Gary Sykes Lonsdale Belt Question

[Jimmy2025]

Please may somebody clarify why Gary Sykes did not win the Lonsdale Belt outright? I can't get my head around it. There's been an ongoing grassroots campaign for Gary to be awarded the belt but it's all from people who are close to him (Julian, Big P, etc). Any objective response welcome. Thanks.

[mickey1975]

I've only heard their version. If it's true it's because Johannesson was a replacement then that is mad. CJ was a killer at that level. I was ringside that night and he heavily dropped Sykes. Was it around the time they changed it to three defences instead of three wins?

[Jimmy2025]

I've only heard their version. If it's true it's because Johannesson was a replacement then that is mad. CJ was a killer at that level. I was ringside that night and he heavily dropped Sykes. Was it around the time they changed it to three defences instead of three wins?

Even though he was a replacement, Carl was the mandatory, however, the Board seem to have argued that even though he was mandatory, it wasn't a mandatory defence because he was a replacement. That reads completely bonkers and sounds completely bonkers but I have never heard anybody say that wasn't the reason.

Edit: Looked up rule change to confirm, it was '99.

[mickey1975]

Maybe because he didn't make three defenses. He won it twice and defended it twice.

[Jimmy2025]

"On 1 September 1999 the BBBofC changed the criteria for winning a belt outright; boxers must now win four—rather than three—championship contests in the same weight division. The rule also stipulates that one of the four wins must be a mandatory contest."

That's from Wikipedia but echoes my understanding. Four wins, same weight, at least one must be mandatory. It doesn't state four defences.

Maybe the Board could clarify, I'm fairly sure in Gary's case it comes down to CJ somehow being a mandatory but not a mandatory at the same time?

I would like the Board to clarify but they are probably busy in Saudi shining shoes or whatever.

[mickey1975]

I hope he gets it. It was me who was responsible for this coming up again on the show...

[Jimmy2025]

I hope he gets it. It was me who was responsible for this coming up again on the show...

Well done. Keep the pressure on.

[mickey1975]

I hope he gets it. It was me who was responsible for this coming up again on the show...

Well done. Keep the pressure on.

I just saw Denzil Browne getting his (much cheaper) belts and thought I'd let them know.

[Coco]

I think it's 4 wins, including a mandatory defence now

[olij999]

It's in the Regs at https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2024.pdf

Reg 22.28: "The Board shall award a Lord Lonsdale Championship Challenge Belt for every British Championship and such belt shall become the property of any Boxer who shall win a Championship contest on four occasions in the same weight division, such wins to include at least one mandatory defence. No Boxer shall receive more than one belt as his own property in any one weight division. In the event of a Champion not being called upon to defend his title for a period of three years from winning the title date, the Board may, at its discretion, authorise the belt to become the property of such Champion."

[Jimmy2025]

It's in the Regs at https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2024.pdf

Reg 22.28: "The Board shall award a Lord Lonsdale Championship Challenge Belt for every British Championship and such belt shall become the property of any Boxer who shall win a Championship contest on four occasions in the same weight division, such wins to include at least one mandatory defence. No Boxer shall receive more than one belt as his own property in any one weight division. In the event of a Champion not being called upon to defend his title for a period of three years from winning the title date, the Board may, at its discretion, authorise the belt to become the property of such Champion."

Okay. So he did all that but no belt? It does seem to come down to what I wrote yesterday I.e. even though Carl Johannesen was Gary's mandatory, because he was not the original scheduled opponent, the fight was classed as a voluntary defence rather than one mandated by the Board, even though had they mandated the fight the opponent would have been the same bloke. Semantics then?

[Twinkle Toes]

Interesting.

From what I have read it would appear Sykes was down to fight Paul Truscott in a voluntary and that was called off to fight Johannesan instead.

It appears that somehow the fight wasn't mandated as a champion fighting his mandatory, but it did count as a defence of the title.

[Jimmy2025]

Interesting.

From what I have read it would appear Sykes was down to fight Paul Truscott in a voluntary and that was called off to fight Johannesan instead.

It appears that somehow the fight wasn't mandated as a champion fighting his mandatory, but it did count as a defence of the title.

Carl lobbied the Board that he, as mandatory, should be getting the shot not Truscott. That's the reason for the Truscott fight being binned and Carl coming in, as far as I understand. Yet the fight still didn't get classed as a mandatory defence?

The only thing I can think is that because the switch only happened about three weeks before the fight, Carl didn't have much time to prepare....

Why call for the fight if you are not ready, though?

A small story with a big impact on two or three people's lives.

[Twinkle Toes]

It does appear to be very unfair. Sykes talking about he lonsdale in the following video

[margaret thatcher]

wow if thats true CJ was mandatory yet wasnt counted as mandatory because he was a replacement that is a massive pair of bullocks

[Jimmy2025]

wow if thats true CJ was mandatory yet wasnt counted as mandatory because he was a replacement that is a massive pair of bullocks

IMO it smacks to me of the Board trying to save some money on the belt by being smartarses with wording. I wish they'd come out and properly explain themselves for clarity but I get the impression they dgaf.

[Coco]

wow if thats true CJ was mandatory yet wasnt counted as mandatory because he was a replacement that is a massive pair of bullocks

IMO it smacks to me of the Board trying to save some money on the belt by being smartarses with wording. I wish they'd come out and properly explain themselves for clarity but I get the impression they dgaf.

Something they can spend some of the 100k from Eubank on
Doesn't even have any gold in anymore
Cheap enough to make these days

[margaret thatcher]

i am defo for a campaign to get him the belt, i didnt know of his situation but reading the logic behind him not getting it is ridiculous, total scrooge dickhead move not to give it to him

[funso banjo baby]

Sounds like a major injustice.

[therealhustle]

Forgive my political boxing ignorance, but why don’t they just give him the belt for the sake of a few grand? If they’re struggling financially, they can always take out of Eubank Jnr’s £100k

[Darcy Delaney]

Lenny Daws had 4 British Title defences 3 wins 1 draw (you keep the title with a draw)and the board refused to award him a Lonsdale Belt

[Jimmy2025]

Forgive my political boxing ignorance, but why don’t they just give him the belt for the sake of a few grand? If they’re struggling financially, they can always take out of Eubank Jnr’s £100k

There must be a reason and like Darcy's post below yours about Lenny Daws, it must be something to do with what constitutes a mandatory defence. I will read up on Lenny's situation later but with Gary, until somebody can convince me otherwise, it seems like a very harsh call from the Board.

Edit: Darcy, you need to WIN four championship bouts in the same weight division (one must be a mandatory) to keep the belt outright. Lenny only won three. I've not got a problem with that as the rules are the rules (that said, should he have got the nod against Jason, maybe).

[SeanBrennan]

Sykes has had lots of issues post-career, there'd be a lot of good grace in issuing him with the belt I think regardless of semantics about the rules in this case.