lose and so many tailor their style accordingly, as many like the Buckley's become quite cute defensively and whilst they lose a lot they tend not to ship too much. With a guy like Jones who is trying to win this is not always the case.

Also the other problem is whilst they don't really have it anymore there name carries enough cache to mean they are very often, whilst not fighting the top tier of fighters they are still probably fighting a better level of fighter than their receding talent deserves and so are put more in harms way than should perhaps be the case. Is a tricky one but would probably agree with the Captain's suggestion that three KO's should result in some sort of ban or at least a licence meeting with the relevant authorities.

Even with the three knock out rule though its so easy to get around. Jones could get KOed twice and then fight a complete journeyman just to ensure he doesnt get banned. Gets knocked by Green, Lebedev and then fights a guy with a 10-31-3 (11% KO ratio) record and hes back to square one.