BoxRec

kingfinn wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:How much power does the BBBoC hold nowadays? Whats stopping anyone using another boxing federation in the UK? nothing by the looks of it.
Why would a promoter pay the BBBoC a fee if they can get it cheaper elsewhere from another countries boxing board, the world bodies will still rate the boxer as they are fighting with a legitimate body.

The only thing they could do is stop someone fighting for the Lonsdale belt, but then that just robs the fans of good match-ups.

Haye v Chisora may just be a one off , but if it works why wouldn't other promoters use them or other cheaper alternatives

This is a great question, and noone seems to have responded to it. anyone have any ideas? What's to stop more fights happening under the jurisdiction of an obscure international boxing board ??

As far as i can understand we are part of the EU so can use any EU members boards license if they part of the EBU as it is effectively a business trade. In theory if board is a member of the EBU they should operate to a certain standard anyway so it makes no difference who is used. Of course the theory isnt always the same as the practical application.

The EBU thing is to only give it legitimacy. In terms of EU laws, EBF, Luxembourg, board, IBA and Queensbury Boxing League are all the same. EBU connection does not mean it is licensed as it in itself is a totally self-appointed body. Legally these companies are on the same page and level.

This is not a board licenced fight so under basis of how other bodies exist in this country it is as unlicensed as the local bouncer v bouncer show at your local workings men club.

leforge wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:This Bruce Baker chap is on Radio 5, he seems like an absolute prat.

"Wladimir Klitschko shouldn't have been in Chisora's changing room watching the wraps", "Chisora didn't spit, it was water", "Wladimir Klitschko was part of the problem". Sorry Bruce but that's crap you've done more harm to this sport this past week than Wladimir has done in his career.

Give it few months we have WBF and WBU fights up down the country eventually leading to split having two boards. It sounds far fetched but it will happen.

Spot on. You get the gist of this, unfortunately some people on here are completely missing the point.

This starts a precedent which could ruin the board, because as a self appointed body its lack of authority is coming to the fore.

Wake up call wrote:

leforge wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:This Bruce Baker chap is on Radio 5, he seems like an absolute prat.

"Wladimir Klitschko shouldn't have been in Chisora's changing room watching the wraps", "Chisora didn't spit, it was water", "Wladimir Klitschko was part of the problem". Sorry Bruce but that's crap you've done more harm to this sport this past week than Wladimir has done in his career.

Give it few months we have WBF and WBU fights up down the country eventually leading to split having two boards. It sounds far fetched but it will happen.

Spot on. You get the gist of this, unfortunately some people on here are completely missing the point.

This starts a precedent which could ruin the board, because as a self appointed body its lack of authority is coming to the fore.

We have a spilt in the British scene within 6 months people are missing that. Why could they not wait until September then do this fight when both licened by the Board!

leforge wrote:

Wake up call wrote:

leforge wrote: Give it few months we have WBF and WBU fights up down the country eventually leading to split having two boards. It sounds far fetched but it will happen.

Spot on. You get the gist of this, unfortunately some people on here are completely missing the point.

This starts a precedent which could ruin the board, because as a self appointed body its lack of authority is coming to the fore.

We have a spilt in the British scene within 6 months people are missing that. Why could they not wait until September then do this fight when both licened by the Board!

Football grounds wouldn't be free then, and also the Olympics would of been on. And Haye/Chisora might not be the big news then

Old bones Ian wrote:

leforge wrote:

Wake up call wrote: Spot on. You get the gist of this, unfortunately some people on here are completely missing the point.

This starts a precedent which could ruin the board, because as a self appointed body its lack of authority is coming to the fore.

We have a spilt in the British scene within 6 months people are missing that. Why could they not wait until September then do this fight when both licened by the Board!

Football grounds wouldn't be free then, and also the Olympics would of been on. And Haye/Chisora might not be the big news then

Fill the 02 instead.

leforge wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:

leforge wrote: We have a spilt in the British scene within 6 months people are missing that. Why could they not wait until September then do this fight when both licened by the Board!

Football grounds wouldn't be free then, and also the Olympics would of been on. And Haye/Chisora might not be the big news then

Fill the 02 instead.

Think they expecting over 35,000 though

jonny wrote:

leforge wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote: Football grounds wouldn't be free then, and also the Olympics would of been on. And Haye/Chisora might not be the big news then

Fill the 02 instead.

Think they expecting over 35,000 though

Remember when the WBF and WBU creep back in where its started from.

The most positive thing that may come out of the whole situation is that boxing and it's archaic boards and governing bodies may have to drag themselves from the dark ages. Their relevancy is now really questioned. I don't think Macho Man is far wrong...

The UFC model looms. I don't for a minute think thats what Fwank's intentions are. This is a means to an end but it does raise many questions about the true worth and power of the board in its current form. I do see it having widespread consequences not just for British boxing.

kingfinn wrote:

The Insider wrote:

kingfinn wrote:The EBU will provide the officials.

Not sure the EBU will do this without the BBBoCs blessing. Will FW pay for all the afforemantioed officials/Licence holders to be flown in plus Inspectors, Stewards In Charge etc.

I should imagine so, he would have had to pay for it inderectly anyway, by the sounds of it he took bids off numerous EBU sanctioned boards before chosing the best deal. The head of the control board was at the presser so i think that ship has sailed.

I think the man your on about is the uks very own bond sharing promoter Bruce Baker. I think the ship definitely hasnt sailed as the BBBoC Chairman Charlie Giles happens to be Vice Chairman of the EBU too. There are plenty of politics cards to be played on both sides yet.

StevenB wrote:The most positive thing that may come out of the whole situation is that boxing and it's archaic boards and governing bodies may have to drag themselves from the dark ages. Their relevancy is now really questioned. I don't think Macho Man is far wrong...

The UFC model looms. I don't for a minute think thats what Fwank's intentions are. This is a means to an end but it does raise many questions about the true worth and power of the board in its current form. I do see it having widespread consequences not just for British boxing.

How will this situation have any positive impact on the ever growing number of boards and governing bodies? As Leforge says above, at the moment the BBBofC are actively preventing WBF etc title fights in this country. Once other promoters start to use this loophole it's "Hello WBB". Do we really want that?

I don't disagree that the BBBofC is archiac and needs a major kick in the arse btw...

Wake up call wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: This is a great question, and noone seems to have responded to it. anyone have any ideas? What's to stop more fights happening under the jurisdiction of an obscure international boxing board ??

As far as i can understand we are part of the EU so can use any EU members boards license if they part of the EBU as it is effectively a business trade. In theory if board is a member of the EBU they should operate to a certain standard anyway so it makes no difference who is used. Of course the theory isnt always the same as the practical application.

The EBU thing is to only give it legitimacy. In terms of EU laws, EBF, Luxembourg, board, IBA and Queensbury Boxing League are all the same. EBU connection does not mean it is licensed as it in itself is a totally self-appointed body. Legally these companies are on the same page and level.

This is not a board licenced fight so under basis of how other bodies exist in this country it is as unlicensed as the local bouncer v bouncer show at your local workings men club.

Not true at all the EBU is backed by the world boxing associations which is why the fight is a WBO title fight.

If the board allow this to go ahead they are effectively making themselves redundant. I would have no problem with this fight if they did it in Luxembourg with a foreign promoter.
However if this happens how can they continue to license FW?
Realistically they should have banned him after not paying Calzaghe for the Hopkins fight. It was such impotency by the board which makes FW feel he can do what he likes.
FW has done a lot of good things for boxing in the UK, put on the best shows with the best fighters and is also the best payer.
He saved the board from bankruptcy after the Watson case and also gave all British fighters, myself included 100 quid each for 3 years to help pay for MRI scans.
However there is one thing bending the rules for people and another in taking the piss, this is taking the piss

Wake up call wrote:

fatcity69 wrote:Put simply if two unliscensed fighters are able to get together and make a lot of money off the back of disreputable behaviour then there is no hope for the sport in the long term.

They will have Luxembourgian licences, they won't be unlicensed.[/quote]

The term unlicensed means non-BBBofC. There is actually no such thing as unlicensed as no body and that includes the board have more of a statutory right to run boxing in this country than any other. The EBF issue licences but everyone still calls that unlicensed.

David Haye v Dereck Chisora is no more licensed than if Danny Williams boxed Mark Potter again on an EBF show.

This sets a dangerous precedent where if the likes of Boxrec and Boxing News etc cover it and put in their records, every other "licensed" body will be able to justifiably ask for their bouts to be reported on also.[/quote]

You're right, we need to be clear about the difference between licensed and sanctioned. You don't need a BBBoC license to box in the UK...but the bout involving either 1 or 2 foreign boxers must be sanctioned by the BBBoC. There would be nothing to stop Haye and Chisora boxing on LBF licenses on a BBBoC sanctioned card (if the BBBoC chose to do so), however, given the recent issues (Chisora especially) this seems unlikely.

Is the Luxembourg Federation recognised by the Board? If they are, I think the Board are in trouble as that makes regulation 4.12 void.

If the Luxembourg Federation are not recognized by the Board they can call every licence holder involved with the bout and take action. It won't stop the fight going ahead but it may make the people who are involved in the fight think twice.

kingfinn wrote:

Wake up call wrote:

kingfinn wrote: As far as i can understand we are part of the EU so can use any EU members boards license if they part of the EBU as it is effectively a business trade. In theory if board is a member of the EBU they should operate to a certain standard anyway so it makes no difference who is used. Of course the theory isnt always the same as the practical application.

The EBU thing is to only give it legitimacy. In terms of EU laws, EBF, Luxembourg, board, IBA and Queensbury Boxing League are all the same. EBU connection does not mean it is licensed as it in itself is a totally self-appointed body. Legally these companies are on the same page and level.

This is not a board licenced fight so under basis of how other bodies exist in this country it is as unlicensed as the local bouncer v bouncer show at your local workings men club.

Not true at all the EBU is backed by the world boxing associations which is why the fight is a WBO title fight.

Again you completely miss the point. Trust me. I know Bruce Baker behind the Luxembourg board and I know full well how they are set up, how the EBU is set up and how the world bodies work and NOOOONNNNEEEE of them are in existence by any divine right. They are ALL self-appointed bodies. If me and you could get a big fight on we could set up a commission and get all these bodies to sanction it. Sanctioned by made up bodies does not make it legitimate and that especially includes the WBO.

The point is, the BBBofC, Luxembourg, Queensbury BL and that guy that does white collar shows at your local pub are legally all on the same ground and that is that none of them have any more right to sanction fights than any other because unlike in America we do not have statutory bodies in Europe.

We trust the BBBofC because of their long standing relationship with our sport, not because they are an authority with legal ground to exist on. A fly by night organisation coming in to this country to sanction a show is exactly the same as so called unlicensed body (there's actually no such thing as unlicensed - unlicensed in this country means non licensed by the BBBofC) staging one and that's the point here.

Are people too blind to see the threat that this move poses to the future of how boxing is run in this country?

Wake up call wrote:
Again you completely miss the point. Trust me. I know Bruce Baker behind the Luxembourg board and I know full well how they are set up, how the EBU is set up and how the world bodies work and NOOOONNNNEEEE of them are in existence by any divine right. They are ALL self-appointed bodies. If me and you could get a big fight on we could set up a commission and get all these bodies to sanction it. Sanctioned by made up bodies does not make it legitimate and that especially includes the WBO.

The point is, the BBBofC, Luxembourg, Queensbury BL and that guy that does white collar shows at your local pub are legally all on the same ground and that is that none of them have any more right to sanction fights than any other because unlike in America we do not have statutory bodies in Europe.

We trust the BBBofC because of their long standing relationship with our sport, not because they are an authority with legal ground to exist on. A fly by night organisation coming in to this country to sanction a show is exactly the same as so called unlicensed body (there's actually no such thing as unlicensed - unlicensed in this country means non licensed by the BBBofC) staging one and that's the point here.

Are people too blind to see the threat that this move poses to the future of how boxing is run in this country?

Excellent post.

The Insider wrote:Is the Luxembourg Federation recognised by the Board? If they are, I think the Board are in trouble as that makes regulation 4.12 void.

If the Luxembourg Federation are not recognized by the Board they can call every licence holder involved with the bout and take action. It won't stop the fight going ahead but it may make the people who are involved in the fight think twice.

This Luxembourg thing is a misnomer anyway. It's run by a guy who lives in London. I can see a problem where if the board bans all the fighters involved, they all jump ship to the Luxembourg and we end up with two boards effectively. This will cheapen the prestige of the Lonsdale belt because only fighters on one side of the proverbial fence are eligible.

And if the board do not take action it will show that contrary to popular belief they are toothless self appointed body that not actually control boxing in this country. It could bring out of the woodwork all the other fighters who have served bans by the board for whatever reason as it gives them legitimate grounds to say 'well you allowed Chisora to box but you banned me for X Y and Z, so I'm going to sue you for unfair treatment and restraint of trade'.

No disrespect but I think some people on here are clearly too stupid to see the ramifications this could have on boxing as we know it in the UK. If this goes badly it could signal the end of the board.

Wake up call wrote:

The Insider wrote:Is the Luxembourg Federation recognised by the Board? If they are, I think the Board are in trouble as that makes regulation 4.12 void.

If the Luxembourg Federation are not recognized by the Board they can call every licence holder involved with the bout and take action. It won't stop the fight going ahead but it may make the people who are involved in the fight think twice.

This Luxembourg thing is a misnomer anyway. It's run by a guy who lives in London. I can see a problem where if the board bans all the fighters involved, they all jump ship to the Luxembourg and we end up with two boards effectively. This will cheapen the prestigious of the Lonsdale belt because only fighters on one side of the proverbial fence are eligible.

And if the board do not take action it will show that contrary to popular belief they are toothless self appointed body that not actually control boxing in this country. It could bring out of the woodwork all the other fighters who have served bans by the board for whatever reason as it gives them legitimate grounds to say 'well you allowed Chisora to box but you banned me for X Y and Z, so I'm going to sue you for unfair treatment and restraint of trade'.

No disrespect but I think some people on here are clearly too stupid to see the ramifications this could have on boxing as we know it in the UK. If this goes badly it could signal the end of the board.

Or if this goes well.

Micky Cantwell's thoughts - http://www.hattonboxing.com/tv/features/micky-cantwell

MachoMan09 wrote:

Coco wrote:If the board allow this to go ahead they are effectively making themselves redundant.

How do you propose the members of the board should go about disallowing the fight? Turn up team handed at Upton Park and not let anybody in? They have no authority to prevent the fight taking place.

What they do is not to sanction the Upton Park show under their auspices and ban the promoters of the show if they go ahead and do it.
They could even withdraw licences of boxers who appear on the show.
They have the right to withdraw the licences of boxers for appearing on unlicensed bills. Without no fighters their is no bill.

Coco wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

Coco wrote:If the board allow this to go ahead they are effectively making themselves redundant.

How do you propose the members of the board should go about disallowing the fight? Turn up team handed at Upton Park and not let anybody in? They have no authority to prevent the fight taking place.

What they do is not to sanction the Upton Park show under their auspices and ban the promoters of the show if they go ahead and do it.
They could even withdraw licences of boxers who appear on the show.
They have the right to withdraw the licences of boxers for appearing on unlicensed bills. Without no fighters their is no bill.

The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

This latest twist makes even more paramount that boxing should be regulated by the state with the BBBoC becoming a semi-state regulated body both for its own good and also to make them open up more and become more transparent to the licence holders and punters.

At the minute everyone is chasing the next pound note and there is no overall oversight for the best interests of the sport in the UK.

The Board are now reaping what they've sown for years. They've been more than happy to take a backseat and allow the likes of the WBU & WBF in along with their plethora of titles. They pulled rank on the small hall promoter (can anyone remind me who that was?) who first came up with the concept of the English title. And, most damningly, they failed to take a single piece of firm action against promoters who clearly think they can do as they please, with one in particular springing to mind.

Haye-Chisora and the whole Luxemburg thing is a total p1$$ take. The damage to the Board's reputation, and the sport's image, has been done regardless of whether it goes ahead now given it's already backpage news. The Board need to take swift, decisive and firm action now but I suspect they won't.

If there is to be a silver lining within this sorry episode, given how easily another body has effectively been allowed to stage a fight outside of the BBBofC's jurisdiction, might this open the door for a proper, legitimate British boxing body to form to get hold of the sport by the scruff of the neck in the UK?

If anyone is brave enough to step forward for the greater good of British Boxing, some good may eventually come from this.

Wake up call wrote:
The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

Which may or may not be a bad thing. This was always going to happen one day. The Board should have pushed to become THE statutory organisation overseeing all pro boxing in the UK.

@ Carey

Was the promoter Pat Brogan?

The Insider wrote:

Wake up call wrote:
The fear is that those fighters will then just go down the Luxembourg route permanently and in the long term this could bring the end of the board.

Which may or may not be a bad thing. This was always going to happen one day. The Board should have pushed to become THE statutory organisation overseeing all pro boxing in the UK.

@ Carey

Was the promoter Pat Brogan?

Why didnt they? Maybe because they are a self-appointed closed shop and reactive dinosaurs who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to make changes over the years eg.overthrow of Solomons London monopoly, live broadcasts of British fights, new safety regulations, manager-promoter clash of interests - all changes that were reactive to demands. The Board has little history of making major proactive changes, so I wouldnt hold my breath on them dealing with this current scenario well, let alone embrace a State regulated model.