WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
i never thought the fight would happen anyway but now with the intervention of the WBC i think Haye will pull out rather than face banishment from the WBC
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
You're right...but try not to do what some people are doing and yoke the two together. This event isn't taking place as some kind of protest supporting the belief that the BBBoC should have done more with its judges, refs and match ups.dsimpson wrote:This.Exoddus wrote:It's just a shame that the BBBoC haven't put this much effort into reviewing it's judges and referees performances and disgraceful match-ups. They've let British boxing slowly turn into a joke and now they've been pulled into one.
What goes around comes around I'm afraid.
The BBBoC have been cack in some respects but this is not some kind of philosophical battle as is being painted. It's much simpler than that.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
So thats the WBC, the BBBoC, Saurland and countless other boxers who have spoken against this bill.
I'll give Warren some dues here, amazing that he is still going through with it.... showing some balls. I would have to ask though is the short term gain worth this agro and hassle.
Chambers, as for Chisora not having a date of when his licence would be returned. He is scheduled to have an appeal - there might have been more leads there.... even if it is just upheld the BBBoC have opened it that he will be allowed to re-apply at any time, much like David Haye or any boxer thinking about a comeback.
Why didn't Warren just wait a few months and see what was happening, maybe if one of them could get licenced then work one of them against Klitchsko or Povetkin...... just go down through the correct channels.
We can talk about hypocricy and if the BBBoC were right or wrong with their treatment of Chisora compared to people like Bentt and Hide. However, they made their decision and Warren should go down the right channels to fight for his man.... the Luxemburg route isn't the right channels.
With the WBC banishing it, what does the mean for any FW fighter..... does that mean, for example, Frankie Gavin have to not work alongside Frank if he wants to secure a WBC title fight?
I'll give Warren some dues here, amazing that he is still going through with it.... showing some balls. I would have to ask though is the short term gain worth this agro and hassle.
Chambers, as for Chisora not having a date of when his licence would be returned. He is scheduled to have an appeal - there might have been more leads there.... even if it is just upheld the BBBoC have opened it that he will be allowed to re-apply at any time, much like David Haye or any boxer thinking about a comeback.
Why didn't Warren just wait a few months and see what was happening, maybe if one of them could get licenced then work one of them against Klitchsko or Povetkin...... just go down through the correct channels.
We can talk about hypocricy and if the BBBoC were right or wrong with their treatment of Chisora compared to people like Bentt and Hide. However, they made their decision and Warren should go down the right channels to fight for his man.... the Luxemburg route isn't the right channels.
With the WBC banishing it, what does the mean for any FW fighter..... does that mean, for example, Frankie Gavin have to not work alongside Frank if he wants to secure a WBC title fight?
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
I just can't help but think the Board have handled this terribly. I dont agree with the route Allegedly and co have taken but the Board backed them into a corner and they've come out fighting. Why take away Chisora's licence 'indefinitely'? It leaves such uncertainty. Surely his actions deserved a definitive punishment. EG a 1 year ban. Instead they put him in a situation where he had no way of knowing his future. It's indicative of how badly run the whole thing is.dondada wrote:You're right...but try not to do what some people are doing and yoke the two together. This event isn't taking place as some kind of protest supporting the belief that the BBBoC should have done more with its judges, refs and match ups.dsimpson wrote:This.Exoddus wrote:It's just a shame that the BBBoC haven't put this much effort into reviewing it's judges and referees performances and disgraceful match-ups. They've let British boxing slowly turn into a joke and now they've been pulled into one.
What goes around comes around I'm afraid.
The BBBoC have been cack in some respects but this is not some kind of philosophical battle as is being painted. It's much simpler than that.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Completely agree. Was watching WWE Raw and John Laryngitis making Big Show beg for his job. Made me think of Robert Smith and Chisora.dsimpson wrote:I just can't help but think the Board have handled this terribly. I dont agree with the route Allegedly and co have taken but the Board backed them into a corner and they've come out fighting. Why take away Chisora's licence 'indefinitely'? It leaves such uncertainty. Surely his actions deserved a definitive punishment. EG a 1 year ban. Instead they put him in a situation where he had no way of knowing his future. It's indicative of how badly run the whole thing is.dondada wrote:You're right...but try not to do what some people are doing and yoke the two together. This event isn't taking place as some kind of protest supporting the belief that the BBBoC should have done more with its judges, refs and match ups.dsimpson wrote: This.
The BBBoC have been cack in some respects but this is not some kind of philosophical battle as is being painted. It's much simpler than that.
I really must get out more.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Chisora and Haye did something wrong.
If they go unpunished, then that sets a bad example.
Maybe the board have chosen the wrong punishment for Chisora.
Haye doesn't have a licence and as far as I'm aware hasn't asked the BBBofC to renew it.
If they go unpunished, then that sets a bad example.
Maybe the board have chosen the wrong punishment for Chisora.
Haye doesn't have a licence and as far as I'm aware hasn't asked the BBBofC to renew it.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Just read on boxing scene WBA and WBO back warren
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
They want their sanctioning fees.Adamj1987 wrote:Just read on boxing scene WBA and WBO back warren
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
For what? As far as i know no WBA or WBO title however spurious is on the linekeithmoonhangover wrote:They want their sanctioning fees.Adamj1987 wrote:Just read on boxing scene WBA and WBO back warren
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
They are fighting for the WBO International and WBA Intercontinental titles.Adamj1987 wrote:For what? As far as i know no WBA or WBO title however spurious is on the linekeithmoonhangover wrote:They want their sanctioning fees.Adamj1987 wrote:Just read on boxing scene WBA and WBO back warren
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Ah never knew i just thought it was a fight obviously every fight deserves a beltkeithmoonhangover wrote:They are fighting for the WBO International and WBA Intercontinental titles.Adamj1987 wrote:For what? As far as i know no WBA or WBO title however spurious is on the linekeithmoonhangover wrote: They want their sanctioning fees.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Adamj1987 wrote:Ah never knew i just thought it was a fight obviously every fight deserves a beltkeithmoonhangover wrote:They are fighting for the WBO International and WBA Intercontinental titles.Adamj1987 wrote: For what? As far as i know no WBA or WBO title however spurious is on the line
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Im thinking about making my debut with the luxemberg federation behind me and im going to do a george foreman and fight 5 midgets in 1 night whilst winning 5 different titles i'm gunning for the global championships and the universal championshipskeithmoonhangover wrote:Adamj1987 wrote:Ah never knew i just thought it was a fight obviously every fight deserves a beltkeithmoonhangover wrote: They are fighting for the WBO International and WBA Intercontinental titles.
It's true, I've just seen two cats fighting in the street for the WBF Interim Penta Continental Catweight Title.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Looks like Povetkin vs Rahman is back on the bill.
Haye versus Povetkin would be a brilliant fight.
Haye versus Povetkin would be a brilliant fight.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
You'd probably make it onto Allegedly Channel.Adamj1987 wrote:Im thinking about making my debut with the luxemberg federation behind me and im going to do a george foreman and fight 5 midgets in 1 night whilst winning 5 different titles i'm gunning for the global championships and the universal championshipskeithmoonhangover wrote:Adamj1987 wrote: Ah never knew i just thought it was a fight obviously every fight deserves a belt
It's true, I've just seen two cats fighting in the street for the WBF Interim Penta Continental Catweight Title.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Or have the highlights on channel 5 with al bernstein saying i have great potential but that i need more exposurekeithmoonhangover wrote:You'd probably make it onto Allegedly Channel.Adamj1987 wrote:Im thinking about making my debut with the luxemberg federation behind me and im going to do a george foreman and fight 5 midgets in 1 night whilst winning 5 different titles i'm gunning for the global championships and the universal championshipskeithmoonhangover wrote:
It's true, I've just seen two cats fighting in the street for the WBF Interim Penta Continental Catweight Title.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17105
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
They could announce the cat from my street is sitting at ringside.Adamj1987 wrote:Or have the highlights on channel 5 with al bernstein saying i have great potential but that i need more exposurekeithmoonhangover wrote:You'd probably make it onto Allegedly Channel.Adamj1987 wrote: Im thinking about making my debut with the luxemberg federation behind me and im going to do a george foreman and fight 5 midgets in 1 night whilst winning 5 different titles i'm gunning for the global championships and the universal championships
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
But nit say anything outloud except CAT to onfuse the cat into standing up and wavingkeithmoonhangover wrote:They could announce the cat from my street is sitting at ringside.Adamj1987 wrote:Or have the highlights on channel 5 with al bernstein saying i have great potential but that i need more exposurekeithmoonhangover wrote: You'd probably make it onto Allegedly Channel.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
iamasadlittleboy wrote:I'd consider criminal charges of assault to count as "beating up".Chambers2 wrote:No they said 'beat up', would class having your arse smacked as being 'beat up'?MachoMan09 wrote: Has anyone said it was GBH?
By your logic, Mayweather certainly didn't "beat up" his ex, either, so your criticism of Sulaiman on that point comes across as somewhat hypocritical.
Most people would think an 18st heavyweight boxing attacking a woman by "smacking her on the arse" was a bit more serious than you.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Just imagine if the EBU also stand by the BBBoC wouldn't that be interesting.keithmoonhangover wrote:They are fighting for the WBO International and WBA Intercontinental titles.Adamj1987 wrote:For what? As far as i know no WBA or WBO title however spurious is on the linekeithmoonhangover wrote: They want their sanctioning fees.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
hope they dotaffytoon wrote:Just imagine if the EBU also stand by the BBBoC wouldn't that be interesting.keithmoonhangover wrote:They are fighting for the WBO International and WBA Intercontinental titles.Adamj1987 wrote: For what? As far as i know no WBA or WBO title however spurious is on the line
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
This should be a WBC eliminator.
WTF are they going to do when Vitali calls out the winner?
...and if he attends the fight will they take his belt?...lol
WTF are they going to do when Vitali calls out the winner?
...and if he attends the fight will they take his belt?...lol
-
The Insider
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: 26 Mar 2012, 11:21
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Wouldn't it just ...........;)taffytoon wrote: Just imagine if the EBU also stand by the BBBoC wouldn't that be interesting.
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
There is talk of the EBU expelling the Luxembourg federation
Re: WBC backs the BBBoC and will ban anyone involved in H v C
Im guessing unless they back downCoco wrote:There is talk of the EBU expelling the Luxembourg federation