Why are pro coaches universally banned by BBBoC for involvement in unlicensed & white collar boxing...

[SAPFO]

...when there are a very small number of them that are ran better than ABA shows? I do get the need for caution, as there are cowboys out there putting untrained people in danger, but surely it must be judged on a case by case basis? I know of one recent banned pro coach, who also runs a very well established White Collar Boxing event on a regular basis. This one in particular is a premier event, and no safety precaution is spared. Everything is geared towards the safety of the participants, and an enjoyable event. From good matching, to regular check spars, a weight check, a pre-fight medical, paramedics ringside, and ambulance outside, an anaesthetist ringside, 16oz gloves with heavy padding, and insurance. I may even have left something out there, but you get my point.

I get they cannot attend every shown and make a judgement, but if you can provide evidence that you are running safe show, (and 99% will not to be able to) then why not even consider it?


I know some here don't like it, but the fact is it's better to have trained people, running safe shows, than the local cowboy sticking unsafe shows on for a quick £$£$, which I am sure we've all seen. It is also an income stream for the coaches in the game who are generally not paid very well though the pro game.

[mickey1975]

Loads are heavily involved. The lines have blurred between all forms of boxing.

[Oiky]

i saw some IBA stuff on a youtube channel a few days back there was some of the usual old sh*t on there but some of the fights looked a lot better than what i remember them putting on

i think in the eyes of the BBoC it damages that coaches credibility and their credibility if they are known to be involved in unlicensed fighting.

but yeah if it earns them a few quid and they want to do it in my opinion i don't think they should be banned for it at all, let em get on with it

[Wales]

Loads are heavily involved. The lines have blurred between all forms of boxing.

Only last month the Welsh ABA lifted the ban on semi pros returning to compete in Amateurs. Previously any fighter who had fought semi pro no matter how old, how frequent or in what guise was banned

They can now switch from semi pro to open class in Wales (don't know if same in other home nations)

[Wales]

i think in the eyes of the BBoC it damages that coaches credibility and their credibility if they are known to be involved in unlicensed fighting.
TU:

Firstly it's not unlicensed, just not licenced by BBBOC.

Personally I think it's BBBOC protecting their product / business and ensuring it remains market leader.
If you owned the biggest and best chip shop in town you wouldn't let your staff go and do a bit frying fish for another chip shop that'd just set up.

[Oiky]

i think in the eyes of the BBoC it damages that coaches credibility and their credibility if they are known to be involved in unlicensed fighting.
TU:

Firstly it's not unlicensed, just not licenced by BBBOC.

Personally I think it's BBBOC protecting their product / business and ensuring it remains market leader.
If you owned the biggest and best chip shop in town you wouldn't let your staff go and do a bit frying fish for another chip shop that'd just set up.

yeah i know its licensed by small governing bodies and what have you but its just easier to call it unlicensed fighting like its been called for years lol

and yeah you have a point there i see what you mean, and some of these shows do turn over a few quid but surely the BBBoC wouldln't see them as that much of a threat, at least i wouldln't of thought so anyway.

but then again, some pro shows have cards where there isn't a KO all night, some unlicensed shows have 3-4 KOs in one night so that'll get punters talking.

i don't mind unlicensed if its done properly tbh, i don't like to see mismatches and promoters putting someone in the ring who's levels below their "selected" fighter just to line their pockets, but if the fights are good and competitve then i'll watch. there'll always be that mismatch element to unlicensed but from what i saw the other week theres more quality floating about today for sure

[dalcumly]

I think the burning question in this debate is why all those involved are not licensed with the Boxing Board?
If on occasion in the 'unlicensed' circuit all safeguards are taken, then why is the promoter not licensed with the Board?
There's a whole load of reasons for unlicensed boxing, but the biggest reason is that the promoter can make more money than he/she would under the Boards rules and regulations.

[SAPFO]

In this particular case it is a true white collar boxing club, with a lot of high-flying legal professionals competing, they are not going to turn over as pro's, most do it for the experience. You can't run a cowboy show when you've got lawyers & barristers in the ring. They'd have your house if anything went wrong due to lack of safety precautions. If the BBBoC took these shows under their wing, and they all had to satisfy certain criteria, and pay a fee with covered their costs, with the courts then clamping down on the bandits, it would make the game safer.

I just don't get it. BBBoC are a governing body, not a court. How can they tell you what you cannot do outside of their shows? It seems to be a case of "It's our ball, and if you play with anybody else, you can't play with ours" I am pretty sure if someone was brave enough to push this into a courtroom they'd win. It'd be risky though. BBBoC do not own the rights to the art of boxing.




WCB / Unlicenced has given the pro game a new fanbase from what I see. Pro boxing WAS dying one it's arse a few years ago, and anybody who never had the chance to box Am as a kid, but still wanted to test themselves, went down the MMA route as a quick way of getting some action. Now these people can box as a hobby, MMA is on the downward, and boxing is on the upward, well in the UK anyway. It's opened the sport to to so many new people, how is it a bad thing if run properly, as in the case of this event I mention?

[Matt W]

As a governing body the BBBofC governs its own members, not the whole sport. I'm curious as to how would it be in their interests to regulate, especially as they must have enough to be getting on with in regulating pro boxing. As someone above has said, I would think there is a reason that the fighters aren't professionals and it's professional boxers that the Board is responsible for. Also, I might be wrong but I would think most organisations would be reluctant to be under the authority of the Board, or anybody else for that matter; there must be a reason they don't seek to be licensed and I would guess money is a big one, why would they want to lose any of that when they can do as they please now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of unlicensed stuff and think that safety has to be paramount in all forms of boxing, and I do think there is a place for white collar workers etc that just want to give it a go and raise a bit of money for charity. But realistically I think any move to regulate needs to be prompted from beyond the sport.

[dalcumly]

Do lads/men who take part in unlicensed boxing have annual(any) brain scans and are these compared by a consultant when a new one is presented? How often are they allowed to box? Is there an anaesthetist plus a doctor present at all shows? How capable are the referees in terms of indentifying a serious injury during a contest? What size are the rings? Who inspects the bandaging of the hands before the gloves are put on? What exactly are the insurance arrangements for all those taking part, especially the boxers?
These are all issues the Board have dealt with, from experience, and put in place to make the sport as safe as possible. Why would the Board compromise themselves by allowing any of their members to be involved in the unlicensed circuit where safety concerns have not been fully addressed.

[SAPFO]

Because what they do outside of BBBoC shows is actually none of their business in reality. Why shouldn't you be allowed to take your skills elsewhere to earn a living? And as you said, they don't want no part of it, so they should stay out of it.

[leejonesjnr]

When applying for a boxers license, trainers license etc, one agrees to have no involvement in any combat sport outside of BBBoC professional boxing.
For this reason alone it shouldn't be happening.
Those that feel strongly to the contrary should either appeal and campaign for change before getting involved in unlicensed boxing and the like, or return their license and operate in whatever field they wish outside of the BBBoC.
I accept that there are people who don't agree with 'the rules' but I believe that doesn't make it right cheating and trying to get away with doing things that you have agreed not to do.

[dalcumly]

From a simple legal perspective.

At an unlicensed show a 'boxer' dies. At the inquest its revealed that his trainer/referee/ etc are license holders with the BBB of C. If it was the case that the Board allowed their license holders to participate in unlicensed shows it would bring them into the legal discussions and require them to be legally represented. Do I need to say anymore ?

[Matt W]

When applying for a boxers license, trainers license etc, one agrees to have no involvement in any combat sport outside of BBBoC professional boxing.
For this reason alone it shouldn't be happening.
Those that feel strongly to the contrary should either appeal and campaign for change before getting involved in unlicensed boxing and the like, or return their license and operate in whatever field they wish outside of the BBBoC.
I accept that there are people who don't agree with 'the rules' but I believe that doesn't make it right cheating and trying to get away with doing things that you have agreed not to do.

Exactly. People know the terms on which they become members, it's up to them to make a choice as to which way they want to go.

[Matt W]

From a simple legal perspective.

At an unlicensed show a 'boxer' dies. At the inquest its revealed that his trainer/referee/ etc are license holders with the BBB of C. If it was the case that the Board allowed their license holders to participate in unlicensed shows it would bring them into the legal discussions and require them to be legally represented. Do I need to say anymore ?

Very true. And when considering the reasons for any such tragedy should it occur then the accepted safety standards of the Board would be highlighted and the question would have to be asked as to why they weren't in place. My guess is that the answer would be money, and it essentially comes down to lower standards of care for the boxers.

[tobyh5]

Restraint of trade surely. Stopping a person earning money through all available revenue streams. Selling your soul does not come with asking for a licence from a governing body. Licence holders are human beings with a skill set that enables them to earn money, if they want to earn it in different sections of their sport, they should be allowed.

If you work for a plumbing company should you not be allowed to fix a pipe unless it is for the company? Born free, live free, die free. One life to do with it as you see fit and no one should have the right to stop you doing something which you want to do. You may say "if you do not like it, do not agree to it and dont try and get a BBBofC licence but I think someone should legally challenge this unfair restraint that is put on people.

[The Insider]

Restraint of trade surely. Stopping a person earning money through all available revenue streams. Selling your soul does not come with asking for a licence from a governing body. Licence holders are human beings with a skill set that enables them to earn money, if they want to earn it in different sections of their sport, they should be allowed.

If you work for a plumbing company should you not be allowed to fix a pipe unless it is for the company? Born free, live free, die free. One life to do with it as you see fit and no one should have the right to stop you doing something which you want to do. You may say "if you do not like it, do not agree to it and dont try and get a BBBofC licence but I think someone should legally challenge this unfair restraint that is put on people.

How deep are your pockets. I believe it's been tried in the past but I'm not sure on the outcome?

[dalcumly]

I'll give you another analogy alongside the plumbing one. You're a member of a golf club. You break the rules and are refused membership. Play golf anywhere you like nobodies stopping you. You're just not allowed to play in our club! I don't see any restriction of trade issue at all.
If people want to engage in unlicensed boxing - no problem. But you will not be licensed with the Board.
To get back to the plumbing analogy. If I own a plumbing business and I employ you, and I find out your doing 'homers' using my tools and fittings then your out!!

[Oiky]

In this particular case it is a true white collar boxing club, with a lot of high-flying legal professionals competing, they are not going to turn over as pro's, most do it for the experience. You can't run a cowboy show when you've got lawyers & barristers in the ring. They'd have your house if anything went wrong due to lack of safety precautions. If the BBBoC took these shows under their wing, and they all had to satisfy certain criteria, and pay a fee with covered their costs, with the courts then clamping down on the bandits, it would make the game safer.

I just don't get it. BBBoC are a governing body, not a court. How can they tell you what you cannot do outside of their shows? It seems to be a case of "It's our ball, and if you play with anybody else, you can't play with ours" I am pretty sure if someone was brave enough to push this into a courtroom they'd win. It'd be risky though. BBBoC do not own the rights to the art of boxing.




WCB / Unlicenced has given the pro game a new fanbase from what I see. Pro boxing WAS dying one it's arse a few years ago, and anybody who never had the chance to box Am as a kid, but still wanted to test themselves, went down the MMA route as a quick way of getting some action. Now these people can box as a hobby, MMA is on the downward, and boxing is on the upward, well in the UK anyway. It's opened the sport to to so many new people, how is it a bad thing if run properly, as in the case of this event I mention?

this is a good post

and some of the bouts on the unlicensed shows are fiery and exciting from start to finish, this will always get people talking and coming back for more

[leejonesjnr]

At a typical unlicensed boxing show, what percentage of ticket sales are to someone who doesn't know anyone taking part in the show but are just there to see some boxing?

[tobyh5]

I'll give you another analogy alongside the plumbing one. You're a member of a golf club. You break the rules and are refused membership. Play golf anywhere you like nobodies stopping you. You're just not allowed to play in our club! I don't see any restriction of trade issue at all.
If people want to engage in unlicensed boxing - no problem. But you will not be licensed with the Board.
To get back to the plumbing analogy. If I own a plumbing business and I employ you, and I find out your doing 'homers' using my tools and fittings then your out!!

Not an equal analogy. No golf club would ban you for playing at another club. You could be banned for breaking rules to do with etiquette or how you conduct yourself, a criminal conviction etc which would be the equivalent to being banned for breaking a boxing rule such as failing a drug test or throwing a table at a press conference which is fair enough.

As for using tools - uhm, what tools can they possibly be using that belong to the BBBofC?!!?!?!

Not an equal analogy at all.

[Oiky]

I'll give you another analogy alongside the plumbing one. You're a member of a golf club. You break the rules and are refused membership. Play golf anywhere you like nobodies stopping you. You're just not allowed to play in our club! I don't see any restriction of trade issue at all.
If people want to engage in unlicensed boxing - no problem. But you will not be licensed with the Board.
To get back to the plumbing analogy. If I own a plumbing business and I employ you, and I find out your doing 'homers' using my tools and fittings then your out!!

Not an equal analogy. No golf club would ban you for playing at another club. You could be banned for breaking rules to do with etiquette or how you conduct yourself, a criminal conviction etc which would be the equivalent to being banned for breaking a boxing rule such as failing a drug test or throwing a table at a press conference which is fair enough.

As for using tools - uhm, what tools can they possibly be using that belong to the BBBofC?!!?!?!

Not an equal analogy at all.

i understood it

[leejonesjnr]

I'm absolutely livid.
I've just been to a seafood restaurant down by the harbour here in Reykjavik and ordered a Big Mac and they wouldn't serve me one.
I told them it's my human right to eat whatever I wanted and the idiots told me that if I wanted to eat there I would order from their menu.
It's a scandal.

[SAPFO]

Anyway, back to the point, a blanket ban is a joke.

Restraint of trade clauses are usually contractual clauses that go too far in limiting competition on the market. Under the proper functioning of competition law it is the policy of the law to ensure that all traders are free to select with whom they contract.

It follows that any clauses which seek to restrain this power and impede selection should be void on the grounds of public policy unless it is reasonable to do so and it is in the public interest.

When will a restraint of trade be regarded as reasonable and not to breach the public interest?

When deciding as to whether restraint of trade clauses in a contract are reasonable and not in breach of the public interest in free trade the court will take into consideration a number of factors.

Accordingly the clauses in the contract must be no more than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party relying upon it. No party is allowed simply to restrict competition because they may wish to they will need to show that it is required to protect their legitimate interests.

Issues of contractual consideration will also be looked at by the court – for example the court will look into whether the party that has been restrained has been paid enough for that restraint.

[leejonesjnr]

I agree with the idea of a ban, but regardless, in actual fact it's not a no questions asked blanket ban.