MALTA BOXING COMMISSION - UK, SCOTLAND & IRELAND SANCTIONING

[The Insider]

You make a good point Kam. My only issue is that a boxer with 20 losses in a row gets a 'title' shot when a fellow boxer of say 3 straight wins then 5 losses, another 2 wins then 5 losses etc misses out. What gives the right for a guy who cannot win get that shot first? I understand what you are saging but there are 2 sides to a coin. That guy with a mediocre record misses out to a constant loser, so the mediocre boxer gets dissalusioned. My old fashioned theory is you win, you go up the ladder and the more you win the more opportunities come your way. Not lose all the time and you get a belt.. But i do get where you are coming from.

Which titles are you referring to?

[kamicazze]

Can agree with you there mimmy. I don't think you should get a shot after so many losses in a row over someone who is getting wins and losses. The titles should have a certain procedure in place to add credibility to themselves. E.g. Someone can't challenge for EBU if they lost their last fight unless EBU give them a pass. Something like 2 wins out of last 5 would work in masters.

[The Insider]

Can agree with you there mimmy. I don't think you should get a shot after so many losses in a row over someone who is getting wins and losses. The titles should have a certain procedure in place to add credibility to themselves. E.g. Someone can't challenge for EBU if they lost their last fight unless EBU give them a pass. Something like 2 wins out of last 5 would work in masters.

You don't get a "shot" with Masters titles. You just tell Bruce which fighters are fighting for which belt and that's it. Literally anyone with a Board licence could fight for one. Everyone with any boxing knowledge at all knows they aren't credible but they have been a huge help to small hall shows over the years and I guarantee if Promoters in the UK were actually allowed to have a say on the matter they would 100% vote to keep them in. Although i think in general the BBBoC do a great job I believe this is where the Board are out of touch with the needs of licence holders. They need to give some power back to the people who effectively own the company.

[dw01]

Can agree with you there mimmy. I don't think you should get a shot after so many losses in a row over someone who is getting wins and losses. The titles should have a certain procedure in place to add credibility to themselves. E.g. Someone can't challenge for EBU if they lost their last fight unless EBU give them a pass. Something like 2 wins out of last 5 would work in masters.

You don't get a "shot" with Masters titles. You just tell Bruce which fighters are fighting for which belt and that's it. Literally anyone with a Board licence could fight for one. Everyone with any boxing knowledge at all knows they aren't credible but they have been a huge help to small hall shows over the years and I guarantee if Promoters in the UK were actually allowed to have a say on the matter they would 100% vote to keep them in. Although i think in general the BBBoC do a great job I believe this is where the Board are out of touch with the needs of licence holders. They need to give some power back to the people who effectively own the company.[/quote]


Totally agree there.

[kamicazze]

Article in instant boxing
http://instantboxing.com/turley-on-tues ... kles-back/

[dw01]

Article in instant boxing
http://instantboxing.com/turley-on-tues ... kles-back/

Good article that. Look forward to reading the next segment, especially as to why the Board have refused certain boxers, and why MBC has issued to the same people.

[kamicazze]

http://instantboxing.com/turley-on-tues ... uk-market/

Good article regarding it as no one else has posted yet

[Alba]

http://instantboxing.com/turley-on-tues ... uk-market/

Good article regarding it as no one else has posted yet

"Despite saying he was not interested in competing with the BBBoC, Mr Di Caro must privately recognise that if his organisation continues to grow in size and popularity it will inevitably be seen in that context. For now, while all the biggest promoters and boxers fight only on Board sanctioned events it is a competition he cannot win, but for reasons that I am unable to reveal here, it is very likely that shortly that picture will change. If, as seems likely, within the next few years some of the bigger names in UK boxing start to operate under the MBC banner, then the face of the sport in this country will be changed forever."


What's point of mentioning something if you can't discuss it

[Wake up call]

Rio is once again telling porkies.

He claims that he only began doing UK shows because of two Turkish boxers having paperwork problems with the board in October 2013, but yet does not mention that he was involved in the promotion of a non-BBBofC show six months earlier than that. On April 27th 2013, a GBA show was staged at York Hall featuring at least two boxers Rio has an interest in (Marianne Marston and Iain Weaver).

It was promoted by Acoutier Events, whose Marketing Director is one Gianluca Di Caro. This report on the show was also written by one Gianluca Di Caro - http://www.acourtier.com/Gallery.html

He goes on to say: "We are a registered sanctioning body, recognised by everybody worldwide bar the British Boxing Board of Control. We are a member of the Association of Boxing Commissions, the BBBoC are not."

Err, no you are not! The EBU, lets not forget, threw you out when it realised that it has granted membership on false pretences. As for the the Association of Boxing Commissions, it means sod all as the association has no clout outside of the US. The BBBofC does not need to be a member of such body because it provides no benefits this side of the pond. It's membership of the EBU is more than sufficient.

"What people have to understand is that they (BBBofC) are just a limited company". We've covered this one in this thread already and the board is a limited company by guarantee, not a limited company with share capital like the MBC is. He does have a point on board voting rights, however.

He has also a point about Robin, who was treated very unfairly by the board and was robbed of victory on a number of occasions.

"No-one can tell me that you never see prospect v journeyman for a minor title on a Board show." True, but most of those were Masters fights, which was sanctioned by Bruce Baker. The board never sanctioned them, they merely allowed them to happen as ten round contests. That ends next month when Masters titles get the boot...and where are they going? Oh yes, MBC shows.

[Looking On]

Come on mate..... the last paragraph...... you seriously telling me that masters title bouts are almost the only time you see prospect vs journeyman on BBBoC shows......
Of course thats not true, every show in every city in every country, features prospect vs journeymens

[expe]

Come on mate..... the last paragraph...... you seriously telling me that masters title bouts are almost the only time you see prospect vs journeyman on BBBoC shows......
Of course thats not true, every show in every city in every country, features prospect vs journeymens

"No-one can tell me that you never see prospect v journeyman for a minor title on a Board show."

That was the quote. He's right, almost all prospect v journeyman title fights on professional shows are for Masters titles, which have nothing to do with the board and are now moving over to mbc.

[Looking On]

Come on mate..... the last paragraph...... you seriously telling me that masters title bouts are almost the only time you see prospect vs journeyman on BBBoC shows......
Of course thats not true, every show in every city in every country, features prospect vs journeymens

"No-one can tell me that you never see prospect v journeyman for a minor title on a Board show."

That was the quote. He's right, almost all prospect v journeyman title fights on professional shows are for Masters titles, which have nothing to do with the board and are now moving over to mbc.

Yep true, i didnt spot the fact the quote specifically mentioned titles ..

[taffytoon]

His statement about referees being instructed to favour the home fighter is also a load of tosh IMHO; yes the promoter may bring in journeymen to bring on their prospect but that isn't the referees fault; he can only score whats in front of him for goodness sake....

[bripez]

Come on mate..... the last paragraph...... you seriously telling me that masters title bouts are almost the only time you see prospect vs journeyman on BBBoC shows......
Of course thats not true, every show in every city in every country, features prospect vs journeymens

"No-one can tell me that you never see prospect v journeyman for a minor title on a Board show."

That was the quote. He's right, almost all prospect v journeyman title fights on professional shows are for Masters titles, which have nothing to do with the board and are now moving over to mbc.

Nothing to do with the board?

If they are now moving to the MBC where are they moving from?

The Board were happy to go along with the Masters titles until they had a fall out with the bloke who set them up (looked to me that it was more to do with petty actions of the board than anything else).

[expe]

Come on mate..... the last paragraph...... you seriously telling me that masters title bouts are almost the only time you see prospect vs journeyman on BBBoC shows......
Of course thats not true, every show in every city in every country, features prospect vs journeymens

"No-one can tell me that you never see prospect v journeyman for a minor title on a Board show."

That was the quote. He's right, almost all prospect v journeyman title fights on professional shows are for Masters titles, which have nothing to do with the board and are now moving over to mbc.

Nothing to do with the board?

If they are now moving to the MBC where are they moving from?

The Board were happy to go along with the Masters titles until they had a fall out with the bloke who set them up (looked to me that it was more to do with petty actions of the board than anything else).

The board never had anything to do with the masters titles and never sanctioned them as title fights, in the eyes of the board they were 10 round non title contests.

[bripez]

The board never had anything to do with the masters titles and never sanctioned them as title fights, in the eyes of the board they were 10 round non title contests.

BBBofC registered boxers boxed for Masters titles on BBBofC sanctioned shows.

If the Board didn't like them then they would not have sanctioned the fights.

The Board fell out with Bruce Baker and now they suddenly don't recognise these titles.

Not sure I can spell it out more simply than that - if you don't think that something irregular is going on then fair enough.

[Looking On]

The BBBOC always as far as i remember stated they didnt sanction them or acknowledge them.... but.... when it came to WBU etc they chose to not allow them, they could have done the same with Masters titles had they chose to do so.

[bripez]

The BBBOC always as far as i remember stated they didnt sanction them or acknowledge them.... but.... when it came to WBU etc they chose to not allow them, they could have done the same with Masters titles had they chose to do so.

Which version of the WBU ?

Why do they sanction one version, but later not sanction another version?

Why did they allow Masters titles but appear to not allow them now ?

Who made these decisions, on what basis, what criteria did they use and were their members consulted ?

[tijuana1]

His statement about referees being instructed to favour the home fighter is also a load of tosh IMHO; yes the promoter may bring in journeymen to bring on their prospect but that isn't the referees fault; he can only score whats in front of him for goodness sake....

I can tell you from first hand experience. I swear on my kids life I've won fights on the road and the ref has given it to the ticket seller. On a few occasions so I would say the above statement is true. Taffytoon I have no reson to lie to you pal. I even had one fighter say to me after the fight which was scored 39/38 you won that mate. In 20 yrs boxing I never experienced someone saying that. It was a BBBC fight.

[leejonesjnr]

The BBBOC always as far as i remember stated they didnt sanction them or acknowledge them.... but.... when it came to WBU etc they chose to not allow them, they could have done the same with Masters titles had they chose to do so.

Which version of the WBU ?

Why do they sanction one version, but later not sanction another version?

Why did they allow Masters titles but appear to not allow them now ?

Who made these decisions, on what basis, what criteria did they use and were their members consulted ?

Why do you now walk on two legs when you used to crawl?
Things change.
The BBBoC never had any involvement in Masters titles, they were simply awarded trophy style to the winner and the PBPA accepted the decision given by BBBoC referees.
The BBBoC currently do not recognise either version of the WBU. Others have also been excluded in an attempt to clarify the status of the term 'world champion'. WBF and IBO world titles were also once contested on BBBoC shows but are not anymore.

[bripez]

The BBBOC always as far as i remember stated they didnt sanction them or acknowledge them.... but.... when it came to WBU etc they chose to not allow them, they could have done the same with Masters titles had they chose to do so.

Which version of the WBU ?

Why do they sanction one version, but later not sanction another version?

Why did they allow Masters titles but appear to not allow them now ?

Who made these decisions, on what basis, what criteria did they use and were their members consulted ?

Why do you now walk on two legs when you used to crawl?

You have said previously that you are happy with the BBBofC, so fair enough mate.

As you are a registered member of the Board, are you (and other members) ever consulted about such issues?

Do you know who makes such decisions on your behalf and what criteria they use as a basis for those decisions?




Things change.
The BBBoC never had any involvement in Masters titles, they were simply awarded trophy style to the winner and the PBPA accepted the decision given by BBBoC referees.
The BBBoC currently do not recognise either version of the WBU. Others have also been excluded in an attempt to clarify the status of the term 'world champion'. WBF and IBO world titles were also once contested on BBBoC shows but are not anymore.

[kamicazze]

The BBBOC always as far as i remember stated they didnt sanction them or acknowledge them.... but.... when it came to WBU etc they chose to not allow them, they could have done the same with Masters titles had they chose to do so.

Which version of the WBU ?

Why do they sanction one version, but later not sanction another version?

Why did they allow Masters titles but appear to not allow them now ?

Who made these decisions, on what basis, what criteria did they use and were their members consulted ?

Why do you now walk on two legs when you used to crawl?
Things change.
The BBBoC never had any involvement in Masters titles, they were simply awarded trophy style to the winner and the PBPA accepted the decision given by BBBoC referees.
The BBBoC currently do not recognise either version of the WBU. Others have also been excluded in an attempt to clarify the status of the term 'world champion'. WBF and IBO world titles were also once contested on BBBoC shows but are not anymore.

IBO titles are still contested. Just thought I'd add that in

[leejonesjnr]

Why do you now walk on two legs when you used to crawl?
Things change.
The BBBoC never had any involvement in Masters titles, they were simply awarded trophy style to the winner and the PBPA accepted the decision given by BBBoC referees.
The BBBoC currently do not recognise either version of the WBU. Others have also been excluded in an attempt to clarify the status of the term 'world champion'. WBF and IBO world titles were also once contested on BBBoC shows but are not anymore.

IBO titles are still contested. Just thought I'd add that in[/quote]

IBO world titles are no longer contested on BBBoC shows.

[Wake up call]

To my knowledge, there is no rule against IBO world titles on board shows. The reason you don't see them is because they do not hold any real weight so promoters don't use them here.

The WBU (both versions) and WBF, however, are not approved of by the board. Neither are all the other bogus titles such as GBA, IBU, IBA, GBU etc.

A decade or so ago, the WBU was recognised but it was a British run title. It went to pot when Jon Robinson died in 2004 (although the belts were around for another four years or so after that).

The new versions have no connection that original belt. They are just run by people using the same name.

[kamicazze]

Explain how gar Cornish is contesting the IBO intercontinental title and how Liam Cameron held the IBO youth title? Both boxed for and sanctioned on these shores.

I think wake up is right. Some don't contest as they don't really carry weight and some are held by fighters it's not worth the risk to face.