Foreign sanctioned shows

[expe]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

[stevedoc]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

[spudder56]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

The masters titles are not sanctioned by the board they are just classed as 8/10 round contests in reality they are just a cash cow for Bruce

[expe]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

The masters titles are not sanctioned by the board they are just classed as 8/10 round contests in reality they are just a cash cow for Bruce

But the board will be able to find out in advance if a fight's for a masters title, it's usually posted on the schedule here, then they can refuse to sanction the fight. They stopped sanctioning WBU, WBF etc, so why not Masters titles?

[slapbangwhallop]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

If there was any transparency or the board was elected by its members then I might have more sympathy your unbalanced view. But it's not and they aren't, so I don't.

[Callowland]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

If there was any transparency or the board was elected by its members then I might have more sympathy your unbalanced view. But it's not and they aren't, so I don't.

Well said.

[markfightoptions]

The board can simply revoke the licenses of anyone who is involved with the show and make it clear they will never be licensed again under any circumstances. These shows have fighters on that have been refused licenses for medical reasons. They should be banned, whether the EU likes it or not, just like the FA is in charge of football, the BBBofC should be given the same position in professional boxing. The board is well linked with the EBU and the WBC, surely they can put pressure on them to ban anyone who takes part in these shows. Plus, Bruce Baker should be banned and any fight for a masters title should have it's sanctioning removed. It's time to get tough on this sort of thing.

The masters titles are not sanctioned by the board they are just classed as 8/10 round contests in reality they are just a cash cow for Bruce

But the board will be able to find out in advance if a fight's for a masters title, it's usually posted on the schedule here, then they can refuse to sanction the fight. They stopped sanctioning WBU, WBF etc, so why not Masters titles?

yes, more of a bbbofc monopoly, thats exactly what we need

[expe]

The masters titles are not sanctioned by the board they are just classed as 8/10 round contests in reality they are just a cash cow for Bruce

But the board will be able to find out in advance if a fight's for a masters title, it's usually posted on the schedule here, then they can refuse to sanction the fight. They stopped sanctioning WBU, WBF etc, so why not Masters titles?

yes, more of a bbbofc monopoly, thats exactly what we need

That is exactly what we need, GBA, Luxembourg and Malta should be banned from sanctioning shows here, along with masters titles. They drag the sport down and create confusion along with conning the public. The BBBofC has sanctioned professional boxing here for over a century and has the most stringent safety regulations in the world, where's the need for another body sanctioning fights?

[markfightoptions]

You think a typical british show which is:

Home fighter v foreign opponent 10x3
Home fighter v journeyman 8x3

undercard

Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3

where i can tell you the whole left hand side of that card is going to win comfortably, barely dropping a round

and you think the gba/lux/malta are trying to con people?

[expe]

You think a typical british show which is:

Home fighter v foreign opponent 10x3
Home fighter v journeyman 8x3

undercard

Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3
Home fighter v journeyman 4x3

where i can tell you the whole left hand side of that card is going to win comfortably, barely dropping a round

and you think the gba/lux/malta are trying to con people?

Hardly conning people when they know what's going to happen. Fact is that there is no need for GBA/Lux/Malta, except for promoters trying to con people into thinking WBF, WBU etc, titles are meaningful, when in reality they're worth the same as the belt, about £20, or for fighters who have been refused licenses on medical grounds, which is even worse and puts the fighter's health at risk.

[pyenest77]

The Robin Deakin come back just about shows the value of these shows. I wonder how they can pad his 1-50 record?

[slapbangwhallop]

That is exactly what we need, GBA, Luxembourg and Malta should be banned from sanctioning shows here, along with masters titles. They drag the sport down and create confusion along with conning the public. The BBBofC has sanctioned professional boxing here for over a century and has the most stringent safety regulations in the world, where's the need for another body sanctioning fights?

In summary – “cliché, cliché cliché, generalisation, cliché, jingoistic claptrap, cliché!”

[pyenest77]

You agree with them Leonard a lot of people dont, but my take on it is that the board have withdrawn their licence on a doctors advice & then they fight on a another (flag of convenience) bill then that is plainly wrong!

[slapbangwhallop]

You agree with them Leonard a lot of people dont, but my take on it is that the board have withdrawn their licence on a doctors advice & then they fight on a another (flag of convenience) bill then that is plainly wrong!

Give me an example.

When it comes to brain scans the BBBoC take the word of a back street mechanic over a Ferrari technician. If that’s was constitutes having “the most stringent safety regulations in the world” then crack on.

[Dan Dares]

You agree with them Leonard a lot of people dont, but my take on it is that the board have withdrawn their licence on a doctors advice & then they fight on a another (flag of convenience) bill then that is plainly wrong!

Give me an example.

When it comes to brain scans the BBBoC take the word of a back street mechanic over a Ferrari technician. If that’s was constitutes having “the most stringent safety regulations in the world” then crack on.

That's a load of absolute bollocks you are spouting, probably hiding some other agenda. Why don't you provide an example instead of making a sweeping statement.

Give a Harley Street brain surgeon a consultation fee, he'll say any fornicating thing you want him to.

[slapbangwhallop]

[That's a load of absolute bollocks you are spouting, probably hiding some other agenda. Why don't you provide an example instead of making a sweeping statement.

Give a Harley Street brain surgeon a consultation fee, he'll say any effing thing you want him to.

Yes, they have built their career up over decades, become the most credible practitioners in their field but would risk their careers and the health of their clients for a £100 backhanded! Wise up.

I have NO agenda. You asked for an example so I will give it. Iain Weaver.

[expe]

[That's a load of absolute bollocks you are spouting, probably hiding some other agenda. Why don't you provide an example instead of making a sweeping statement.

Give a Harley Street brain surgeon a consultation fee, he'll say any effing thing you want him to.

Yes, they have built their career up over decades, become the most credible practitioner in their field but we risk their careers and the healt of their clients for a £100 backhanded! Wise up.

I have NO agenda. You asked for an example so I will give it. Iain Weaver.

Iain Weaver has a cyst on the brain, if he could prove that he was able to box without affecting it, the board probably would have licensed him in the end, but I hope he doesn't get one now after boxing on some of the GBA shows. The people who are for the GBA/Lux/Malta typically have some sort of agenda against the board, not sure what it is in your case, but markfightoptions seems to be unhappy that the board refused Oisin Fagan the foreign boxer permit because he wasn't active enough, when in reality it was more likely to be to do with the fact he was meant to be fighting for the WBF International title, the board should have been honest and refused on those grounds, but they were right to stop a fight for a title like that, they don't do boxing any good at all.

[slapbangwhallop]

[That's a load of absolute bollocks you are spouting, probably hiding some other agenda. Why don't you provide an example instead of making a sweeping statement.

Give a Harley Street brain surgeon a consultation fee, he'll say any effing thing you want him to.

Yes, they have built their career up over decades, become the most credible practitioner in their field but we risk their careers and the healt of their clients for a £100 backhanded! Wise up.

I have NO agenda. You asked for an example so I will give it. Iain Weaver.

Iain Weaver has a cyst on the brain, if he could prove that he was able to box without affecting it, the board probably would have licensed him in the end, but I hope he doesn't get one now after boxing on some of the GBA shows. The people who are for the GBA/Lux/Malta typically have some sort of agenda against the board, not sure what it is in your case, but markfightoptions seems to be unhappy that the board refused Oisin Fagan the foreign boxer permit because he wasn't active enough, when in reality it was more likely to be to do with the fact he was meant to be fighting for the WBF International title, the board should have been honest and refused on those grounds, but they were right to stop a fight for a title like that, they don't do boxing any good at all.

Fagan fought on a BBBoC show recently. Fagan is fit as a fiddle, always was. I can see the Boards point in not allowing him have a 10/12 round fight after being two years inactive.

Yes Weaver had/still has a cyst and there were multiple reports provided (from more senior consultants than the BBBoC) to state that the cyst caused no greater risk to a boxer than not having it. The BBBoC refused to take that into consideration or at the least ignored it. Like I said, the word of a back street mechanic over a Ferrari technician. Both the Irish and Spanish boards indicated that they would allow Weaver a licence based on the information provided to them. When the BBBoC got wind of the Spanish board granting Weaver a licence they put immense pressure on the Spanish board and the EBU to stop it. They succeeded. It was a disgraceful episode. Weaver has been granted a licence in the States and also be one of the GBA/Malta crew as well. It’s the BBBoC that is out of step here, not Weaver. The BBBoC didn’t refuse him a licence because they have any higher standards than California, Spain, Ireland, GBA, Malta, LuxBox, its because of their inability to make a decision based of evidence provided to them.

Just because you disagree with the BBBoC on an issue doesn’t mean you have an “agenda” against them. That’s a pathetic argument to stifle debate and criticism. I am largely supportive of the Board but my main issues with them are based on the above issue and that the licence holders don’t vote on who members of the Board executive are.

[expe]

Yes, they have built their career up over decades, become the most credible practitioner in their field but we risk their careers and the healt of their clients for a £100 backhanded! Wise up.

I have NO agenda. You asked for an example so I will give it. Iain Weaver.

Iain Weaver has a cyst on the brain, if he could prove that he was able to box without affecting it, the board probably would have licensed him in the end, but I hope he doesn't get one now after boxing on some of the GBA shows. The people who are for the GBA/Lux/Malta typically have some sort of agenda against the board, not sure what it is in your case, but markfightoptions seems to be unhappy that the board refused Oisin Fagan the foreign boxer permit because he wasn't active enough, when in reality it was more likely to be to do with the fact he was meant to be fighting for the WBF International title, the board should have been honest and refused on those grounds, but they were right to stop a fight for a title like that, they don't do boxing any good at all.

Fagan fought on a BBBoC show recently. Fagan is fit as a fiddle, always was. I can see the Boards point in not allowing him have a 10/12 round fight after being two years inactive.

Yes Weaver had/still has a cyst and there were multiple reports provided (from more senior consultants than the BBBoC) to state that the cyst caused no greater risk to a boxer than not having it. The BBBoC refused to take that into consideration or at the least ignored it. Like I said, the word of a back street mechanic over a Ferrari technician. Both the Irish and Spanish boards indicated that they would allow Weaver a licence based on the information provided to them. When the BBBoC got wind of the Spanish board granting Weaver a licence they put immense pressure on the Spanish board and the EBU to stop it. They succeeded. It was a disgraceful episode. Weaver has been granted a licence in the States and also be one of the GBA/Malta crew as well. It’s the BBBoC that is out of step here, not Weaver. The BBBoC didn’t refuse him a licence because they have any higher standards than California, Spain, Ireland, GBA, Malta, LuxBox, its because of their inability to make a decision based of evidence provided to them.

Just because you disagree with the BBBoC on an issue doesn’t mean you have an “agenda” against them. That’s a pathetic argument to stifle debate and criticism. I am largely supportive of the Board but my main issues with them are based on the above issue and that the licence holders don’t vote on who members of the Board executive are.

Weaver has a cyst on the brain, the board's neurosurgeon said it was a potential risk, so they didn't license him. They put pressure on the Spaniards because them licensing him could allow Weaver to force his way onto BBBofC shows because they recognise the Spanish board, so they had to stop him from getting the license. They made a decision based on the evidence provided to them by their own medical team and that was that Iain Weaver wasn't fit to box as a professional, they can give evidence from everyone they like, if the board's medical team says no, they will go with that.

I do agree that the executive should be voted for though, but I would be happy for the incumbents to keep their positions if they banned everyone involved with this show http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=685680 from any involvement on BBBofC shows for life.

[slapbangwhallop]

Weaver has a cyst on the brain, the board's neurosurgeon said it was a potential risk, so they didn't license him. They put pressure on the Spaniards because them licensing him could allow Weaver to force his way onto BBBofC shows because they recognise the Spanish board, so they had to stop him from getting the license. They made a decision based on the evidence provided to them by their own medical team and that was that Iain Weaver wasn't fit to box as a professional, they can give evidence from everyone they like, if the board's medical team says no, they will go with that.

I do agree that the executive should be voted for though, but I would be happy for the incumbents to keep their positions if they banned everyone involved with this show http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=685680 from any involvement on BBBofC shows for life.

More experienced and senior neurosurgeons than the Boards one said there wasnt a risk. Shall I repeat my mechanic analogy again?

I realise why they put pressure on the Spanish board - because it would show up who ridiculous their decision was.

[expe]

Weaver has a cyst on the brain, the board's neurosurgeon said it was a potential risk, so they didn't license him. They put pressure on the Spaniards because them licensing him could allow Weaver to force his way onto BBBofC shows because they recognise the Spanish board, so they had to stop him from getting the license. They made a decision based on the evidence provided to them by their own medical team and that was that Iain Weaver wasn't fit to box as a professional, they can give evidence from everyone they like, if the board's medical team says no, they will go with that.

I do agree that the executive should be voted for though, but I would be happy for the incumbents to keep their positions if they banned everyone involved with this show http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=685680 from any involvement on BBBofC shows for life.

More experienced and senior neurosurgeons than the Boards one said there wasnt a risk. Shall I repeat my mechanic analogy again?

I realise why they put pressure on the Spanish board - because it would show up who ridiculous their decision was.

If the board are going to ignore their own neurosurgeon, what's the point in having one, they have to trust their own man's decisions, otherwise there could be other issues that would stem from that. There wasn't anything ridiculous about their decision, it's just that Weaver cried like a little girl and kicked up a fuss about it.

[pyenest77]

Leonard which of the above sanctioning bodies do you actually work for?

[pyenest77]

Yes Weaver had/still has a cyst and there were multiple reports provided (from more senior consultants than the BBBoC) to state that the cyst caused no greater risk to a boxer than not having it. The BBBoC refused to take that into consideration or at the least ignored it. Like I said, the word of a back street mechanic over a Ferrari technician. Both the Irish and Spanish boards indicated that they would allow Weaver a licence based on the information provided to them. When the BBBoC got wind of the Spanish board granting Weaver a licence they put immense pressure on the Spanish board and the EBU to stop it. They succeeded. It was a disgraceful episode. Weaver has been granted a licence in the States and also be one of the GBA/Malta crew as well. It’s the BBBoC that is out of step here, not Weaver. The BBBoC didn’t refuse him a licence because they have any higher standards than California, Spain, Ireland, GBA, Malta, LuxBox, its because of their inability to make a decision based of evidence provided to them.

Just because you disagree with the BBBoC on an issue doesn’t mean you have an “agenda” against them. That’s a pathetic argument to stifle debate and criticism. I am largely supportive of the Board but my main issues with them are based on the above issue and that the licence holders don’t vote on who members of the Board executive are.[/quote]
Weaver has a cyst on the brain, the board's neurosurgeon said it was a potential risk, so they didn't license him. They put pressure on the Spaniards because them licensing him could allow Weaver to force his way onto BBBofC shows because they recognise the Spanish board, so they had to stop him from getting the license. They made a decision based on the evidence provided to them by their own medical team and that was that Iain Weaver wasn't fit to box as a professional, they can give evidence from everyone they like, if the board's medical team says no, they will go with that.

I do agree that the executive should be voted for though, but I would be happy for the incumbents to keep their positions if they banned everyone involved with this show http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=685680 from any involvement on BBBofC shows for life.[/quote]

Another example of nonsense titles being hyped up as credible!

[slapbangwhallop]

Leonard which of the above sanctioning bodies do you actually work for?

Yawn!

Don't embarrass yourself. I hadn't realised that the BBBoC was some sort of cult that must go unquestioned.

[slapbangwhallop]

If the board are going to ignore their own neurosurgeon, what's the point in having one, they have to trust their own man's decisions, otherwise there could be other issues that would stem from that. There wasn't anything ridiculous about their decision, it's just that Weaver cried like a little girl and kicked up a fuss about it.

Agh so stand by your man and don't worry about these boxers careers!

No one said ignore his opinion but a High Court judges opinion trumps that of a County Court judge. That doesn't mean you sack the County Court judge!!

To be honest I find you comments crass.