Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
-
robpalmer135
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 278
- Joined: 11 May 2009, 17:18
Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
email sent to a CHB poster this morning.
Hi Wallace
Hall asked for an exception for the IBf Board of Directors turned it down. He was ordered to fight Randy Caballero.
Regards
Hi Wallace
Hall asked for an exception for the IBf Board of Directors turned it down. He was ordered to fight Randy Caballero.
Regards
-
jameswilson
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13502
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Points and laughs.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Interesting. I'll reserve full judgement and belief until I see an official correspondence from the IBF.
If true, you really would have thought they would have got all this arranged and cleared prior to announcing the fight. Hang on....who's involved in the promotion....
If true, you really would have thought they would have got all this arranged and cleared prior to announcing the fight. Hang on....who's involved in the promotion....
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Anti-Warren propaganda.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Not really. Just an acknowledgement of a bit 'previous' with respect to all the 'i's and 't's not being dotted and crossed prior to fights being announced.Horse wrote:Anti-Warren propaganda.
Might all be rumour and the fight goes ahead.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Yet another example of the IBF sticking to their rules deadlines etc.
Last edited by Parson Cross on 14 May 2014, 15:16, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
...and perhaps no bad thing.
Whilst sometimes annoying its arguably better than the make-it-up-as-you-go-along-(especially if it benefits Mexcian/Panamanian) approach that the WBC and WBA seem to operate by.
Whilst sometimes annoying its arguably better than the make-it-up-as-you-go-along-(especially if it benefits Mexcian/Panamanian) approach that the WBC and WBA seem to operate by.
-
jameswilson
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13502
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Outrage isn't it. They should do what the WBO do and enforce 1 mandatory every 5 years on fighters.Parson Cross wrote:Yet another example of the IBF sticking to their ruled deadlines etc.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
I think peeps think I was being sarcastic.
The exact opposite !
Well done IBF - now get Porter told what he must do by 19/7 or strip him.
The exact opposite !
Well done IBF - now get Porter told what he must do by 19/7 or strip him.
-
JimJim2009
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3131
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 09:48
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
If its true this is a poor show from the promoter, if you are going to bill your headline fight as being for the IBF championship you should check that the IBF will sanction the fight.
The thing is, Butler deserves the title fight more than the previous challenger, whom the IBF did approve of.
The thing is, Butler deserves the title fight more than the previous challenger, whom the IBF did approve of.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
How does butler deserve his shot better than ward he s had one bantam weight fight ward was lucky he got his shot by the way
Last edited by tear up on 14 May 2014, 16:16, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Pigg isnt gonna be happy with the OP up in this house 
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Unless Palmer is pigg and it's some elaborate ploy.... it is a bit of a strange coincidence that he pops up when he never comes on here after pigg has been here...
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
As of four hours ago the fight was still being promoted as being for the IBF title by Hobson, when he tweeted the fight poster, one post on a forum well known for trolls doesn't convince me that it isn't, the second sentence of the 'email' doesn't even make sense, the f in IBF isn't a capital letter on it and it isn't signed by anyone, very easy to make the entire thing up if people are thick enough to believe it.JimJim2009 wrote:If its true this is a poor show from the promoter, if you are going to bill your headline fight as being for the IBF championship you should check that the IBF will sanction the fight.
The thing is, Butler deserves the title fight more than the previous challenger, whom the IBF did approve of.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
The main news story on Boxrec suggests there could well be something to this though...
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
It been reported by live fight now! They asked ibf the exact question and got answer back!expe wrote:As of four hours ago the fight was still being promoted as being for the IBF title by Hobson, when he tweeted the fight poster, one post on a forum well known for trolls doesn't convince me that it isn't, the second sentence of the 'email' doesn't even make sense, the f in IBF isn't a capital letter on it and it isn't signed by anyone, very easy to make the entire thing up if people are thick enough to believe it.JimJim2009 wrote:If its true this is a poor show from the promoter, if you are going to bill your headline fight as being for the IBF championship you should check that the IBF will sanction the fight.
The thing is, Butler deserves the title fight more than the previous challenger, whom the IBF did approve of.
-
JimJim2009
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3131
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 09:48
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
If you judge it strictly on fights at bantamweight then I concede one fight isn't enough, I was meaning more generally - there's only 3lbs difference between divisions. If you are good in one division, I don't think you have to necessarily start from scratch when moving up into the next. I wouldn't argue Butler is a top contender in either weight division but I think he's acceptable as a voluntary for the IBF bantamweight title. The previous challenger wasn't.tear up wrote:How does butler deserve his shot better than ward he s had one bantam weight fight ward was lucky he got his shot by the way
-
iamasadlittleboy
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1877
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 13:05
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
I assume Caballero's team made a big point of the way they went over to Japan for an eliminator and have managed to, rightfully in my eyes, get their opportunity. No offense to Butler, who I think is a class talent btw, but you should need to beat someone to get a chance at a title and that's what Caballero did.
Be interesting if the Hall/Butler fight goes ahead and Butler wins
Be interesting if the Hall/Butler fight goes ahead and Butler wins
-
robpalmer135
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 278
- Joined: 11 May 2009, 17:18
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Who is Pigg....I am not Pigg. Genuinely.columbo wrote:Unless Palmer is pigg and it's some elaborate ploy.... it is a bit of a strange coincidence that he pops up when he never comes on here after pigg has been here...
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Alright fairplay mate. He's some fella who's been talking shit about you on here.robpalmer135 wrote:Who is Pigg....I am not Pigg. Genuinely.columbo wrote:Unless Palmer is pigg and it's some elaborate ploy.... it is a bit of a strange coincidence that he pops up when he never comes on here after pigg has been here...
-
Clint Magnum
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 443
- Joined: 15 Feb 2012, 11:55
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
This seems to be gathering pace.
I would suspect both camps as well as the thousands of punters who've bought tickets would want a definitive answer ASAP.
I would suspect both camps as well as the thousands of punters who've bought tickets would want a definitive answer ASAP.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
But what happened with Hall's last fight, how did the IBF agree that, voluntary or no voluntary ? That was worse.Parson Cross wrote:Yet another example of the IBF sticking to their rules deadlines etc.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Not worth Butler going up in weight, if it is not for the world title.
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Surely the tickets state "Championship Boxing" and a WBO inter-pointless strap will be on the line at least.Clint Magnum wrote:This seems to be gathering pace.
I would suspect both camps as well as the thousands of punters who've bought tickets would want a definitive answer ASAP.
-
Boxing Prospect
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 6592
- Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35
Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title
Thing is there is slim pickings at 115. Kono won't leave the east barring a huge payday, Narvaez would need a big offer, Srisaket has a mandatory (and the winner there is a dangerous target) and the Kknoshita/Tete winner won't be available until December.Anzi wrote:Not worth Butler going up in weight, if it is not for the world title.