Slow year for British title fights

Post Reply
Old bones Ian
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11806
Joined: 13 Jul 2004, 07:33

Slow year for British title fights

Post by Old bones Ian »

Almost three quarters of the way through the year , and not many fights have happened for the British titles, out of 14 divisions there have been only 16 fights combined, so is the over abundunce of other titles to blame?
Its not as if we have a load of boxers above British title level.

Heavy, 1 fight
Cruiser, 0 fights
Light Heavy, 2 fights
Super Middle, 1 fight
Middle, 1 fight
Light Middle, 0 fights
Welter 1 fight
Light Welter 3 fights
Light 2 fights
Super Feather 1 fight
Feather 1 fight
super bantam 1 fight
bantam 1 fight
Fly 1 fight
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Post by m1kee50 »

That is shocking. Surely the title should be up every 3 months or so, assuming no injuries?
Max Molyneux
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7084
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53

Re: Slow year for British title fights

Post by Max Molyneux »

Old bones Ian wrote:Almost three quarters of the way through the year , and not many fights have happened for the British titles, out of 14 divisions there have been only 16 fights combined, so is the over abundunce of other titles to blame?
Its not as if we have a load of boxers above British title level.

Heavy, 1 fight
Cruiser, 0 fights
Light Heavy, 2 fights
Super Middle, 1 fight
Middle, 1 fight
Light Middle, 0 fights
Welter 1 fight
Light Welter 3 fights
Light 2 fights
Super Feather 1 fight
Feather 1 fight
super bantam 1 fight
bantam 1 fight
Fly 1 fight
Wasn't that like the first Fly bout for at least 3 years?

The weights need changing, people are getting bigger.
BigEars
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 997
Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 14:23

Re: Slow year for British title fights

Post by BigEars »

Max Molyneux wrote:
Old bones Ian wrote:Almost three quarters of the way through the year , and not many fights have happened for the British titles, out of 14 divisions there have been only 16 fights combined, so is the over abundunce of other titles to blame?
Its not as if we have a load of boxers above British title level.

Heavy, 1 fight
Cruiser, 0 fights
Light Heavy, 2 fights
Super Middle, 1 fight
Middle, 1 fight
Light Middle, 0 fights
Welter 1 fight
Light Welter 3 fights
Light 2 fights
Super Feather 1 fight
Feather 1 fight
super bantam 1 fight
bantam 1 fight
Fly 1 fight
Wasn't that like the first Fly bout for at least 3 years?

The weights need changing, people are getting bigger.
That's probably why the board have introduced Super Flyweight .

On the horizon we have
1 Super Flyweight(Edwards v Robinson)
1 Featherweight(Simpson v Morris)
1 Welterweight(Anderson v Jones)
1 Bantamweight(Napa v Haskins)
1 Middleweight(Eastman v Elcock)
1 Cruiserweight(Keaton v Hobson)
1 Lightweight (Thaxton v Stewart)
1 Light-Middleweight(Moore v Facey)
1 Super Middleweight(Froch v Reid)

That's 9 by the start of November .
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27497
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Post by stujones »

I don't know if it is just me, but I think its been quite a slow year for British boxing period. Definately seems to be alot less televised shows this year.
Old bones Ian
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11806
Joined: 13 Jul 2004, 07:33

Post by Old bones Ian »

Just looking at the English title, and amazingly the combined total of title fights out of 14 divisions is 5 fights so far this year.

there are a few coming up for the English title, but if its not being used that much, why are the Board bothering to have these titles?
josh fg
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3180
Joined: 07 Jul 2004, 20:30

Post by josh fg »

THe thing is it would be silly to have meaningless fights for example Carl froch has beaten Dodson, Magee, Barny and Hague for the brittish title and is about to fight Reid, I can't realy think of any more meaningful fights for him to have at SM in this country. WHo would you have him fight?
Razor
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 713
Joined: 19 Jul 2004, 21:04

Post by Razor »

Been a shit year for me. Hardly nothing happening in america too, each week there used to be lots of results coming in, last few weeks there hasnt hardly been a card :cry:
Max Molyneux
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7084
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53

Re: Slow year for British title fights

Post by Max Molyneux »

BigEars wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:
Old bones Ian wrote:Almost three quarters of the way through the year , and not many fights have happened for the British titles, out of 14 divisions there have been only 16 fights combined, so is the over abundunce of other titles to blame?
Its not as if we have a load of boxers above British title level.

Heavy, 1 fight
Cruiser, 0 fights
Light Heavy, 2 fights
Super Middle, 1 fight
Middle, 1 fight
Light Middle, 0 fights
Welter 1 fight
Light Welter 3 fights
Light 2 fights
Super Feather 1 fight
Feather 1 fight
super bantam 1 fight
bantam 1 fight
Fly 1 fight
Wasn't that like the first Fly bout for at least 3 years?

The weights need changing, people are getting bigger.
That's probably why the board have introduced Super Flyweight .

On the horizon we have
1 Super Flyweight(Edwards v Robinson)
1 Featherweight(Simpson v Morris)
1 Welterweight(Anderson v Jones)
1 Bantamweight(Napa v Haskins)
1 Middleweight(Eastman v Elcock)
1 Cruiserweight(Keaton v Hobson)
1 Lightweight (Thaxton v Stewart)
1 Light-Middleweight(Moore v Facey)
1 Super Middleweight(Froch v Reid)

That's 9 by the start of November .
I don't see why more weight classes are needed? Just increase the limit of the Original weights.

Then we wouldn't have so many cheating dry outs at weigh Ins.

IDO
sweetscience
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2816
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 09:09

Post by sweetscience »

Razor wrote:Been a shit year for me. Hardly nothing happening in america too, each week there used to be lots of results coming in, last few weeks there hasnt hardly been a card :cry:
its 'pre season'
BigEars
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 997
Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 14:23

Re: Slow year for British title fights

Post by BigEars »

Max Molyneux wrote:
BigEars wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote: Wasn't that like the first Fly bout for at least 3 years?

The weights need changing, people are getting bigger.
That's probably why the board have introduced Super Flyweight .

On the horizon we have
1 Super Flyweight(Edwards v Robinson)
1 Featherweight(Simpson v Morris)
1 Welterweight(Anderson v Jones)
1 Bantamweight(Napa v Haskins)
1 Middleweight(Eastman v Elcock)
1 Cruiserweight(Keaton v Hobson)
1 Lightweight (Thaxton v Stewart)
1 Light-Middleweight(Moore v Facey)
1 Super Middleweight(Froch v Reid)

That's 9 by the start of November .
I don't see why more weight classes are needed? Just increase the limit of the Original weights.

Then we wouldn't have so many cheating dry outs at weigh Ins.

IDO
Well do you expect them to increase the weights just in the UK(never gonna happen) or Worldwide(never gonna happen) , people in the western world may have gotten bigger but there are still a lot of people from Eastern Asia and parts of Latin America that are quite small and still require those small divisions . There would be uproar over changing the weight of Flyweight(112) aswell as it is the smallest of the traditional divisions .

Here are the divisions ranked by how many fighters are in them(starting with the highest(:
Welterweight
Lightweight
Light-Welterweight
Heavyweight
Light-Middleweight
Featherweight
Middleweight
Super Featherweight
Cruiserweight
Super Bantamweight
Super Middleweight
Bantamweight
Light-Heavyweight
Flyweight
Super Flyweight
Light-Flyweight
Minimumweight

Now obviously enough there the 4 lowest weights are the 4 smallest ones but the problem there is too many divisions in too close a weigh range .

I think eliminating the current minimumweight(105) division and re-naming what is currently Light-Flyweight(108) to minimumweight .
This would obviously make things harder for current minimumweight fighters to compete but considering that Minimumweight has the least amount of fighters in it currently and that the 3 lb gap although a big difference for men their size isn't unsurmountable .

After all Calderon a very small minimumweight(the guy could probably make 100 lbs without too much difficulty ) beat an absolutely huge Light-Flyweight while both were considered the best in their divisions(although some could argue Solis is a better Light-Flyweight) .

This would bring is to a much more satisfactory 16 weight divisions and bring more attention to the lower weights .

Anything more dramatic could never be implemented as the sanctioning bodies want to maintain all those sanctioning fees that keep them rich .
Max Molyneux
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7084
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53

Post by Max Molyneux »

Good point about the latin and Asians being smaller. Don't most latins and asians go through extreme weight making regimes to make those small weights though?

How Is 3lbs a big gap?
DavidPayne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6248
Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00

Post by DavidPayne »

Very surprising when you consider most of the TV channels insist on meaningful fights for meaningful belts now.

Rather than WBU shyte.
BigEars
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 997
Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 14:23

Post by BigEars »

Max Molyneux wrote:Good point about the latin and Asians being smaller. Don't most latins and asians go through extreme weight making regimes to make those small weights though?

How Is 3lbs a big gap?
No more so than bigger fighters at higher weights

3 lbs for such a small man is like the equivalent of 5 lbs(the difference between Lightweight and Light-Welterweight) for bigger men . Granted percentage wise it's not quite as big but you have to factor in that as men get smaller it means more and when they get bigger it means less(which is why a 20lb weight advantage might mean nothing at heavyweight) .

If you weigh 7 1/2 stone , 3 lbs is quite a bit of weight .
Post Reply