Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

robpalmer135
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 278
Joined: 11 May 2009, 17:18

Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by robpalmer135 »

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
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13502
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by jameswilson »

Points and laughs.
grub
Cruiserweight
Posts: 144
Joined: 15 Feb 2011, 13:18

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by grub »

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....
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by Horse »

Anti-Warren propaganda.
grub
Cruiserweight
Posts: 144
Joined: 15 Feb 2011, 13:18

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by grub »

Horse wrote:Anti-Warren propaganda.
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.

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

Post by Parson Cross »

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.
grub
Cruiserweight
Posts: 144
Joined: 15 Feb 2011, 13:18

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by grub »

...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.
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13502
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by jameswilson »

Parson Cross wrote:Yet another example of the IBF sticking to their ruled deadlines etc.
Outrage isn't it. They should do what the WBO do and enforce 1 mandatory every 5 years on fighters.
Parson Cross
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1991
Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by Parson Cross »

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.
JimJim2009
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3131
Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 09:48

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by JimJim2009 »

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.
tear up
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1832
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 12:25

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by tear up »

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.
lefty
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 19821
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:33

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by lefty »

Pigg isnt gonna be happy with the OP up in this house :OhYes:
lefty
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 19821
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:33

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by lefty »

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...
expe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 6871
Joined: 07 Oct 2012, 10:10

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by expe »

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.
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.
magnus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1178
Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 08:59

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by magnus »

The main news story on Boxrec suggests there could well be something to this though...
leforge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7790
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 12:44

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by leforge »

expe wrote:
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.
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.
It been reported by live fight now! They asked ibf the exact question and got answer back!
JimJim2009
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3131
Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 09:48

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by JimJim2009 »

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
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.
iamasadlittleboy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1877
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 13:05

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by iamasadlittleboy »

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
robpalmer135
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 278
Joined: 11 May 2009, 17:18

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by robpalmer135 »

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...
Who is Pigg....I am not Pigg. Genuinely.
lefty
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 19821
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 11:33

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by lefty »

robpalmer135 wrote:
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...
Who is Pigg....I am not Pigg. Genuinely.
Alright fairplay mate. He's some fella who's been talking shit about you on here.
Clint Magnum
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 443
Joined: 15 Feb 2012, 11:55

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by Clint Magnum »

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.
Anzi
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1317
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 18:29

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by Anzi »

Parson Cross wrote:Yet another example of the IBF sticking to their rules deadlines etc.
But what happened with Hall's last fight, how did the IBF agree that, voluntary or no voluntary ? That was worse.
Anzi
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1317
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 18:29

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by Anzi »

Not worth Butler going up in weight, if it is not for the world title.
earsjohn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1691
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 14:34

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by earsjohn »

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.
Surely the tickets state "Championship Boxing" and a WBO inter-pointless strap will be on the line at least.
Boxing Prospect
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 6592
Joined: 25 Jun 2012, 14:35

Re: Hall v Butler not for the IBF title

Post by Boxing Prospect »

Anzi wrote:Not worth Butler going up in weight, if it is not for the world 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.
Post Reply