WHAT DOES IT MEAN

1southpaw · Post by **1southpaw** » 14 May 2007, 23:34

I AM JUST WONDERING THAT IF YOU BOX AND WIN A (BRITISH MASTERS) TITLE WHAT ARE YOU ACTULY A CHAMPION OF I KNOW THAT IF YOU WIN THE SOUTHERN AREA / BRITISH / COMMONWEALTH / EURO / OR WORLD TITLES (THEY EXPLAIN THERE SELF) I KNOW SOME PEOPLE CALL IT A JOURNEYMANS TITLE BUT WHAT ARE YOU THE CHAMPION OF

Marlin · Post by **Marlin** » 15 May 2007, 02:46

I can only think of the IFBB Masters Professional World Championships which refer to the older generation of bodybuilders... Is the British Masters Title for the older generation of Brit boxers?[/b]

Podmore_Birmingham · Post by **Podmore_Birmingham** » 15 May 2007, 04:10

British Masters is a title similar to that of an Area but you can fight anyone in the country. And, like an Area title, you have to have boxed in at least one six-threes before you can fight for it.

Its a title for up-and-coming fighters. However, when you fight for an English title, British title or higher you are no-longer eligible to fight for the Masters again.

Tom Podmore

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 15 May 2007, 04:57

LOL @ this thread.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 15 May 2007, 06:27

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:Its a title for up-and-coming fighters.

Like Michael Pinnock??

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 15 May 2007, 07:09

oliverfennell wrote:
Podmore_Birmingham wrote:Its a title for up-and-coming fighters.
Like Michael Pinnock??

Or those of limited ability who want something to aim for..

They are a good idea I reckon and give those who otherwise wouldnt be successful in title class a shot at wearing a belt and having their glory nights.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 15 May 2007, 07:11

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:British Masters is a title similar to that of an Area but you can fight anyone in the country. And, like an Area title, you have to have boxed in at least one six-threes before you can fight for it.

Its a title for up-and-coming fighters. However, when you fight for an English title, British title or higher you are no-longer eligible to fight for the Masters again.

Tom Podmore

Never knew that

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 15 May 2007, 07:16

There are no mandatory challengers for the belt and anyone (who fulfils Tom’s criteria) can challenge for the belt as long as they put up the requisite money (£3000 split 60 – 40 I think).

At least that’s my hazy recognition of how it works..

Podmore_Birmingham · Post by **Podmore_Birmingham** » 15 May 2007, 09:32

oliverfennell wrote:
Podmore_Birmingham wrote:Its a title for up-and-coming fighters.
Like Michael Pinnock??

On the whole it’s for up-and-coming fighters. But does also give the boxers at the lower end a chance to fight for a title.

Although they wouldn’t sanction Stevie Gethin for ages because he had lost too many in a row. They do have standards.

But Mike Pinnock is a legend.

Tom Podmore.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 15 May 2007, 09:38

How could Gethin be rejected but Pinnock approved?

I don't see how people can say Intercontinental titles are a nonsense and yet contend the Masters title is a good thing. As the original post shows, it is not a championship OF anything, there are no rankings and basically just an excuse to put a title tag on matches that are not of championship quality. Just because you get a "warm" feeling because honest journeymen can fight for it and hard-working small hall promoters can have a "title fight" does not make the British Masters belt any more credible than anything the alphabets can throw up.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 15 May 2007, 09:55

Intercontini-bobbins belts are cynical money making exercises on the part of both the sanctioning body and the promoters.

The fancy tag gives average contests the ‘Championship’ tag they need to sell tickets and dupe fans into thinking they are getting a high quality contest, which is something they often are not..

The British Masters belt on the other hand is far more honest in my eyes. It never claims to make you a champion of a whole continent or a world sanctioning body ‘minor’ world champion; it offers another route for lower end pros and inexperienced prospects to both cut their teeth and have the elation associated with winning a belt.

I can see the worth of area titles and graduations to English (or other) then British but I don’t begrudge this title as it can help on the small hall scene.

Its not a question of getting warm, fuzzy feelings for journeymen pros, although, as Tom said, Pinnock is a legend!

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 15 May 2007, 10:07

I don't condone IC belts either.

All I ask for is for a championship to be OF something. For that reason, Area titles, English titles, even Celtic titles are all fine. Hell, even the BeNeLux belt is OK by me. I just don't like championships which cannot be defined.

The Masters belt suffers for me because the fights are not to decide anything, and they are barely of championship quality. Sure, some fighters are solid Area-level competitors, and current featherweight holder Ryan Barrett goes for the British title next, but as much as you like/respect him, nobody would ever contend Michael Pinnock was title material, and any belt he is allowed to contest can only be devalued.