BBBofC licensed Boxers take note

[expe]

Quote from it :

add to the regulation 4.12b - " a promotion organised by a another controlling authority with prior written consent of the BBBoC, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, having regard to that controlling authorty's rules, regulations and standards, the safety of the participants and those in attendance, and in the interest of Boxing and the public interests, if consent is given it will be on condition of the payment of a fee, to be decided by the board"

So i dont see on what grounds to decline except for those i stated ,ie previously been turned down by the board for a license or had it withdrawn , or maybe they are too old, baring in mind the board do turn people down to box on their shows for that reason, so i see no reason that wouldnt apply to someone being sanctioned to box elsewhere against that sort of opponent, if i was the promoter id expect to be turned down in those circumstances. .... They cant say its not in the interest of boxing... Being allowed to box and earn a living is in the interest of boxing, seems to me its more like that its not in the BBBoC's interest... which isnt what their rules are stating.

Yes they can. In the case of most MBC licensed fighters, while it might be in their interest to box, it really isn't good for boxing to have them anywhere near a ring.

[Looking On]

Quote from it :

add to the regulation 4.12b - " a promotion organised by a another controlling authority with prior written consent of the BBBoC, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, having regard to that controlling authorty's rules, regulations and standards, the safety of the participants and those in attendance, and in the interest of Boxing and the public interests, if consent is given it will be on condition of the payment of a fee, to be decided by the board"

So i dont see on what grounds to decline except for those i stated ,ie previously been turned down by the board for a license or had it withdrawn , or maybe they are too old, baring in mind the board do turn people down to box on their shows for that reason, so i see no reason that wouldnt apply to someone being sanctioned to box elsewhere against that sort of opponent, if i was the promoter id expect to be turned down in those circumstances. .... They cant say its not in the interest of boxing... Being allowed to box and earn a living is in the interest of boxing, seems to me its more like that its not in the BBBoC's interest... which isnt what their rules are stating.

Yes they can. In the case of most MBC licensed fighters, while it might be in their interest to box, it really isn't good for boxing to have them anywhere near a ring.

Ok, but its fine if they are licensed by the board instead.... thats what i mean about people talking bollocks. Too blinkered to see any different.

[expe]

Quote from it :

add to the regulation 4.12b - " a promotion organised by a another controlling authority with prior written consent of the BBBoC, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, having regard to that controlling authorty's rules, regulations and standards, the safety of the participants and those in attendance, and in the interest of Boxing and the public interests, if consent is given it will be on condition of the payment of a fee, to be decided by the board"

So i dont see on what grounds to decline except for those i stated ,ie previously been turned down by the board for a license or had it withdrawn , or maybe they are too old, baring in mind the board do turn people down to box on their shows for that reason, so i see no reason that wouldnt apply to someone being sanctioned to box elsewhere against that sort of opponent, if i was the promoter id expect to be turned down in those circumstances. .... They cant say its not in the interest of boxing... Being allowed to box and earn a living is in the interest of boxing, seems to me its more like that its not in the BBBoC's interest... which isnt what their rules are stating.

Yes they can. In the case of most MBC licensed fighters, while it might be in their interest to box, it really isn't good for boxing to have them anywhere near a ring.

Ok, but its fine if they are licensed by the board instead.... thats what i mean about people talking bollocks. Too blinkered to see any different.

They aren't licensed by the board though, stop trying to change the subject.

[Looking On]

Not changing the subject you said the MBC licensed boxers arent good enough to deserve being near a boxing ring... so i guess the 3 boxers im currently working with who have chosen to give up their BBBoC license to go to MBC instead were fine while with BBBoC but not now they are going to MBC. Like i said talking bollocks

[expe]

Not changing the subject you said the MBC licensed boxers arent good enough to deserve being near a boxing ring... so i guess the 3 boxers im currently working with who have chosen to give up their BBBoC license to go to MBC instead were fine while with BBBoC but not now they are going to MBC. Like i said talking bollocks

I said most MBC licensed fighters, you seem to be unable to read properly.

[mickey1975]

Some decent kids in MBC.

[expe]

Some decent kids in MBC.

How many would come close to title level? A lot shouldn't be anywhere near a boxing ring.

[Looking On]

Some decent kids in MBC.

How many would come close to title level? A lot shouldn't be anywhere near a boxing ring.

Such a simple yet ridiculous view.

with that thoughtline boxing would die.

When a young lad walks into an amateur gym with no experience and goes on to have his first fight, your view is he shouldnt be allowed as hes not good enough. That very same lad may grow up to be the next legend, but you would rather not let them have the chance in the first place.

[expe]

Some decent kids in MBC.

How many would come close to title level? A lot shouldn't be anywhere near a boxing ring.

Such a simple yet ridiculous view.

with that thoughtline boxing would die.

When a young lad walks into an amateur gym with no experience and goes on to have his first fight, your view is he shouldnt be allowed as hes not good enough. That very same lad may grow up to be the next legend, but you would rather not let them have the chance in the first place.

Where have I said that? There's a big difference between a kid starting out as an amateur and professionals.

Just because a fighter isn't going to win titles doesn't mean they shouldn't be licensed, but I wouldn't be describing them as 'decent kids' either. Some aren't brilliant, but are perfectly good enough to be professional boxers, sadly others don't come close and clearly shouldn't be allowed to box, yet MBC are still willing to license them.

[Looking On]

im on way out, but when i come back ill find the quote where you said something along the lines of if your not good enough to be pro you shouldnt be boxing, when referring to unlicensed.

you have pretty much said a few mins ago if they arent title level that they shouldnt be near a ring.

change your mind to suit the situation so much that im starting to think your a plant on the forum by the bbboc

[expe]

im on way out, but when i come back ill find the quote where you said something along the lines of if your not good enough to be pro you shouldnt be boxing, when referring to unlicensed.

you have pretty much said a few mins ago if they arent title level that they shouldnt be near a ring.

change your mind to suit the situation so much that im starting to think your a plant on the forum by the bbboc

I probably did say that, in fact I'm pretty sure I remember it, at no stage did I mention it in relation to the amateurs though. Completely different over 3x3 with standing counts for any heavy shot, headguards on and clear rules to prevent mismatches.

I didn't say that, if that's how you took it then you've misunderstood what I said and I cleared that up in my last post, which you've chosen to ignore.

[bripez]

Not changing the subject you said the MBC licensed boxers arent good enough to deserve being near a boxing ring... so i guess the 3 boxers im currently working with who have chosen to give up their BBBoC license to go to MBC instead were fine while with BBBoC but not now they are going to MBC. Like i said talking bollocks

I said most MBC licensed fighters, you seem to be unable to read properly.

This appears to be yet another generic statement that means nothing.

You say that most MBC boxers shouldn't be anywhere near a ring - on what basis do you make this statement?


I would like to ask the following:

How many boxers are registered with the MBC?

How many if those have you seen box?

What criteria have you used to assess their ability to come to the conclusion that they are so inadequate that they should not be allowed to box?


dont worry, the above are rhetorical questions - I do not expect you to answer any of the above.

[expe]

Not changing the subject you said the MBC licensed boxers arent good enough to deserve being near a boxing ring... so i guess the 3 boxers im currently working with who have chosen to give up their BBBoC license to go to MBC instead were fine while with BBBoC but not now they are going to MBC. Like i said talking bollocks

I said most MBC licensed fighters, you seem to be unable to read properly.

This appears to be yet another generic statement that means nothing.

You say that most MBC boxers shouldn't be anywhere near a ring - on what basis do you make this statement?


I would like to ask the following:

How many boxers are registered with the MBC?

How many if those have you seen box?

What criteria have you used to assess their ability to come to the conclusion that they are so inadequate that they should not be allowed to box?


dont worry, the above are rhetorical questions - I do not expect you to answer any of the above.

Scott Harrison's license listed him as fighter 66 so I presume somewhere in that region, 60-70 fighters.

Don't know the names of all of them but I'd say 10-20.

From watching them, current legal status, age, long periods of inactivity, fluctuations in weight and in some cases a simple look at the record is enough. Basically the general sort of stuff that you look for in a fighter.

Not going to bite so give up trying.

[bripez]

I said most MBC licensed fighters, you seem to be unable to read properly.

This appears to be yet another generic statement that means nothing.

You say that most MBC boxers shouldn't be anywhere near a ring - on what basis do you make this statement?


I would like to ask the following:

How many boxers are registered with the MBC?

How many if those have you seen box?

What criteria have you used to assess their ability to come to the conclusion that they are so inadequate that they should not be allowed to box?


dont worry, the above are rhetorical questions - I do not expect you to answer any of the above.

Scott Harrison's license listed him as fighter 66 so I presume somewhere in that region, 60-70 fighters.

Don't know the names of all of them but I'd say 10-20.

From watching them, current legal status, age, long periods of inactivity, fluctuations in weight and in some cases a simple look at the record is enough. Basically the general sort of stuff that you look for in a fighter.

Not going to bite so give up trying.

Not sure what you mean by " legal status" however this statement actually contradicts your whole argument.

When you talk about the boxers records, weights and ages etc. - how did they build these records ?

As the MBC are a new organisation, they will have built up their records whilst licensed by the BBBofC however this fact is being ignored yet again.

[expe]

This appears to be yet another generic statement that means nothing.

You say that most MBC boxers shouldn't be anywhere near a ring - on what basis do you make this statement?


I would like to ask the following:

How many boxers are registered with the MBC?

How many if those have you seen box?

What criteria have you used to assess their ability to come to the conclusion that they are so inadequate that they should not be allowed to box?


dont worry, the above are rhetorical questions - I do not expect you to answer any of the above.

Scott Harrison's license listed him as fighter 66 so I presume somewhere in that region, 60-70 fighters.

Don't know the names of all of them but I'd say 10-20.

From watching them, current legal status, age, long periods of inactivity, fluctuations in weight and in some cases a simple look at the record is enough. Basically the general sort of stuff that you look for in a fighter.

Not going to bite so give up trying.

Not sure what you mean by " legal status" however this statement actually contradicts your whole argument.

When you talk about the boxers records, weights and ages etc. - how did they build these records ?

As the MBC are a new organisation, they will have built up their records whilst licensed by the BBBofC however this fact is being ignored yet again.

Scott Harrison has an MBC license, but he's been sentenced to 4 years in prison over in Spain and an extradition order has been approved, Lee Churcher is on license from prison for drug dealing, Jody Meikle is another currently out on license, although that may have now expired. Don't get how that contradicts anything.

I don't get the point you're trying to make, they might have had board licenses in the past but had them revoked because it was deemed they were no longer of an acceptable standard, yet MBC now give them licenses

[Looking On]

So a criminal conviction now means someone isnt an acceptable standard , strewth , what next ? having 2 arms means a disandvantage ?

[bripez]

So a criminal conviction now means someone isnt an acceptable standard , strewth , what next ? having 2 arms means a disandvantage ?

I wonder what Expe thinks about the BBBofC sanctioning the Mike Tyson fight ?

Or dies he think tat it is ok for one convicted criminal to box in the UK but not another ?

I am sure he will come back with "Tyson wasn't on licence" or some other half argument bollox that has been turned to suit his argument.

There was some discussion this morning about drug testing, but non of the anti-MBC brigade has commented on the Larry O situation.

[expe]

So a criminal conviction now means someone isnt an acceptable standard , strewth , what next ? having 2 arms means a disandvantage ?

I wonder what Expe thinks about the BBBofC sanctioning the Mike Tyson fight ?

Or dies he think tat it is ok for one convicted criminal to box in the UK but not another ?

I am sure he will come back with "Tyson wasn't on licence" or some other half argument bollox that has been turned to suit his argument.

There was some discussion this morning about drug testing, but non of the anti-MBC brigade has commented on the Larry O situation.

Basically what you said, he wasn't on license so I don't see the issue, he'd served his time, after that there's no justification for further punishment.

Larry was caught on drugs and banned, UKAD reduced his ban because he grassed on Craig Windsor.

[bripez]

So a criminal conviction now means someone isnt an acceptable standard , strewth , what next ? having 2 arms means a disandvantage ?

I wonder what Expe thinks about the BBBofC sanctioning the Mike Tyson fight ?

Or dies he think tat it is ok for one convicted criminal to box in the UK but not another ?

I am sure he will come back with "Tyson wasn't on licence" or some other half argument bollox that has been turned to suit his argument.

There was some discussion this morning about drug testing, but non of the anti-MBC brigade has commented on the Larry O situation.

Basically what you said, he wasn't on license so I don't see the issue, he'd served his time, after that there's no justification for further punishment.

Larry was caught on drugs and banned, UKAD reduced his ban because he grassed on Craig Windsor.

Just as I thought ........

[tijuana1]

Just a quick question guys, can bbbc licence boxers fight and be active when they have been sentenced to community service ?

[spudder56]

Just a quick question guys, can bbbc licence boxers fight and be active when they have been sentenced to community service ?

Not to my knowledge mate the usual rule of thumb is that nobody can hold a board licence until any court sentence applied has been served in full including community service also another example is say if somebody gets sentenced to 6 years and is released on licence after 3 he cannot hold a licence until the 6 years has been served in full whether incarcerated or not well that's what I have been led to beleive anyway

[gobbles]

Re: the drugs thing on here.

WADA do not do drug testing, the co-ordinate drug-testing and policy worldwide. In the UK, UKAD do drug testing, they are affiliated to WADA.The BBBoC are affiliated to UKAD, but have no control over who is tested or how many tests are carried out.
Much of their testing is based on intelligence, but I believe all boxers in 12 round title fights are tested.

[freddydoesdallas]

Re: the drugs thing on here.

WADA do not do drug testing, the co-ordinate drug-testing and policy worldwide. In the UK, UKAD do drug testing, they are affiliated to WADA.The BBBoC are affiliated to UKAD, but have no control over who is tested or how many tests are carried out.
Much of their testing is based on intelligence, but I believe all boxers in 12 round title fights are tested.

Are they tested or are they subject to testing ie they could potentially be tested

[gobbles]

Re: the drugs thing on here.

WADA do not do drug testing, the co-ordinate drug-testing and policy worldwide. In the UK, UKAD do drug testing, they are affiliated to WADA.The BBBoC are affiliated to UKAD, but have no control over who is tested or how many tests are carried out.
Much of their testing is based on intelligence, but I believe all boxers in 12 round title fights are tested.

Are they tested or are they subject to testing ie they could potentially be tested

I believe they are tested. All boxers could potentially be tested.

[CharlesListon]

UKAD test all sportspersons that belong to a signatory of the World Anti Doping Code . ie Premier League, The FA, RFU, ECB and for boxing the BBBOFC. They act as WADA agents for all Olympic Associations, including AIBA who in turn cover the ABA etc.

If the MBC are a signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code ( I don't know if they are, they are not listed as being so, but maybe the website is out of date)(( and to be considered equal to the BBBOFC they should be)), then UKAD can undertake random tests as and when they feel like it.

They are stretched, so subsequently they only test for British Title Fights, Commonwealth Titles etc as a matter of course. Random Tests tend to be as a result of information received although this isn't always the case and they can just turn up and demand a test.

Can someone from MBC confirm if they are or are not signed to the code? Unless I've missed it i haven't seen definitive answer.

The likes of Larry O, Enzo Mac, Barry et all were all caught because the bbbofc are a signatory.