sanctioned fights?
sanctioned fights?
i was wondering what is allowed as far as non sanctioned fights? i use to think you couldn't compete in anything not sanctioned, but have been told otherwise when it comes to indian reservations. can you fight in unregistered indian reservation matches and not be disqualified from usa boxing?
That is not true. According to the rule book 219.3, competition held within the confines of any military insatllation, base or reservation, single confines of a penal institution or a parks and recreation system, between a team representing such military unit or entity, such event event may be held without the necessity of aquiring a sanction for such event. Where, however, such competition involves a non-military team or where such competition is held outside the confines of the military installation, base, or reservation, the normal requirements for obtaining of a sanction must be complied with.boxmel wrote:They do - but the problem is that the experience that the boxers get in the Park events does not go into their USAB passbooks because the bouts aren't sanctioned by USA Boxing. Technically, they are unsanctioned shows and athetes registered with USA Boxing should not be participating.
In other words easier to understand, if a park and recs team is boxing another park and recs team in a park and recs gym, they don't need a sanction. If a military team is boxing another military team on a military base, they don't need a sanction. If a Native American team is boxing another Native American team on a reservation, they don't need a sanction. Once a team or boxer not part of one of those catagories boxes in a competition in one of those situations, a sanction is needed. For example, if "thenalo" is not a Native American and boxes on a reservation competition between Native Americans , then they need a sanction. Or if a civilian boxes on a military base, they need a sanction.
I don't think there is any rule that says bouts held in those situations listed above can't be added in the passbook. The bouts don't have to be added to the passbook but what rule says they can't?
Advice to coaches: if you are putting your boxer against a parks and rec boxer or military boxer, ask questions of the other boxers coach and use common sense. Once they hit open class, it should not matter much anyway. Sure there is a difference between a boxer with 75 bouts vs a boxer with 15 so again, the coaches should use common sense.
Advice to coaches: if you are putting your boxer against a parks and rec boxer or military boxer, ask questions of the other boxers coach and use common sense. Once they hit open class, it should not matter much anyway. Sure there is a difference between a boxer with 75 bouts vs a boxer with 15 so again, the coaches should use common sense.
Boxing "smokers" on base are usually not sanctioned and those boxers don't advance anywhere. Any military boxer who aspires to compete at the elite level, or try out for one of the military boxing teams, must be registered with USA Boxing and have a passbook.
Yes, the "ruling" is correct regarding various entities boxing within their own jurisdiction without a sanction. However, in the case of the Chicago Parks and Rec, open boxers who are registered with USA Boxing and who do not box for a P&R clubs, often compete in P&R "unsanctioned" events and those bouts do not get entered into their passbooks because they are not USA Boxing events. This is not a "rule" but a practice of the P&R. It's not fair to any boxers because it is not an accurate record of their experience and gives an unfair advantage to the boxer who has to compete against an opponent who doesn't list all the bouts he or she has had.
Yes, the "ruling" is correct regarding various entities boxing within their own jurisdiction without a sanction. However, in the case of the Chicago Parks and Rec, open boxers who are registered with USA Boxing and who do not box for a P&R clubs, often compete in P&R "unsanctioned" events and those bouts do not get entered into their passbooks because they are not USA Boxing events. This is not a "rule" but a practice of the P&R. It's not fair to any boxers because it is not an accurate record of their experience and gives an unfair advantage to the boxer who has to compete against an opponent who doesn't list all the bouts he or she has had.
Yes, if Chicago Parks and Rec have shows that include non park and rec boxers, they should be sanctioned. If not, they are breaking the rules and the registered boxers should be punished but worse, if somebody got hurt, there is no insurance except for the cities liability. I would bet that if that is happening, higher ups in Chicago Parks and Rec don't know about it. It behoves them to put a stop to it before they are on the end of a big lawsuit.
As for military shows, even the All Army, Marines, Air Force or Navy events that determine which of their boxers go to the Armed Forces Championships don't have to be sanctioned if the event is held on a miltary base which they are. They don't have to be according to the rules even if the boxers are registered with USAB.boxmel wrote:Boxing "smokers" on base are usually not sanctioned and those boxers don't advance anywhere. Any military boxer who aspires to compete at the elite level, or try out for one of the military boxing teams, must be registered with USA Boxing and have a passbook.
Chicago P&R and LBC people are all very well aware of the practice and it's been going on for years. Unfortunately, it just might take a major injury and/or lawsuit to finally fix it.I would bet that if that is happening, higher ups in Chicago Parks and Rec don't know about it. It behoves them to put a stop to it before they are on the end of a big lawsuit.
As for military shows, even the All Army, Marines, Air Force or Navy events that determine which of their boxers go to the Armed Forces Championships don't have to be sanctioned if the event is held on a miltary base which they are. They don't have to be according to the rules even if the boxers are registered with USAB.
I think we are having a semantical discussion - both saying the same thing. If I wasn't clear, I apologize. Yes, the military does not have to sanction their championships, but they do. The Army uses AIBA officials and I'm pretty sure the Marine Corps sanctions theirs. The Navy and Air Force don't usually have enough boxers to have a tournament. And the Armed Services Championships is always sanctioned, with AIBA officials.
JMac - the answer from Basheer:
Basheer also passed on my question to Paul Boltz, the retired Army sports person. Here is his complete answer on military boxing, which he copied to me:Mel I know the All Army is sanction through usab and I'm almost such Armed Forces is also. Coach Abdullah
Coach,
All Army is sanctioned through Arizona; Armed Forces through Association in which is host; i.e. 2008 will be Camp LeJeune; Sid will sanction through North Carolina Association.
Since Armed Forces Championship participants are not from one Service, they do not fall under the Congressional Amateur Sports Act (Ted Stevens) for such exemption.
Military Championships that has all participants from within it's own organization are only competitions which can apply for sanction at no cost - but they still must sanction.
USAB Officials are not authorized to officiate at a non-sanctioned competition; if they do and there is an injury, medical costs would not be covered and could lose their certified officiating status (AIBA or National).
Neither will an injured Boxer be entitled to medical costs.
I had this interpreted by both Army JAG and USA Boxing General Counsel.
Alright Mel,
I give you that one on a split decision. But just because an Army JAG lawyer said so dosen't mean it is true. He/she is an Army JAG because law school was paid for by the Army. He /she ain't Harvard material if you know what I mean. The rule in the rule book doesn't say anything about different sevice branches, it says "military'. All the different service branches fall under the titile of "military". What does the "Ted Stevens Act" have to do with the rule? The "Ted Stevens Act" had to do with monoply of sports franchise and the AAU. The Ted Stevens broke up the AAU and said they can only control one sports organiziation and the ones the AAU droped had to form their own governing body. That's why the Golden Gloves is still pissed that they wern't named the governing body of boxing when USA/ABF got named the governing body.
I can understand the part about the officials being covered under USAB rules if the bout is sanctioned and somebody gets hurt, but if somebody got hurt, you can't sue the government, maybe the ref if he/she did something that "was not reasonably prudent'. Then they would be liable. With good coaches, it usually does not get to that point. The coach will stop the bout before the ref does, if the ref is incompetent.
Bout over, Next!
I give you that one on a split decision. But just because an Army JAG lawyer said so dosen't mean it is true. He/she is an Army JAG because law school was paid for by the Army. He /she ain't Harvard material if you know what I mean. The rule in the rule book doesn't say anything about different sevice branches, it says "military'. All the different service branches fall under the titile of "military". What does the "Ted Stevens Act" have to do with the rule? The "Ted Stevens Act" had to do with monoply of sports franchise and the AAU. The Ted Stevens broke up the AAU and said they can only control one sports organiziation and the ones the AAU droped had to form their own governing body. That's why the Golden Gloves is still pissed that they wern't named the governing body of boxing when USA/ABF got named the governing body.
I can understand the part about the officials being covered under USAB rules if the bout is sanctioned and somebody gets hurt, but if somebody got hurt, you can't sue the government, maybe the ref if he/she did something that "was not reasonably prudent'. Then they would be liable. With good coaches, it usually does not get to that point. The coach will stop the bout before the ref does, if the ref is incompetent.
Bout over, Next!
Hey, JMac - Gotcha, didn't I? 
Not a split at all. My statement was that the services sanction their bouts, with the exception of the base "smokers" where the boxers are usually personnel who don't do anything but "fight" in base smokers.Alright Mel, I give you that one on a split decision.
Gawd, why even submerge yourself in this type of technicality? The statement has been made that the services sanction their shows, with the exception of the base fights, and don't compete under the "military can sanction their own" statement.But just because an Army JAG lawyer said so dosen't mean it is true.
Now, that's interesting and definitely a very important statement to make pertaining to this discussion!He/she is an Army JAG because law school was paid for by the Army.
Golden Gloves was offered the chance to run amateur boxing and they turned it down, at which point the USA/ABF was formed. They really need to get over their bitterness and being pissed off.That's why the Golden Gloves is still pissed that they wern't named the governing body of boxing when USA/ABF got named the governing body.
To me, on a RSCOS-2.Bout over, Next!
You have confirmation on what the Army does. Don't assume the others do the same.boxmel wrote:Hey, JMac - Gotcha, didn't I?
Not a split at all. My statement was that the services sanction their bouts, with the exception of the base "smokers" where the boxers are usually personnel who don't do anything but "fight" in base smokers.
But just because an Army JAG lawyer said so dosen't mean it is true.
Because I like to argue for the sake of arguing.boxmel wrote:Gawd, why even submerge yourself in this type of technicality?
He/she is an Army JAG because law school was paid for by the Army.
I know some miltary lawyers and it's true. It may not be pertinent to the discussion but what the heck, I threw it out there anyway.boxmel wrote: Now, that's interesting and definitely a very important statement to make pertaining to this discussion!
Bout over, Next!
I'm sticking with split decision.boxmel wrote: To me, on a RSCOS-2.
