markfightoptions wrote:The board don't recognize the WBF so i had to take Chris over to Ireland to fight for this title.
We will be unable to defend the title in the UK under a BBBofC santioned show, so we have our suitcases packed for the foreseeable future, its a pity really.
The BBBofC do not recognise the British Masters title as a 'title'. Hand wrapping and gloving are not always monitored for British (or International) Masters fights (as they are for all normal title fights). Nor do BBBofC inspectors always monitor the corners for British/International Masters fights (as they do in normal title fights).
The BBBofC allow the fights to take place but they are not recognised as 'title' fights. They are merely 10 rounders.
So i take that to mean that any promoter could actually stage a WBF, UBO, ABC title fight in the UK (on a bbbofc show) without approval from the board, as 12 rounders?
So i take that to mean that any promoter could actually stage a WBF, UBO, ABC title fight in the UK (on a bbbofc show) without approval from the board, as 12 rounders?
Basically yes as long as the Board consider both opponents are not in any danger and are capable of doing 12 rounds The alphabet boys along with people running the Masters etc charge the Promotor a sanctioning fee so that GLOSSY posters can be printed to advertise the event etc but at the end of the day the board dont recognise the Title in any way Both the Promotor and "sanctioning" body are responsible for this proliferation of "titles" that are being served on what they consider to be a gullible public who are only there to be milked
markfightoptions wrote:The board don't recognize the WBF so i had to take Chris over to Ireland to fight for this title.
We will be unable to defend the title in the UK under a BBBofC santioned show, so we have our suitcases packed for the foreseeable future, its a pity really.
Can you explain why you wanted Goodwin to fight for the WBF title in the first place? While he's 'world champion' it rules him out for fighting for the British title, its restrictive in enabling him to build a fanbase closer to home plus I can't see what the WBF title does for his credbility. You're also paying sanctioning fees for him to box a class of opponent that ordinarily he could face over a standard 8 or 10-rounder? I just don't understand it.
I'm pleased the Board are trying to marganlise the likes of the WBF and the WBU - it makes things less confusing. I wish they'd also ditch the British Masters title too - I can never get my head around these title matches and their significance, or lack of as the case may be.
Ben - I couldn't agree more. I do have sympathy with promoters using a spurious title to sell tickets, in the end they are just trying to make a corn for themselves and their fighters. For me though it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, long term, for everyone, the damage is significant.
Area titles would be strengthened by binning all minor titles (WBC silver youth, all Masters, WBF, Intercontinentals, WBO European, the whole lot). Take up here as an example - how many Scottish titles are actually active? There are some good fights up here which should be forced through - I honestly believe good fights enhance the appeal and standing of both fighters. Take the wee lightweight Goodwin - I saw him as little more than a protected kid whose record meant nothing. Now CJ was past his prime and I thought beat him but Goodwin went up in my estimations - that loss, for me, is his biggest result so far - I think he's a better fighter for it.
MachoMan09 wrote:Following Chris' victory the Chester Chronicle ran with the headline: "Chester Boxers star Chris Goodwin crowned World Boxing Foundation lightweight champion". The first line of the article ran: "CHESTER is home to a world champion!"
Promoting the lad's first defence of his world title will be a darn sight easier and more lucrative than promoting his latest meaningless contest against an eastern european journeyman - even though the opponent will probably be one and the same, It's as simple as that, I reckon. Chris is not good enough to win the British, so that course of action is a dead duck.
I've given over bothering to try and explain the complexities/nonsense of boxing's title structures. Those who are clued up know; and those that aren't either don't give a eff, are too stupid to get their heads round it, or just want to see their boy beat up the other guy.
100% correct. Much damage has been done in regard to sensible coverage in the local and national press who are often pretty ignorant of boxings ways. However things could be repaired - many a local paper would and could build an area title fight - it's almost their own event (PR wise). It would take time but it could be done. The rubbish has to get binned though, IBO the lot. Start at the top - I understand why Brook has various belts form governing bodies in the interests of rankings but leave the f*****g things in the changing rooms - they don't need paraded about in the ring or mentioned in the introductions. Kell Brook - Lonsdale belt holder and top ten ranked Welterweight - sounds impressive enough to me.
spudder56 wrote:So i take that to mean that any promoter could actually stage a WBF, UBO, ABC title fight in the UK (on a bbbofc show) without approval from the board, as 12 rounders?
Basically yes as long as the Board consider both opponents are not in any danger and are capable of doing 12 rounds The alphabet boys along with people running the Masters etc charge the Promotor a sanctioning fee so that GLOSSY posters can be printed to advertise the event etc but at the end of the day the board dont recognise the Title in any way Both the Promotor and "sanctioning" body are responsible for this proliferation of "titles" that are being served on what they consider to be a gullible public who are only there to be milked
Not sure that's correct. The Board would not sanction a WBF fight in the UK that's why the fights have to take place abroad under another regulatory body/commission.
MachoMan09 wrote:Following Chris' victory the Chester Chronicle ran with the headline: "Chester Boxers star Chris Goodwin crowned World Boxing Foundation lightweight champion". The first line of the article ran: "CHESTER is home to a world champion!"
Promoting the lad's first defence of his world title will be a darn sight easier and more lucrative than promoting his latest meaningless contest against an eastern european journeyman - even though the opponent will probably be one and the same, It's as simple as that, I reckon. Chris is not good enough to win the British, so that course of action is a dead duck.
I've given over bothering to try and explain the complexities/nonsense of boxing's title structures. Those who are clued up know; and those that aren't either don't give a eff, are too stupid to get their heads round it, or just want to see their boy beat up the other guy.
I get that but by winning the WBF title he can't defend it front of his key market because of the Board's refusal to allow WBF defences to be sanctioned in Britain.
Insider - take your point about Masters title - would much rather see promoters use Area titles for that. I thought Area title clashes would be staged more frequently and that they'd be easier to 'sell'.
I'm all for area titles but that obviously narrows down the competition your able to fight. Masters titles aren't ideal but they do serve a purpose. The Board aren't 100% behind Masters titles now as they have abolished primary check weigh ins (when the fight is first announced) of boxers competing and depending which area the fight is inspectors don't bother checking hand wraps or monitor corners like they have to for other championship fights.
I think the board are playing a dangerous game here though - a lawyer for an injured fighter could make hay out of the grey area of the definition of a title fight. In the end the board need a kick up the arse. Turning a blind eye is not the way to govern your sport!
tear up wrote:I won the WBf title way back it was called world boxing foundation thin its called world boxing federation. Now
Hi Michael,
What did your fans in Hartlepool make of that at the time? Did they see you as a 'world champion' and did they get confused when you subsequently fought for the British, Commonwealth and Euro titles?
Just curious.
I only had won an area title so it was billed as world title I knew was micky mouse belt but in hpool they classed me as the world champ I was invited to our football ground walked on the pitch before a game I give it up for every boxers dream belt the Lonsdale
Your honesty does you a hell of a lot of credit man. You were never a world champion but I'd say being a British, Commonwealth and European champion and mixing it at world level is a hell of alot to be proud of. You did enough in your career not to have to chase the title of 'world' champion
MachoMan09 wrote:Following Chris' victory the Chester Chronicle ran with the headline: "Chester Boxers star Chris Goodwin crowned World Boxing Foundation lightweight champion". The first line of the article ran: "CHESTER is home to a world champion!"
Promoting the lad's first defence of his world title will be a darn sight easier and more lucrative than promoting his latest meaningless contest against an eastern european journeyman - even though the opponent will probably be one and the same, It's as simple as that, I reckon. Chris is not good enough to win the British, so that course of action is a dead duck.
I've given over bothering to try and explain the complexities/nonsense of boxing's title structures. Those who are clued up know; and those that aren't either don't give a eff, are too stupid to get their heads round it, or just want to see their boy beat up the other guy.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Lee McAllister was described in the Aberdeen paper as a 'two-weight world champion'
Only one set of people to blame for this - the Board. They're meant to regulate this sport in this country and they have to address all of this - they are doing so now with the WBF but it is nowhere near enough
MachoMan09 wrote:Following Chris' victory the Chester Chronicle ran with the headline: "Chester Boxers star Chris Goodwin crowned World Boxing Foundation lightweight champion". The first line of the article ran: "CHESTER is home to a world champion!"
Promoting the lad's first defence of his world title will be a darn sight easier and more lucrative than promoting his latest meaningless contest against an eastern european journeyman - even though the opponent will probably be one and the same, It's as simple as that, I reckon. Chris is not good enough to win the British, so that course of action is a dead duck.
I've given over bothering to try and explain the complexities/nonsense of boxing's title structures. Those who are clued up know; and those that aren't either don't give a eff, are too stupid to get their heads round it, or just want to see their boy beat up the other guy.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Lee McAllister was described in the Aberdeen paper as a 'two-weight world champion'
Only one set of people to blame for this - the Board. They're meant to regulate this sport in this country and they have to address all of this - they are doing so now with the WBF but it is nowhere near enough
What did your fans in Hartlepool make of that at the time? Did they see you as a 'world champion' and did they get confused when you subsequently fought for the British, Commonwealth and Euro titles?
Just curious.[/quote]
I only had won an area title so it was billed as world title I knew was micky mouse belt but in hpool they classed me as the world champ I was invited to our football ground walked on the pitch before a game I give it up for every boxers dream belt the Lonsdale[/quote]
Your honesty does you a hell of a lot of credit man. You were never a world champion but I'd say being a British, Commonwealth and European champion and mixing it at world level is a hell of alot to be proud of. You did enough in your career not to have to chase the title of 'world' champion [/quote]
Sky were payin real good money for the WBf at one point who was the light middle weight Roberts think was his name was gettin good money for a defence that's why we got a shot at the title I beat a good lad in frankie de milo but once I won it they stopped showin the belt so I gave it up and wanted British title and in my acheivements I don't call myself former world champion
The Law wrote:The BBBofC do not recognise the British Masters title as a 'title'. Hand wrapping and gloving are not always monitored for British (or International) Masters fights (as they are for all normal title fights). Nor do BBBofC inspectors always monitor the corners for British/International Masters fights (as they do in normal title fights).
The BBBofC allow the fights to take place but they are not recognised as 'title' fights. They are merely 10 rounders.
So i take that to mean that any promoter could actually stage a WBF, UBO, ABC title fight in the UK (on a bbbofc show) without approval from the board, as 12 rounders?
Nope. The British masters fights in question did receive approval from the board, but purely as 10 round fights. Merely the title was not approved as a recognised title. The fight itself was approved.
The Law wrote:The BBBofC do not recognise the British Masters title as a 'title'. Hand wrapping and gloving are not always monitored for British (or International) Masters fights (as they are for all normal title fights). Nor do BBBofC inspectors always monitor the corners for British/International Masters fights (as they do in normal title fights).
The BBBofC allow the fights to take place but they are not recognised as 'title' fights. They are merely 10 rounders.
So i take that to mean that any promoter could actually stage a WBF, UBO, ABC title fight in the UK (on a bbbofc show) without approval from the board, as 12 rounders?
Nope. The British masters fights in question did receive approval from the board, but purely as 10 round fights. Merely the title was not approved as a recognised title. The fight itself was approved.
I dont believe its within the boards remit to refuse any 2 professional boxers to fight a 12-round contest if they are both fit and of a similar level, the promoter wouldnt be asking for approval for a title because they dont recognise it just for 2 professional boxers to box 12 rounds
markfightoptions wrote:
So i take that to mean that any promoter could actually stage a WBF, UBO, ABC title fight in the UK (on a bbbofc show) without approval from the board, as 12 rounders?
Nope. The British masters fights in question did receive approval from the board, but purely as 10 round fights. Merely the title was not approved as a recognised title. The fight itself was approved.
I dont believe its within the boards remit to refuse any 2 professional boxers to fight a 12-round contest if they are both fit and of a similar level, the promoter wouldnt be asking for approval for a title because they dont recognise it just for 2 professional boxers to box 12 rounds
Exactly, 'if' they are both fit and of a similar level. The board does have to approve every fight for various reasons, including the aforementioned reason.
The British masters title is not a title in the board's eyes and it is treated like any other non title fight. It's not particularly complicated.
