Grow Up Boxrec and put the full Upton Park results up

[josco]

What were the undercard results anyway?

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm certain that the Huck - Afolabi was an German show that was overseen by the Austrians. Can you confirm or deny this The Law.

[ttornado]

The fight itself, which was fought under special rules (and the result of which has been long debated), is seen as a precursor to modern mixed martial arts.

not boxing


BoxRec should try and and be as definitive as possible.
The fight card should be listed as sanctioned by the Luxembourg board.

[milpool]

Out of interest, who is the one who has decided that it isn't being listed??

[keithmoonhangover]

Out of interest, who is the one who has decided that it isn't being listed??

The Law said it was the owner of the site.

[Exoddus]

It does look quite likely that David Haye will be fighting Vitali Klitschko as David knocked Dereck out and Vitali didn't. David knows how to push the right buttons regarding the Klitschkos

What if David Haye fights Vitali Klitschko using his LBF licence? Will boxrec not put up the result of this fight either? Or will David Haye apply for a BBBofC licence so he could fight for Vitalis WBC title? If the BBBofC gives back David Hayes licence. What would this mean for their reputation considering all the huffing and puffing they did about the David Haye vs Derek Chisora fight?

It's going to be quite interesting to see where this is heading.

[exittored]

Boxrec have just become a laughing stock stock now.

Just admit you're wrong, stick one of those symbols/asterix on it saying 'we don't agree with this shit' and be done with it.

[Deno1986]

This is bad form, disappointed at John Shep and Boxrec. I'm sure when John started up the site he wanted a place where, like himself, all boxing fans could jump into a boxers record at the click of a button. By omitting the weekends card, it devalues the main purpose of Boxrec. They have no problem listing a bout between two "boxers" at a rundown Latvian gym but yet they won't list a card that was viewed by 35,000 and millions at home. Common sense is severely lacking here I'm afraid.

[exittored]

This is bad form, disappointed at John Shep and Boxrec. I'm sure when John started up the site he wanted a place where, like himself, all boxing fans could jump into a boxers record at the click of a button. By omitting the weekends card, it devalues the main purpose of Boxrec. They have no problem listing a bout between two "boxers" at a rundown Latvian gym but yet they won't list a card that was viewed by 35,000 and millions at home. Common sense is severely lacking here I'm afraid.

Great post.

It's funny how they had the Haye-Chisora fight report on their front page so were happy to make advertising clicks from it but then act like principled gentlemen by still not doing what boxrec is there to do which is record boxing fights.

As you mentioned they have tens of 1000s of fights recorded from all over the world with the most dubious of boxing commisions attached and medical standards adhered too. Just list the fight with a '?' and information commenting on it being fought without a BBBofC licence and move on.

It's ok for them as they're not the ones who were in the ring saturday taking the punches and giving their blood, sweat and tears only for Boxrec to turn around and say screw you we're not going to list your fight out of principal or spite.

[Jeff Thomas]

I can see why you've not listed it. Worst case put it down as an exhibition .... Or put down the results but don't add it to their records. Too much emphasis is placed on records anyway ...

[Exoddus]

They've put the fight on their records now. Although they've got the result listed as a "NC". Underneath vacant "WBA Inter-Continental heavyweight title" and "vacant WBO International heavyweight title" it states "Haye wins by TKO 5 at 2:59."

So why not just put TKO 5 when they've acknowledged the result of the fight anyway . It could only be boxrec who could list the fight as a NC even though they were fighting for two belts from two of the biggest boxing world bodies.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

[Jeff Thomas]

I don't see anything wrong with the way they've listed that.

[Glyn Leach]

Also, imagine, Haye beats Vitali on an LBF licence.

If Matt Macklin had beaten Sergio Martinez, would it have made any difference if he'd done it without holding a British licence? He only had an NYC licence for that fight - and come to think of it I don't know if he's got a BBB of C licence today. I daresay that anorexic bitch on Newsnight would call him an unlicenced fighter too, just like Lenny Maclean is Matt.

[Final round]

They have not recorded the win or the loss on either fighters record. What is the point in that?

[Final round]

Also, imagine, Haye beats Vitali on an LBF licence.

If Matt Macklin had beaten Sergio Martinez, would it have made any difference if he'd done it without holding a British licence? He only had an NYC licence for that fight - and come to think of it I don't know if he's got a BBB of C licence today. I daresay that anorexic bitch on Newsnight would call him an unlicenced fighter too, just like Lenny Maclean is Matt.

Macklin hasn't got a British licence

[Jeff Thomas]

I've thought more about this and funnily enough I was going to make a thread about this in the run up. Boxrec IMO you should, in fact you must record the result. Stick a little (!) next to it but if you do not your going to be made to look terribly anti-fwp and damage your own credibility.

The note under the fight itself can say everything it needs to but by taking your current stance, which I understand is not yet set in stone your only allowing yourselves to be painted in a bad way.

[Glyn Leach]

Also, imagine, Haye beats Vitali on an LBF licence.

If Matt Macklin had beaten Sergio Martinez, would it have made any difference if he'd done it without holding a British licence? He only had an NYC licence for that fight - and come to think of it I don't know if he's got a BBB of C licence today. I daresay that anorexic bitch on Newsnight would call him an unlicenced fighter too, just like Lenny Maclean is Matt.

Macklin hasn't got a British licence

Ta FR

[banjo]

One of the members of the BBBofC has something to do with the site methinks, then again BoxRec lost a lot of credibility over the John Duddy situation, listing him as a UK fighter for donkeys years then the second he loses they change it to Irish.

[dondada]

This is bad form, disappointed at John Shep and Boxrec. I'm sure when John started up the site he wanted a place where, like himself, all boxing fans could jump into a boxers record at the click of a button. By omitting the weekends card, it devalues the main purpose of Boxrec. They have no problem listing a bout between two "boxers" at a rundown Latvian gym but yet they won't list a card that was viewed by 35,000 and millions at home. Common sense is severely lacking here I'm afraid.

Great post.

It's funny how they had the Haye-Chisora fight report on their front page so were happy to make advertising clicks from it but then act like principled gentlemen by still not doing what boxrec is there to do which is record boxing fights.

See, thing is, you two and plenty of others like you need to stop talking shite as if they're facts.

Firstly, the site isn't 'happy' to list two 'boxers' fighting at a rundown Latvian gym, FFS. I'm sure you can find plenty though. But, as usual, people like you have absolutely no idea about the graft behind the scenes that is put in to try and establish the provenance of fights. One minor European board's results were no longer accepted recently because of anomalies. I'm sure there are still plenty of contests that fall short of the standards people would like, but it isn't for want of trying.

As for the Haye-Chisora fight report...Shep has absolutely nothing to do with what goes on the news site (the top story of which appears on the main site's front page in the UK). That's down to me and two of my colleagues. John might have preferred it if we'd not covered it at all, I don't know. More than likely, he's not bothered.

So as for 'happy to make advertising clicks from it' as if it's some kind of conscious plan is an insulting load of bollocks.

Personally, I think the results should be listed but it has nothing to do with me and - crucially - I do understand the arguments for being cautious. What really disappoints me is that some of you have used this site very regularly for ten years. The first chance you get to kick it in the bollocks, you can't wait.

I do understand why some of you are upset and feel free to criticise, of course, within reason. But leave out the shitty conspiracy theories. We're not that clever.

[dondada]

One of the members of the BBBofC has something to do with the site methinks, then again BoxRec lost a lot of credibility over the John Duddy situation, listing him as a UK fighter for donkeys years then the second he loses they change it to Irish.

Is that right?

I wonder if there's a similar site for tennis which keeps changing Andy Murray from 'British' to 'Scottish' dependent on form?

[Deno1986]

This is bad form, disappointed at John Shep and Boxrec. I'm sure when John started up the site he wanted a place where, like himself, all boxing fans could jump into a boxers record at the click of a button. By omitting the weekends card, it devalues the main purpose of Boxrec. They have no problem listing a bout between two "boxers" at a rundown Latvian gym but yet they won't list a card that was viewed by 35,000 and millions at home. Common sense is severely lacking here I'm afraid.

Great post.

It's funny how they had the Haye-Chisora fight report on their front page so were happy to make advertising clicks from it but then act like principled gentlemen by still not doing what boxrec is there to do which is record boxing fights.

See, thing is, you two and plenty of others like you need to stop talking shite as if they're facts.

Firstly, the site isn't 'happy' to list two 'boxers' fighting at a rundown Latvian gym, FFS. I'm sure you can find plenty though. But, as usual, people like you have absolutely no idea about the graft behind the scenes that is put in to try and establish the provenance of fights. One minor European board's results were no longer accepted recently because of anomalies. I'm sure there are still plenty of contests that fall short of the standards people would like, but it isn't for want of trying.

As for the Haye-Chisora fight report...Shep has absolutely nothing to do with what goes on the news site (the top story of which appears on the main site's front page in the UK). That's down to me and two of my colleagues. John might have preferred it if we'd not covered it at all, I don't know. More than likely, he's not bothered.

So as for 'happy to make advertising clicks from it' as if it's some kind of conscious plan is an insulting load of bollocks.

Personally, I think the results should be listed but it has nothing to do with me and - crucially - I do understand the arguments for being cautious. What really disappoints me is that some of you have used this site very regularly for ten years. The first chance you get to kick it in the bollocks, you can't wait.

I do understand why some of you are upset and feel free to criticise, of course, within reason. But leave out the shitty conspiracy theories. We're not that clever.

Maybe it was the way I worded it but I never said Boxrec are happy to print up those dodgy Eastern European results, Ian. My point was that these cards are listed pre-fight and results are posted post-fight whereas the Upton Park card wasn't documented at all. Why? I don't know and I don't want to speculate even though I have my suspicions. You're right, I don't know about the graft that goes on behind the scenes but I'm not sure why you raised that point as it is irrelevant. In my opinion, an independant boxing records website like Boxrec should document all results and professional fighters records regardless of the bullshit politics that goes on in the sport. Despite coming across as a bit short in my first post I genuinely appreciate the hardwork that John Shep and the editors put into the site and I would definitely be lost without it.

[GlobalBox]

Firstly let me say I love Boxrec, schedules, ratings, records, forums, for me they are great and part of my daily life.

With that out the way I would like to say I personally think its the wrong decision not to record the Haye fight on there records, its up currently as a No Contest, with a line underneath about Haye winning in the fifth.

The bout may have not been sanctioned by the local authority i.e. BBBOC but it was sanctioned by a boxing union, it was also given credence by two world organisations who allowed it to be
fought for two (spurious i know) belts.

The fight was an official fight with medical staff, world ranked judges and referees, was fought in front of nigh on 30,000 fans, for the life of me I cannot see what the problem is in displaying the result.

I have always felt this was an independant site and I still like to think it is but there is clearly a judgement being made somewhere to not show the result, surely there cannot be any legal worries, every newspaper in the country has something about the fight, every website that remotely covers boxing has a report and comments etc, news channels across the world have had at least a line in there sports round up.

I just think common sense should prevail and the result be listed as any result at a responsible promotion would be.

[dondada]

Maybe it was the way I worded it but I never said Boxrec are happy to print up those dodgy Eastern European results, Ian. My point was that these cards are listed pre-fight and results are posted post-fight whereas the Upton Park card wasn't documented at all. Why? I don't know and I don't want to speculate even though I have my suspicions. You're right, I don't know about the graft that goes on behind the scenes but I'm not sure why you raised that point as it is irrelevant. In my opinion, an independant boxing records website like Boxrec should document all results and professional fighters records regardless of the bullshit politics that goes on in the sport. Despite coming across as a bit short in my first post I genuinely appreciate the hardwork that John Shep and the editors put into the site and I would definitely be lost without it.

OK, understood and no worries mate. I'd just say that the behind the scenes work isn't irrelevant if people are saying the site is 'happy' to list gym fights, etc. which gives the impression that it's a free for all. Plus...what's a 'professional' fight? It's more difficult than you think, perhaps, when you cast your eye across the globe. (I'm not talking about Upton Park, by the way! lol)

I probably shouldn't ask that because you'll start to put yourself in the position of the records editors and it isn't a comfortable seat

[iamasadlittleboy]

Firstly let me say I love Boxrec, schedules, ratings, records, forums, for me they are great and part of my daily life.

With that out the way I would like to say I personally think its the wrong decision not to record the Haye fight on there records, its up currently as a No Contest, with a line underneath about Haye winning in the fifth.

The bout may have not been sanctioned by the local authority i.e. BBBOC but it was sanctioned by a boxing union, it was also given credence by two world organisations who allowed it to be
fought for two (spurious i know) belts.

The fight was an official fight with medical staff, world ranked judges and referees, was fought in front of nigh on 30,000 fans, for the life of me I cannot see what the problem is in displaying the result.

I have always felt this was an independant site and I still like to think it is but there is clearly a judgement being made somewhere to not show the result, surely there cannot be any legal worries, every newspaper in the country has something about the fight, every website that remotely covers boxing has a report and comments etc, news channels across the world have had at least a line in there sports round up.

I just think common sense should prevail and the result be listed as any result at a responsible promotion would be.

Out of interest, would you like to see white collar fights listed on boxrec as long as there is judges, referees and medical staff?

[dondada]

Firstly let me say I love Boxrec, schedules, ratings, records, forums, for me they are great and part of my daily life.

With that out the way I would like to say I personally think its the wrong decision not to record the Haye fight on there records, its up currently as a No Contest, with a line underneath about Haye winning in the fifth.

The bout may have not been sanctioned by the local authority i.e. BBBOC but it was sanctioned by a boxing union, it was also given credence by two world organisations who allowed it to be
fought for two (spurious i know) belts. (1)

The fight was an official fight with medical staff, world ranked judges and referees, was fought in front of nigh on 30,000 fans, for the life of me I cannot see what the problem is in displaying the result.

I have always felt this was an independant site and I still like to think it is but there is clearly a judgement being made somewhere to not show the result 2), surely there cannot be any legal worries, every newspaper in the country has something about the fight, every website that remotely covers boxing has a report and comments etc, news channels across the world have had at least a line in there sports round up.

I just think common sense should prevail and the result be listed as any result at a responsible promotion would be.

Good post

1. This is something that everyone should acknowledge needs to be disregarded. These organisations do not give a flying you know what. If an independent, credible records site decided to list results and shows based on whoever a 'governing body' decided to make up belts for, for money, chaos would ensue.

2. This is right but, trust me, it isn't for the reasons some people think (and are making defamatory comments about). I suspect it's mainly about the validity of the commission. I think it was valid; some others don't because the EBU decided to kick them out...even though technically they weren't booted out until yesterday. What regular forum users, I suppose, might not be suspected to understand is that a big can of worms is being opened in record keeping terms.

A few questions.

Do you want future LBF shows (if they have any) recorded, even though they are effectively a rogue commission and not part of the EBU? If so, does that mean one has to record the shows from other independent commissions who have no established ties with anyone else or those who might even have been kicked out from other places? If the answer is yes, what happens when a lad who has a 20-0 record built on one of these commission's shows with no video evidence is brought over to the UK and fights a concussive puncher? BoxRec will have been responsible for giving a veneer of respectability to something which might not be as robust as you would like.

Let's say Haye and a Klit doesn't happen. A promoter suggests staging Haye v Price under the auspices of the EBF. This would be perfectly legal. Does BoxRec record it? If it does, does it record all past and future EBF shows?

In short, my view is that the to-ing and fro-ing about the results is not necessarily about this bill itself but future implications.

Honestly, it's a bloody minefield.