Boxrec up to their games again!!!

[LucaDiCaro]

I'm sure many have read the Sun article https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/boxing/2 ... er-claims/

But here's the complaint that is being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in America and as you'll see this is happening all over the World - The Boxrec system is inherently corrupt, results should only be accepted from Commissions, not editors updating from other sources such as promoters, managers or media reports - Fight Fax only accept reports from Commissions so it can be done properly, question is does Boxrec want their system to be correct or not!

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF:

ASSOCIATION OF BOXING COMMISSIONS (ABC) FAILURE TO UNDERTAKE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE APPOINTING BOXREC AS AN OFFICIAL BOXER REGISTRY -15 USC Ch. 89 PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF 1996

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

1. This matter relates to the Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) failing to undertake reasonable Due Diligence before appointing BoxRec as Official Boxer Registry for the Sport of Professional Boxing, as Boxrec are an organization that is currently not fit for purpose, due to major inaccuracies and omissions that potentially could affect the health & safety of professional boxers Worldwide.

It should be noted that under the Presidency of Mr. Timothy J. Lueckenhoff (2001-2015), the Association Of Boxing Commissions had stated that it would not provide Boxrec Official Boxer Registry status due to its failings and more importantly it’s inaccuracies. (Annex #2 & #14)

Evidence of Boxrec’s continuing failings in critical areas have been supplied to the Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) by various sources, including ourselves - these failings fall into two distinct categories;

A) Boxrec’s Flawed Process for record updating and recording, a process that is proven to be prone to misuse by unscrupulous people with a vested interested, such as promoters and managers

B) Boxrec failure in updating Boxers records submitted by a number of recognized Boxing Commissions since April 2016.

It should be noted, that on this second matter, In August 2016, shortly after the appointment of Boxrec as official Boxer Registry, that Association of Boxing Commissions President Michael Mazzulli was presented the facts regarding this matter and indeed he had even written to BoxRec (and Fight Fax) an e.mail, dated 6th September 2016, in which he stated “In an effort to resolve this issue, all ABC boxing record keepers will actively recognized and record all pro boxing contests for all Commissions (including the United Kingdom) that are sent in by those Boxing Commissions recognized by the ABC” it should be noted that Boxrec failed to comply. (Annex #47 to #50)

Please note: that the Annex #49 document includes details of Boxrec failing to update FIFTY EIGHT (58) Licensed Professional Boxers records between April 2016 and August 2016, plus a number of licensed boxers from Commissions in Europe and Africa, that these boxers competed against, as well as malicious manipulation of a number of licensed Boxers Rankings.

However it should also be noted that neither Mr. Mazzulli or the Executive Board of the Association of Boxing Commissions took any form of action against Boxrec for failing to comply to Mr. Mazzulli’s written request, instead they chose to ostracize those that had alerted them of Boxrec’s failings and wrongdoings.

By failing to take any further action on this matter, or the other information and evidence of falsified records listed by Boxrec, the Association Of Boxing Commissions President, Mr. Michael Mazzulli and the Executive Committee, have continued to fail in their duties to ensure that an appointed official Boxer Registry meet the high standards as required by the Federal Trade Commission under the 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, for the health and safety of all professional boxers Worldwide.

BACKGROUND

2. Under the 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, §6301 Definition (3) Boxer Registry it states: “The term ‘Boxer Registry’ means any entity certified by the Association of Boxing Commissions for the purposes of maintaining records and identification of boxers” (Annex #1)

3. Under the short title of 2000 Amendment – heading Purposes of 2000 Amendment it is stated - (1) to protect the welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices; (2) to assist state boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry. (Annex #1)

4. The Association of Boxing Commissions appointed Boxrec as Official Boxer Registry at their AGM in August 2016, however the appointment was made without a vote from the membership.

5. Boxrec, a British privately owned British on-line record collector, is rated as approximately 70% accurate, which is not acceptable, especially when compared to long time ABC Appointed Boxer Registry Fight Fax, an American owned Incorporated company, whose record keeping is proven to be 100% accurate, whilst (Annex #2, #4 & #14).

6. Under the Presidency of Mr. Timothy J. Lueckenhoff (2001-2015), the Association Of Boxing Commissions had stated that it would not provide Boxrec Official Boxer Registry status due to its failings and more importantly it’s inaccuracies. (Annex #2 & #14)

7. Boxrec’s policies and procedures have not altered since Mr. Lueckenhoff’s tenure, as such the reasons stated but Mr. Lueckenhoff are as valid today as they were during his time as President of the ABC.

A) BOXREC’S FLAWED BOXER RECORD UPDATING PROCESS.

8. Without doubt the main issue is that Boxrec operates a process of updating records via in excess of eighty individuals around the world, often publishing results not from Commission submitted reports, but instead from media reports or other sources, such as promoters and managers, as such Boxrec is prone to misuse by unscrupulous people with a vested interested, such as promoters and managers (Annex #3 as well as #15, #16 & #17)

9. Long time ABC appointed Boxer Registry, Fight Fax operate a system of recording results that prevents misuse and falsification, as they only record and update Boxer records submitted direct from the recognized official commission that sanctioned the event, including those from our commission. (Annex #4)

10. Many commissions around the world, including our own, also submit results direct to BoxRec, as such these should be taken as accurately recorded. However that is not always the case when Boxrec are involved and examples of such failings in this area are also covered in this document and accompanying files.

One such example of Boxrec’s failings as a record keeper, even when the record updates are submitted to BoxRec by recognized commissions, involves a Boxer, who has a verified record of 14 wins, 60 losses and 3 draws correctly recorded by Fight Fax but on BoxRec his record is shown as 12 wins, 56 losses and 3 draws. (Annex #5 & #6 also see #49)

Please note: that the Annex #49 document contains details of Boxrec failing to update FIFTY EIGHT (58) Licensed Professional Boxers records between April 2016 and August 2016, plus a number of overseas licensed boxers that these boxers competed against, as well as malicious manipulation of Boxers Rankings.

11. Due to Boxrec’s failing to ensure that boxer records are accurately listed, when a match-up is made utilizing Boxrec published records there is potential for dangerously mismatched bouts.

12. A prime example relates to a World Boxing Council (WBC) Female World Championship contest, which was matched using Boxrec listed records, whereby one of the contestants record was stated by Boxrec as 11 Wins, 9 Losses and 0 draws, whereas the boxer’s actual record at the time was 0 Wins, 9 Losses and 0 Draws, which was correctly registered by Fight Fax. (Annex #18, #19 & #20)

As such the Female boxer was not only ineligible to compete for Championship honors but was without doubt in danger of potential serious injury.

In addition this action denied a truly eligible boxer the opportunity to fight for World Championship honors.

13. Another example is that a South American professional boxer who was murdered in 2012 but was still listed as active in 2016 by Boxrec, in fact according to Boxrec had competed a number of times in 2016, the last contest listed by Boxrec was in August 2016. (Annex #12 & #13)

14. In both the cases above Boxrec had been notified of the situation on numerous occasions, by individuals and media, but have only recently taken action, it appears since our sending the first draft of this complaint to the Association Of Boxing Commissions in September 2016, and only now have Boxrec finally removed the faked contests listings from the records of these particular boxers.

15. It should be noted that during the final compiling of the documents to support this complaint, we became aware of a major disparity between the Fight Fax and Boxrec recorded results for an African Boxer that competed on a British & Irish Boxing Authority (BIBA) sanctioned event in 2016.

Fight Fax have the boxer’s record listed as - 19 Wins, 12 Losses and 2 Draws, including the abovementioned contest.

However Boxrec have this particular boxer’s record substantially higher, by some thirteen bouts, not including the UK contest, which if they had listed would show a disparity of FOURTEEN ADDITIONAL BOUTS Listed by Boxrec (Annex #41 & #42)

Since Fight Fax only update records from officially submitted reports by the sanctioning commission, we are confident that the Boxer’s actual record is the one provided by them, especially as on checking the boxer’s record with Boxrec it showed no less than 36 of the bouts listed by Boxrec for this particular boxer are stated to be unverified (not submitted by a Commission).

We have included PDFs of the disputed contests listed by Boxrec that were supposedly undertaken by this particular boxer (Annex #54 to #67)

Whilst many do not even show the sanctioning commission, officials or promoter details, a few do show a commission, but no officials, promoter etc,

The most recent disputed result for this boxer, that is not listed by Fight Fax, but is listed by Boxrec, is particularly worrying in a number of ways. (Annex #67)

The Boxrec listing for the event does show a commission, as well as officials (referee & Judges) BUT for just one bout only. This bout is also the only one that has the actual result shown, including round and time of stoppage.

Suspicion that this is a falsified event listing is because of the other nine bouts listed, five ended by way of knockout, three by way of Technical Knockout and the final one by retirement, but we have been unable to find any record of the losing boxers involved having been suspended at or post this event, which is not normally the case – also it should be noted only four of the bouts listed show the weight division the boxers competed in.

One of these contests is shown as a first round knockout and includes the time, and the referee name, however the results do not show how many rounds the bout was scheduled for.

Of the other eight only the RTD shows the round the boxer retired in, but does not show how many rounds the bout is scheduled for, of the other seven none show what round the stoppage was in or how many rounds the contest was scheduled for.

PLEASE NOTE: Due to subsequent ongoing research, following the discovery of the fourteen fake or falsified bouts listed on the boxer’s record by Boxrec, that we have uncovered a substantial amount of further potentially falsified records on Boxrec for contests that have taken place in Ghana, which we are in the process of attempting to verify whether these are genuine or fake contests.

16. We also noticed disparity of two recorded bouts between the Fight Fax and Boxrec records for a French boxer that competed in the United Kingdom in 2016, firstly the verified bout that he took part under the auspices of the British & Irish Boxing Authoriy (BIBA) was not listed by Boxrec, and the second bout, that was not recorded by Fight Fax, but listed on BoxRec, shows as unverified and again shows no commission as sanctioning the event, for reference I have written to the only Moroccan Commission to ascertain if they sanctioned or know of the event, but have received no reply at this time (Annex #43 & #44)

17. Another prime example of the abuse that occurs with the process of ‘editors’ updating records with information supplied direct by the promoter, is that Boxrec knowingly have listed a number of ‘hobbyist’ boxers (not professionally licensed by any commission, as well as not having the required medicals and MRI scans) as professional. (Annex #7 through to #11 – also please see #51)

Please note that Annex #11 relates to a British Boxer, who was listed on Boxrec as boxing professionally, in January 2016, when in fact he had been competing as a ‘Hobbyist’ boxer, as at that time he was not licensed as a professional boxer or had the required professional standard medicals or MRI scans.

In February 2016 one of the boxers that fought as a ‘Hobbyist’ boxer applied to be a professionally licensed boxer and undertook the required medicals and MRI scan in February 2016, almost a month to the day from when he supposedly fought as a ‘professional’

The boxer in question confirmed and stated in writing on both his application and medical forms that he had not boxed professionally previously.

Please note: that when a boxer has his first scan he also is required to have an MRA scan, as you will see this was the case as there wasn’t a previous scan for comparison (Annex #11 & #51)

We are aware of further instances of British ‘hobbyist’ boxers competing on events against Professional boxers on events sanctioned by the same commission and am able to supply proof of 18 unlicensed and without the required professional standard medical and MRI scan, ‘hobbyist’ boxers that have done so, and listed by Boxrec as professional, since October 2015.

Boxrec, as well as the European Boxing Union (EBU), the World Boxing Council (WBC) and the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) were informed on a number occasions over the past year of this practice, as well as provided written proof, yet all chose to ignore the issue, and continue to do so to this day.

This lack of action by Boxrec, and others that had been informed such as the EBU, the WBC and the ABC, has put at least two of these ‘hobbyist’ boxers competing on these events in serious danger.

The first case relates to a ‘hobbyist’ boxer that competed on an event in 2015, and listed as boxing professionally on Boxrec, who is on a life time suspension by the Italian Federation (registered with the EBU), as well as refused licensing by the British & Irish Boxing Association, Malta Boxing Commission and the British Boxing Board of Control, due to having a serious life threatening spinal injury following a road traffic accident – this injury is so serious that the Chief Medical Officers of the four commissions named all concluded that his life would undoubtedly be at risk should he compete. (Annex #68 & #69 – also see #8)

The second case relates to a ‘hobbyist’ boxer, who was competing against a licensed professional boxer on a January 2016 event, collapsed in the ring and was hospitalized, luckily our Chief Medical Officer was on hand, as he was the cuts-man for one of the few actual professional boxers competing, and attended to the boxer prior to admitting him to hospital.

(B) BOXREC’S FAILURE TO UPDATE BOXER RECORDS AS SUBMITTED BY RECOGNIZED COMMISSIONS.

18. In addition Boxrec have been proven to take a discriminatory position with regard to certain Commissions and World Championship organizations, which includes Boxrec failing to update boxers records.

19. In April 2016 Boxrec initiated such a discriminatory policy with regard to updating of professional boxing records in the United Kingdom, whereby Boxrec have only been recording the results of just one Commission in the United Kingdom since that date. For reference Boxrec had updated the boxers records from all commissions sanctioning in the UK for a number of years previously. (Annex #29 & #30)

20. As far as we can ascertain this policy only relates to three of the four Commissions that sanction professional Boxing events in the United Kingdom, but this is a policy that also has had an adverse affect on Boxers licensed by other Commissions worldwide that had competed on events sanctioned by the three Commissions.

21. It should be noted, In August 2016, shortly after the appointment of Boxrec as official Boxer Registry, that Association of Boxing Commissions President Michael Mazzulli was presented the facts regarding this matter and indeed he had written, in an e.mail dated 6th September 2016, to BoxRec (and Fight Fax) stating “In an effort to resolve this issue, all ABC boxing record keepers will actively recognized and record all pro boxing contests for all Commissions (including the United Kingdom) that are sent in by those Boxing Commissions recognized by the ABC” it should be noted that Boxrec failed to comply. (Annex #47 to #50)

22. Please note: that the Annex #49 document contains details of Boxrec failing to update FIFTY EIGHT (58) Licensed Professional Boxers records between April 2016 and August 2016, plus a number of overseas licensed boxers that these boxers competed against, as well as malicious manipulation of Boxers Rankings.

23. It should also be noted that neither Mr. Mazzulli or the Executive Board of the Association of Boxing Commissions took any form of action against Boxrec for failing to comply to Mr. Mazzulli’s written request, instead they chose to ostracize those that had alerted them of Boxrec’s failings and wrongdoings.

24. For reference there is a recently initiated case, by the German Boxing Association’s (GBA) UK representative against the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC), a private limited liability company, not a government appointed sports governing commission, for Restraint of Trade, Restrictive Practices and Operating a Cartel along with other members from the European Boxing Union, a private limited liability company, whose sole purpose is the sanctioning of the EBU European Championship, the EBU is not government appointed or a regulatory body for European Boxing – this case also highlights Boxrec’s involvement in the restrictive practices undertaken by the BBBofC led illegal Cartel. Paragraph 3 of the document states;
“The Board have exerted pressure on third parties to not advertise or log any records relating to other Regulatory bodies who dare to be involved with the UK market (BoxRec are a classic example).”

This case has been submitted to the Competitions & Markets Authority (CMA) as well as the European Union Markets Authority (UK & European equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission) (Annex #31)

It should be noted that Boxrec’s biased policy in this case appears to relate to the UK, as far as we are aware, as Boxrec not only list the results of the Four National Commissions that operate in Germany, but also update the results of events sanctioned by non-German commissions in Germany, such as the Austrian and Luxembourg Commissions, as well as German Commission’s sanctioned events in other European Countries, such as Poland. (Annex #32 to #38)

For reference under European Trade law, European Companies and organizations have freedom of cross border trading. Below is part of the statement on the European Commissions website http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/index_en.htm
One of the European Union’s most significant achievements is the Single Market. Its fundamental freedoms entitle businesses and citizens to move and interact freely in a borderless Union.
The steady lowering of the barriers between EU Member States has brought numerous benefits to citizens. Citizens in their capacity as consumers have enjoyed a number of economic benefits such as lower air fares and mobile telephone roaming charges and the possibility to access a larger variety of products. Traders have been able to extend their activities cross-border, by importing and exporting goods, providing services and establishing themselves abroad. Thus they benefit from the economies of scale and the greater business opportunities that the single market offers.
For further insight on EU Anti-Trust: Restrictive Practices and Abuse of Dominant Position - please see competition rules Article 101(3) formerly Article 81(3) TEC) (Annex #39) or on-line http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 14&from=EN

Also see Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty (Annex #40) or see on-line http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 7)&from=EN

25. Boxrec has also failed to record certain Championship contests, namely those of 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 compliant USA based World Boxing Union (WBU), as well as the International Masters & British Masters, even though they had done so for many years previously. (Annex #5 & #6 as well as #21 to #28 )

26. On compiling the documents for the Annex, we discovered that Boxrec had very recently removed (September 2016) all MBC International Championship results and the Championship listing, as well as removed the Championships from the boxers records. However we already had PDFs of both the Male & Female Championship bouts as previously listed on Boxrec pre April 2016 (Annex #70 & #71)

27. By initiating this policy, not only have Boxrec adversely affected the Boxers licensed by the BIBA, GBA and MBC but also those boxers licensed by other professional boxing commissions World-wide, including those in North America, as well as have directly put all professional boxers health and safety at risk, as should a match up be based on the Boxrec published record, a boxer may find him or herself competing against a vastly more experienced, or even a Championship winning, boxer which is not indicated in the Boxrec listing of that particular boxer (Annex # 41 to #46).

28. Whilst not directly relating to the USA, it should be noted that it does highlight Boxrec’s failings and bias and as such not a fit operation to be an FTC/ABC Official Boxer Registry because of omissions such as these.


29. The previous long time sole Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) appointed Official Boxer Registry – Fight Fax – had been diligent in their record keeping of the boxers involved in the contests under the named UK operating commissions (Annex #4).

30. As such, it is our firm belief that Fight Fax should be retained as the only FTC/ABC Appointed Official Boxer Registry for the sport of professional boxing, as they are the only organization that fulfill all the requirements that ensure that Purposes of 2000 Amendment of the 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 are adhered to for the benefit of all commissions, whether in America or Worldwide.

31. It is our view that due to the failings of Mr. Mazzulli and the Association Of Boxing Commissions Executive Committee on this serious matter, that either:

A) The Association Of Boxing Commissions be required to revoke Boxrec’s Official Boxer Registry appointment immediately, and Boxrec should not be considered for the appointment in the future, until at least Boxrec prove without doubt, to not just the Association of Boxing Commissions but also the Federal Trade Commission, that they have addressed each and all issues and failings highlighted in this complaint, especially the use of unqualified ‘editors’ updating records and have established a proven history of at least three years of accurate record keeping.

B) An alternative organization, such as the Association Of Combative Sports Commissions (ACSC), an organization created by a number of Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) members, be appointed by the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the requirements of 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. (Annex #52)




Declaration
I declare that the information given in this form and in the Annexes thereto is given entirely in good faith.

[Impractical Poster]

That's a whole lot of words right there.

[chinarich]

The gist being that Boxrec doesn't recognise whatever shady sanctioning body Mr di Caro has created this week...

[DazDiCanio]

Say what you like about Rio, man can write a letter!

In all seriousness, lots of interesting points to ponder over.

[BitPlayer]

So boxrec is getting in the trouble for having too much trust in dodgy commisions and also in trouble for nottaking information for every dodgy commision? What do they expect boxrec to do?

The gist being that Boxrec doesn't recognise whatever shady sanctioning body Mr di Caro has created this week...

Yeah, while also blaming boxrec when other slightly less dodgy commisions give false info.

[LucaDiCaro]

So boxrec is getting in the trouble for having too much trust in dodgy commisions and also in trouble for nottaking information for every dodgy commision? What do they expect boxrec to do?

The gist being that Boxrec doesn't recognise whatever shady sanctioning body Mr di Caro has created this week...

Yeah, while also blaming boxrec when other slightly less dodgy commisions give false info.

The fake records are not commission submitted, they are added by boxrec 'editors', one such case of a dodgy Boxrec "editor" is Aldo Cajet, who was exposed listing fake records on Boxrec by a South American journalist - google him and you'll see all the press on this.

[LucaDiCaro]

So boxrec is getting in the trouble for having too much trust in dodgy commisions and also in trouble for nottaking information for every dodgy commision? What do they expect boxrec to do?

The gist being that Boxrec doesn't recognise whatever shady sanctioning body Mr di Caro has created this week...

Yeah, while also blaming boxrec when other slightly less dodgy commisions give false info.

The fake records are not commission submitted, they are added by boxrec 'editors', one such case of a dodgy Boxrec "editor" is Aldo Cajet, who was exposed listing fake records on Boxrec by a South American journalist - google him and you'll see all the press on this.

I'll make it easier for you as Aldo Cajet is highlighted in the Bloody Elbow article http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/11/2/13 ... ture-story

[asdfjkl]

Boxrec is still the most reliable list out there, somehow they should keep different weighclasses splitted.

So if you're the champion of the cruiserweight division but never fought at heavy, you're still a new guy in the heavyweight division and your cruiserweightrating shouldn't count at all, I repeat, not at all, someone like that should be seen as a new, unrated person.
This way it's pointless for David Haye for example to fight that cruiserweight who got a rating of 288, if Haye wins that with an early KO he's likely to become rank 1 or 2 of the heavyweight division straight away, that's just ridiculous, silly and idiotic.

[BitPlayer]

So boxrec is getting in the trouble for having too much trust in dodgy commisions and also in trouble for nottaking information for every dodgy commision? What do they expect boxrec to do?

Yeah, while also blaming boxrec when other slightly less dodgy commisions give false info.

The fake records are not commission submitted, they are added by boxrec 'editors', one such case of a dodgy Boxrec "editor" is Aldo Cajet, who was exposed listing fake records on Boxrec by a South American journalist - google him and you'll see all the press on this.

I'll make it easier for you as Aldo Cajet is highlighted in the Bloody Elbow article http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/11/2/13 ... ture-story

It says he works for the WPC, so I'd still sa this qualifies as dodgy comissions.

[handsofstone]

I'm sure many have read the Sun article https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/boxing/2 ... er-claims/

But here's the complaint that is being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in America and as you'll see this is happening all over the World - The Boxrec system is inherently corrupt, results should only be accepted from Commissions, not editors updating from other sources such as promoters, managers or media reports - Fight Fax only accept reports from Commissions so it can be done properly, question is does Boxrec want their system to be correct or not!

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF:

ASSOCIATION OF BOXING COMMISSIONS (ABC) FAILURE TO UNDERTAKE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE APPOINTING BOXREC AS AN OFFICIAL BOXER REGISTRY -15 USC Ch. 89 PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF 1996

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

1. This matter relates to the Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) failing to undertake reasonable Due Diligence before appointing BoxRec as Official Boxer Registry for the Sport of Professional Boxing, as Boxrec are an organization that is currently not fit for purpose, due to major inaccuracies and omissions that potentially could affect the health & safety of professional boxers Worldwide.

It should be noted that under the Presidency of Mr. Timothy J. Lueckenhoff (2001-2015), the Association Of Boxing Commissions had stated that it would not provide Boxrec Official Boxer Registry status due to its failings and more importantly it’s inaccuracies. (Annex #2 & #14)

Evidence of Boxrec’s continuing failings in critical areas have been supplied to the Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) by various sources, including ourselves - these failings fall into two distinct categories;

A) Boxrec’s Flawed Process for record updating and recording, a process that is proven to be prone to misuse by unscrupulous people with a vested interested, such as promoters and managers

B) Boxrec failure in updating Boxers records submitted by a number of recognized Boxing Commissions since April 2016.

It should be noted, that on this second matter, In August 2016, shortly after the appointment of Boxrec as official Boxer Registry, that Association of Boxing Commissions President Michael Mazzulli was presented the facts regarding this matter and indeed he had even written to BoxRec (and Fight Fax) an e.mail, dated 6th September 2016, in which he stated “In an effort to resolve this issue, all ABC boxing record keepers will actively recognized and record all pro boxing contests for all Commissions (including the United Kingdom) that are sent in by those Boxing Commissions recognized by the ABC” it should be noted that Boxrec failed to comply. (Annex #47 to #50)

Please note: that the Annex #49 document includes details of Boxrec failing to update FIFTY EIGHT (58) Licensed Professional Boxers records between April 2016 and August 2016, plus a number of licensed boxers from Commissions in Europe and Africa, that these boxers competed against, as well as malicious manipulation of a number of licensed Boxers Rankings.

However it should also be noted that neither Mr. Mazzulli or the Executive Board of the Association of Boxing Commissions took any form of action against Boxrec for failing to comply to Mr. Mazzulli’s written request, instead they chose to ostracize those that had alerted them of Boxrec’s failings and wrongdoings.

By failing to take any further action on this matter, or the other information and evidence of falsified records listed by Boxrec, the Association Of Boxing Commissions President, Mr. Michael Mazzulli and the Executive Committee, have continued to fail in their duties to ensure that an appointed official Boxer Registry meet the high standards as required by the Federal Trade Commission under the 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, for the health and safety of all professional boxers Worldwide.

BACKGROUND

2. Under the 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, §6301 Definition (3) Boxer Registry it states: “The term ‘Boxer Registry’ means any entity certified by the Association of Boxing Commissions for the purposes of maintaining records and identification of boxers” (Annex #1)

3. Under the short title of 2000 Amendment – heading Purposes of 2000 Amendment it is stated - (1) to protect the welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices; (2) to assist state boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry. (Annex #1)

4. The Association of Boxing Commissions appointed Boxrec as Official Boxer Registry at their AGM in August 2016, however the appointment was made without a vote from the membership.

5. Boxrec, a British privately owned British on-line record collector, is rated as approximately 70% accurate, which is not acceptable, especially when compared to long time ABC Appointed Boxer Registry Fight Fax, an American owned Incorporated company, whose record keeping is proven to be 100% accurate, whilst (Annex #2, #4 & #14).

6. Under the Presidency of Mr. Timothy J. Lueckenhoff (2001-2015), the Association Of Boxing Commissions had stated that it would not provide Boxrec Official Boxer Registry status due to its failings and more importantly it’s inaccuracies. (Annex #2 & #14)

7. Boxrec’s policies and procedures have not altered since Mr. Lueckenhoff’s tenure, as such the reasons stated but Mr. Lueckenhoff are as valid today as they were during his time as President of the ABC.

A) BOXREC’S FLAWED BOXER RECORD UPDATING PROCESS.

8. Without doubt the main issue is that Boxrec operates a process of updating records via in excess of eighty individuals around the world, often publishing results not from Commission submitted reports, but instead from media reports or other sources, such as promoters and managers, as such Boxrec is prone to misuse by unscrupulous people with a vested interested, such as promoters and managers (Annex #3 as well as #15, #16 & #17)

9. Long time ABC appointed Boxer Registry, Fight Fax operate a system of recording results that prevents misuse and falsification, as they only record and update Boxer records submitted direct from the recognized official commission that sanctioned the event, including those from our commission. (Annex #4)

10. Many commissions around the world, including our own, also submit results direct to BoxRec, as such these should be taken as accurately recorded. However that is not always the case when Boxrec are involved and examples of such failings in this area are also covered in this document and accompanying files.

One such example of Boxrec’s failings as a record keeper, even when the record updates are submitted to BoxRec by recognized commissions, involves a Boxer, who has a verified record of 14 wins, 60 losses and 3 draws correctly recorded by Fight Fax but on BoxRec his record is shown as 12 wins, 56 losses and 3 draws. (Annex #5 & #6 also see #49)

Please note: that the Annex #49 document contains details of Boxrec failing to update FIFTY EIGHT (58) Licensed Professional Boxers records between April 2016 and August 2016, plus a number of overseas licensed boxers that these boxers competed against, as well as malicious manipulation of Boxers Rankings.

11. Due to Boxrec’s failing to ensure that boxer records are accurately listed, when a match-up is made utilizing Boxrec published records there is potential for dangerously mismatched bouts.

12. A prime example relates to a World Boxing Council (WBC) Female World Championship contest, which was matched using Boxrec listed records, whereby one of the contestants record was stated by Boxrec as 11 Wins, 9 Losses and 0 draws, whereas the boxer’s actual record at the time was 0 Wins, 9 Losses and 0 Draws, which was correctly registered by Fight Fax. (Annex #18, #19 & #20)

As such the Female boxer was not only ineligible to compete for Championship honors but was without doubt in danger of potential serious injury.

In addition this action denied a truly eligible boxer the opportunity to fight for World Championship honors.

13. Another example is that a South American professional boxer who was murdered in 2012 but was still listed as active in 2016 by Boxrec, in fact according to Boxrec had competed a number of times in 2016, the last contest listed by Boxrec was in August 2016. (Annex #12 & #13)

14. In both the cases above Boxrec had been notified of the situation on numerous occasions, by individuals and media, but have only recently taken action, it appears since our sending the first draft of this complaint to the Association Of Boxing Commissions in September 2016, and only now have Boxrec finally removed the faked contests listings from the records of these particular boxers.

15. It should be noted that during the final compiling of the documents to support this complaint, we became aware of a major disparity between the Fight Fax and Boxrec recorded results for an African Boxer that competed on a British & Irish Boxing Authority (BIBA) sanctioned event in 2016.

Fight Fax have the boxer’s record listed as - 19 Wins, 12 Losses and 2 Draws, including the abovementioned contest.

However Boxrec have this particular boxer’s record substantially higher, by some thirteen bouts, not including the UK contest, which if they had listed would show a disparity of FOURTEEN ADDITIONAL BOUTS Listed by Boxrec (Annex #41 & #42)

Since Fight Fax only update records from officially submitted reports by the sanctioning commission, we are confident that the Boxer’s actual record is the one provided by them, especially as on checking the boxer’s record with Boxrec it showed no less than 36 of the bouts listed by Boxrec for this particular boxer are stated to be unverified (not submitted by a Commission).

We have included PDFs of the disputed contests listed by Boxrec that were supposedly undertaken by this particular boxer (Annex #54 to #67)

Whilst many do not even show the sanctioning commission, officials or promoter details, a few do show a commission, but no officials, promoter etc,

The most recent disputed result for this boxer, that is not listed by Fight Fax, but is listed by Boxrec, is particularly worrying in a number of ways. (Annex #67)

The Boxrec listing for the event does show a commission, as well as officials (referee & Judges) BUT for just one bout only. This bout is also the only one that has the actual result shown, including round and time of stoppage.

Suspicion that this is a falsified event listing is because of the other nine bouts listed, five ended by way of knockout, three by way of Technical Knockout and the final one by retirement, but we have been unable to find any record of the losing boxers involved having been suspended at or post this event, which is not normally the case – also it should be noted only four of the bouts listed show the weight division the boxers competed in.

One of these contests is shown as a first round knockout and includes the time, and the referee name, however the results do not show how many rounds the bout was scheduled for.

Of the other eight only the RTD shows the round the boxer retired in, but does not show how many rounds the bout is scheduled for, of the other seven none show what round the stoppage was in or how many rounds the contest was scheduled for.

PLEASE NOTE: Due to subsequent ongoing research, following the discovery of the fourteen fake or falsified bouts listed on the boxer’s record by Boxrec, that we have uncovered a substantial amount of further potentially falsified records on Boxrec for contests that have taken place in Ghana, which we are in the process of attempting to verify whether these are genuine or fake contests.

16. We also noticed disparity of two recorded bouts between the Fight Fax and Boxrec records for a French boxer that competed in the United Kingdom in 2016, firstly the verified bout that he took part under the auspices of the British & Irish Boxing Authoriy (BIBA) was not listed by Boxrec, and the second bout, that was not recorded by Fight Fax, but listed on BoxRec, shows as unverified and again shows no commission as sanctioning the event, for reference I have written to the only Moroccan Commission to ascertain if they sanctioned or know of the event, but have received no reply at this time (Annex #43 & #44)

17. Another prime example of the abuse that occurs with the process of ‘editors’ updating records with information supplied direct by the promoter, is that Boxrec knowingly have listed a number of ‘hobbyist’ boxers (not professionally licensed by any commission, as well as not having the required medicals and MRI scans) as professional. (Annex #7 through to #11 – also please see #51)

Please note that Annex #11 relates to a British Boxer, who was listed on Boxrec as boxing professionally, in January 2016, when in fact he had been competing as a ‘Hobbyist’ boxer, as at that time he was not licensed as a professional boxer or had the required professional standard medicals or MRI scans.

In February 2016 one of the boxers that fought as a ‘Hobbyist’ boxer applied to be a professionally licensed boxer and undertook the required medicals and MRI scan in February 2016, almost a month to the day from when he supposedly fought as a ‘professional’

The boxer in question confirmed and stated in writing on both his application and medical forms that he had not boxed professionally previously.

Please note: that when a boxer has his first scan he also is required to have an MRA scan, as you will see this was the case as there wasn’t a previous scan for comparison (Annex #11 & #51)

We are aware of further instances of British ‘hobbyist’ boxers competing on events against Professional boxers on events sanctioned by the same commission and am able to supply proof of 18 unlicensed and without the required professional standard medical and MRI scan, ‘hobbyist’ boxers that have done so, and listed by Boxrec as professional, since October 2015.

Boxrec, as well as the European Boxing Union (EBU), the World Boxing Council (WBC) and the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) were informed on a number occasions over the past year of this practice, as well as provided written proof, yet all chose to ignore the issue, and continue to do so to this day.

This lack of action by Boxrec, and others that had been informed such as the EBU, the WBC and the ABC, has put at least two of these ‘hobbyist’ boxers competing on these events in serious danger.

The first case relates to a ‘hobbyist’ boxer that competed on an event in 2015, and listed as boxing professionally on Boxrec, who is on a life time suspension by the Italian Federation (registered with the EBU), as well as refused licensing by the British & Irish Boxing Association, Malta Boxing Commission and the British Boxing Board of Control, due to having a serious life threatening spinal injury following a road traffic accident – this injury is so serious that the Chief Medical Officers of the four commissions named all concluded that his life would undoubtedly be at risk should he compete. (Annex #68 & #69 – also see #8)

The second case relates to a ‘hobbyist’ boxer, who was competing against a licensed professional boxer on a January 2016 event, collapsed in the ring and was hospitalized, luckily our Chief Medical Officer was on hand, as he was the cuts-man for one of the few actual professional boxers competing, and attended to the boxer prior to admitting him to hospital.

(B) BOXREC’S FAILURE TO UPDATE BOXER RECORDS AS SUBMITTED BY RECOGNIZED COMMISSIONS.

18. In addition Boxrec have been proven to take a discriminatory position with regard to certain Commissions and World Championship organizations, which includes Boxrec failing to update boxers records.

19. In April 2016 Boxrec initiated such a discriminatory policy with regard to updating of professional boxing records in the United Kingdom, whereby Boxrec have only been recording the results of just one Commission in the United Kingdom since that date. For reference Boxrec had updated the boxers records from all commissions sanctioning in the UK for a number of years previously. (Annex #29 & #30)

20. As far as we can ascertain this policy only relates to three of the four Commissions that sanction professional Boxing events in the United Kingdom, but this is a policy that also has had an adverse affect on Boxers licensed by other Commissions worldwide that had competed on events sanctioned by the three Commissions.

21. It should be noted, In August 2016, shortly after the appointment of Boxrec as official Boxer Registry, that Association of Boxing Commissions President Michael Mazzulli was presented the facts regarding this matter and indeed he had written, in an e.mail dated 6th September 2016, to BoxRec (and Fight Fax) stating “In an effort to resolve this issue, all ABC boxing record keepers will actively recognized and record all pro boxing contests for all Commissions (including the United Kingdom) that are sent in by those Boxing Commissions recognized by the ABC” it should be noted that Boxrec failed to comply. (Annex #47 to #50)

22. Please note: that the Annex #49 document contains details of Boxrec failing to update FIFTY EIGHT (58) Licensed Professional Boxers records between April 2016 and August 2016, plus a number of overseas licensed boxers that these boxers competed against, as well as malicious manipulation of Boxers Rankings.

23. It should also be noted that neither Mr. Mazzulli or the Executive Board of the Association of Boxing Commissions took any form of action against Boxrec for failing to comply to Mr. Mazzulli’s written request, instead they chose to ostracize those that had alerted them of Boxrec’s failings and wrongdoings.

24. For reference there is a recently initiated case, by the German Boxing Association’s (GBA) UK representative against the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC), a private limited liability company, not a government appointed sports governing commission, for Restraint of Trade, Restrictive Practices and Operating a Cartel along with other members from the European Boxing Union, a private limited liability company, whose sole purpose is the sanctioning of the EBU European Championship, the EBU is not government appointed or a regulatory body for European Boxing – this case also highlights Boxrec’s involvement in the restrictive practices undertaken by the BBBofC led illegal Cartel. Paragraph 3 of the document states;
“The Board have exerted pressure on third parties to not advertise or log any records relating to other Regulatory bodies who dare to be involved with the UK market (BoxRec are a classic example).”

This case has been submitted to the Competitions & Markets Authority (CMA) as well as the European Union Markets Authority (UK & European equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission) (Annex #31)

It should be noted that Boxrec’s biased policy in this case appears to relate to the UK, as far as we are aware, as Boxrec not only list the results of the Four National Commissions that operate in Germany, but also update the results of events sanctioned by non-German commissions in Germany, such as the Austrian and Luxembourg Commissions, as well as German Commission’s sanctioned events in other European Countries, such as Poland. (Annex #32 to #38)

For reference under European Trade law, European Companies and organizations have freedom of cross border trading. Below is part of the statement on the European Commissions website http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/index_en.htm
One of the European Union’s most significant achievements is the Single Market. Its fundamental freedoms entitle businesses and citizens to move and interact freely in a borderless Union.
The steady lowering of the barriers between EU Member States has brought numerous benefits to citizens. Citizens in their capacity as consumers have enjoyed a number of economic benefits such as lower air fares and mobile telephone roaming charges and the possibility to access a larger variety of products. Traders have been able to extend their activities cross-border, by importing and exporting goods, providing services and establishing themselves abroad. Thus they benefit from the economies of scale and the greater business opportunities that the single market offers.
For further insight on EU Anti-Trust: Restrictive Practices and Abuse of Dominant Position - please see competition rules Article 101(3) formerly Article 81(3) TEC) (Annex #39) or on-line http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 14&from=EN

Also see Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty (Annex #40) or see on-line http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 7)&from=EN

25. Boxrec has also failed to record certain Championship contests, namely those of 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 compliant USA based World Boxing Union (WBU), as well as the International Masters & British Masters, even though they had done so for many years previously. (Annex #5 & #6 as well as #21 to #28 )

26. On compiling the documents for the Annex, we discovered that Boxrec had very recently removed (September 2016) all MBC International Championship results and the Championship listing, as well as removed the Championships from the boxers records. However we already had PDFs of both the Male & Female Championship bouts as previously listed on Boxrec pre April 2016 (Annex #70 & #71)

27. By initiating this policy, not only have Boxrec adversely affected the Boxers licensed by the BIBA, GBA and MBC but also those boxers licensed by other professional boxing commissions World-wide, including those in North America, as well as have directly put all professional boxers health and safety at risk, as should a match up be based on the Boxrec published record, a boxer may find him or herself competing against a vastly more experienced, or even a Championship winning, boxer which is not indicated in the Boxrec listing of that particular boxer (Annex # 41 to #46).

28. Whilst not directly relating to the USA, it should be noted that it does highlight Boxrec’s failings and bias and as such not a fit operation to be an FTC/ABC Official Boxer Registry because of omissions such as these.


29. The previous long time sole Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) appointed Official Boxer Registry – Fight Fax – had been diligent in their record keeping of the boxers involved in the contests under the named UK operating commissions (Annex #4).

30. As such, it is our firm belief that Fight Fax should be retained as the only FTC/ABC Appointed Official Boxer Registry for the sport of professional boxing, as they are the only organization that fulfill all the requirements that ensure that Purposes of 2000 Amendment of the 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 are adhered to for the benefit of all commissions, whether in America or Worldwide.

31. It is our view that due to the failings of Mr. Mazzulli and the Association Of Boxing Commissions Executive Committee on this serious matter, that either:

A) The Association Of Boxing Commissions be required to revoke Boxrec’s Official Boxer Registry appointment immediately, and Boxrec should not be considered for the appointment in the future, until at least Boxrec prove without doubt, to not just the Association of Boxing Commissions but also the Federal Trade Commission, that they have addressed each and all issues and failings highlighted in this complaint, especially the use of unqualified ‘editors’ updating records and have established a proven history of at least three years of accurate record keeping.

B) An alternative organization, such as the Association Of Combative Sports Commissions (ACSC), an organization created by a number of Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) members, be appointed by the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the requirements of 15 USC Ch. 89 Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. (Annex #52)
Whoops sorry didn't mean to quote such a long post



Declaration
I declare that the information given in this form and in the Annexes thereto is given entirely in good faith.

[Sequitorian]

... so edit it and remove the original ... (you're wasting paper) ...

[Enlightened-One]

I couldn't be bothered to read a legal jargon wall of text like that.

[AntonS]

Other than Boxrec, where does Fight Fax get Australian official results? Our commissions mainly send them to me & I don't forward them to Fight Fax. Same applies in New Zealand. They are only sent to our NZ editor.

Can someone tell me what Fight Fax has got on http://boxrec.com/boxer/202587 ?? He has threatened to sue us if we don't record 20 odd KOs he scored in Fiji, and 3 in Australia

[squiggy]

Boxrec is still the most reliable list out there, somehow they should keep different weighclasses splitted.

So if you're the champion of the cruiserweight division but never fought at heavy, you're still a new guy in the heavyweight division and your cruiserweightrating shouldn't count at all, I repeat, not at all, someone like that should be seen as a new, unrated person.
This way it's pointless for David Haye for example to fight that cruiserweight who got a rating of 288, if Haye wins that with an early KO he's likely to become rank 1 or 2 of the heavyweight division straight away, that's just ridiculous, silly and idiotic.

But if you're, say, Roy Jones Jr. coming into your fight with John Ruiz, you're *not* the equivalent of some new heavyweight pro with no experience outside the amateurs. You're a somewhat diminished version of the familiar Roy Jones, which is accurately reflected by removing some percentage of pre-existing rank points.

[asdfjkl]

Boxrec is still the most reliable list out there, somehow they should keep different weighclasses splitted.

So if you're the champion of the cruiserweight division but never fought at heavy, you're still a new guy in the heavyweight division and your cruiserweightrating shouldn't count at all, I repeat, not at all, someone like that should be seen as a new, unrated person.
This way it's pointless for David Haye for example to fight that cruiserweight who got a rating of 288, if Haye wins that with an early KO he's likely to become rank 1 or 2 of the heavyweight division straight away, that's just ridiculous, silly and idiotic.

But if you're, say, Roy Jones Jr. coming into your fight with John Ruiz, you're *not* the equivalent of some new heavyweight pro with no experience outside the amateurs. You're a somewhat diminished version of the familiar Roy Jones, which is accurately reflected by removing some percentage of pre-existing rank points.

Then it matters what weightclass they do it at and what boxer proved himself up to what point in that class. If both never fought at that weight they should simply be seen as newboy nobodies.

[Ilya Muromets]

Is BoxRec now that influential? How big an operation is BoxRec anyway? How many people run it?

Fake records? Sure I believe it. Padded records? Likewise. Fixed fights? Does a bear s in the woods? Fixed boxing judgettes? See prev. Fixed refs? Likewise. Fixed tv shills. Same. Fixed matchmaking? Same. Fixed drug testing? Same again. Fixed alphabet rankings? Need you ask? Boxers and boxing managers cross the wrong gangsters and get bumped off or badly hurt? See Boytsov and Sergei Kobozev and Edwin Valero and Polish mobster known as Pershing for your answer. The list goes on.

[SportsRatings]

Boxrec is still the most reliable list out there, somehow they should keep different weighclasses splitted.

So if you're the champion of the cruiserweight division but never fought at heavy, you're still a new guy in the heavyweight division and your cruiserweightrating shouldn't count at all, I repeat, not at all, someone like that should be seen as a new, unrated person.
This way it's pointless for David Haye for example to fight that cruiserweight who got a rating of 288, if Haye wins that with an early KO he's likely to become rank 1 or 2 of the heavyweight division straight away, that's just ridiculous, silly and idiotic.

But if you're, say, Roy Jones Jr. coming into your fight with John Ruiz, you're *not* the equivalent of some new heavyweight pro with no experience outside the amateurs. You're a somewhat diminished version of the familiar Roy Jones, which is accurately reflected by removing some percentage of pre-existing rank points.

Then it matters what weightclass they do it at and what boxer proved himself up to what point in that class. If both never fought at that weight they should simply be seen as newboy nobodies.

I do boxing ratings--heavyweight only, so of course only HW bouts count, and in my case I can only rely on a boxer's previous experience at heavyweight. For my purposes, Haye will gain nothing by beating Bellew, and if Bellew wins he will be 1-0 with a pretty good ranking!

I can see the point with the Jones vs. Ruiz fight. It sucks for Ruiz if he beats near-peak Roy Jones and doesn't gain any points--but again, a light heavyweight moving up to HW shouldn't be considered a threat in most circumstances. As it turns out Jones won, debuted at I think #5 in my rankings back then, and then went "inactive" and slid down the rankings over the next few years (though I did dock him for his losses at LH -- that way if a LH beats the HW champ, he can't stay #1 while losing to a bunch of LHs).

Normally, most LH or CW who move to HW already have a few bouts here and there at HW. Haye, for example, beat Tomasz Bonin in 2007, so he was already ranked when he fought Barrett and then Valuev. Normally in my top 100 HW rankings there are at least a half-dozen cruiserweights who have a random win or two at HW. But there are many notables who are not, such as Marco Huck, who Povetkin gained nothing by beating in 2012. Huck is schedules to fight Mairis Briedis, who IS ranked, but since the fight is at CW Huck won't be ranked if he wins (though Briedis would be docked for losing).

In short, it's hard to deal with weight classes in a reasonable way. Since I only do HW I can keep things simple, but BoxRec has a lot more to consider when ranking fighters who are jumping weight classes all over. I wouldn't even want to ponder handling the lighter weight classes like Welter, super welter, etc. where fighters move a class every other fight, or have catchweights.

[Ilya Muromets]

Re above: Far too many weight classes in boxing , with the exception of heavyweight where there aren't enough.

[SportsRatings]

I like posts like this....I've always wondered how BoxRec is received by the boxing world, and I remember their application to become the de facto boxing record, and how it was turned down.

The truth is that for 99% of boxing fans BoxRec already is the standard. Just as imdb became the standard for movie listings, BoxRec is the standard for boxing records. That example doesn't quite work because there wasn't an offline standard before imdb. Maybe a better comparison is Amazon vs. Barnes and Noble. The former is the #1 bookseller, the online disruptor, while the latter still exists like FightFax does in the offline world.

For my money BoxRec is the greating thing to happen to boxing, and one of the all-time best web sites in terms of service provided to users. If every sport had a BoxRec we'd be better off. Before BoxRec if you wanted to know Ali's full record you could maybe...go to a library? Even then, good luck. I'm sure many boxing publications had it, but unless you were a very hardcore boxing fan you just wouldn't have that information. Now, any casual fan can know Ali's full record in a click. It's what the internet is for, information.

But as with any large online site, I'm sure there are problems. Look at Wikipedia -- again, amazing site, but it's an understatement to say there are some factual errors probably in any given article! So I'm always curious to know how BoxRec is vetted, how fights are added, removed (I know BoxRec used to contain thousands of bare-knuckle fights, and those were systematically removed over the years), and that the possibility exists for fake fights to creep in, and legit fights to be left out.

I'll take the good with the bad though. BoxRec's reliability level is pretty high, despite what the OP says. I keep seeing people say "there are fake fights and wrong information on BoxRec" but they never link to a single example. I'm sure there are for really old fights or really obscure boxers, but are there examples for any modern fighter people have heard of?

[punchoutsb]

... so edit it and remove the original ... (you're wasting paper) ...

You of all people should not talk about wasting paper

[thomasjkelley]

Boxrec is a database. A deposit for information and record. Records can be added and records can be removed. This seems more like a case of somebody wanting sole comtrol over these records himself and therefore wants boxrec to be considered as untrustworthy aka #fakenews. It's a popular m.o. of destroying someone's validity. Otherwise it's a simple case of miscommunication which could be remedied with a simple phone call or email. Of course they claim they have tried that but why would boxrec ignore such an inquiry? Makes no sense.

[dw01]

So what is Boxrec going to do about the alleged corruption with 'editors' ? Someone could get seriously hurt, or killed, if they've been allowed to falsely inflate their records so they can make challenges to more experienced fighters?

Also, i thought Boxrec previously boasted that they weren't "official record keepers", but seems they now are.

[dw01]

Boxrec is a database. A deposit for information and record. Records can be added and records can be removed. This seems more like a case of somebody wanting sole comtrol over these records himself and therefore wants boxrec to be considered as untrustworthy aka #fakenews. It's a popular m.o. of destroying someone's validity. Otherwise it's a simple case of miscommunication which could be remedied with a simple phone call or email. Of course they claim they have tried that but why would boxrec ignore such an inquiry? Makes no sense.

Obviously, this is all between the BIBA/MBC and BoxRec. It seems it's permissible for BoxRec to change their stance on BIBA by not listing them, so BIBA wish to highlight the inefficiencies within the BoxRec system. Pretty much tit-for-tat, however, when it comes to SAFETY, then BoxRec really does need to find a formula that works to verify records area accurate. They're quick off the mark to not recognise BIBA/MBC without given reason, which is quite unprofessional, especially as they had previously recognised them, and there'd been no reason to suddenly stop.