BoxRec

They security card was mad busy last night

I dont think anyone cares outside the Fournier camp if the organization who sanctioned the card does over turn it.

Not sure the BBBOC have ever turned a decision after a fight, Took the WBC do to it with that Charlie Edwards fight.

Glass Joe wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 10:12 I dont think anyone cares outside the Fournier camp if the organization who sanctioned the card does over turn it.

Not sure the BBBOC have ever turned a decision after a fight, Took the WBC do to it with that Charlie Edwards fight.

Yeh, they were on that straight away.

Feel like they were forced.

What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

I doubt they want one.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 13:29

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

I doubt they want one.

I think the Flintoff debacle showed the board a thing or two.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

Low

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 14:29

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

Low

So you think its a strong possibility?

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 15:50

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 14:29

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

Low

So you think its a strong possibility?

The Board is a Limited Company. Limited Companies need to make a profit. I think they would make KSI v Fury happen for financial reasons. The regulator part is secondary.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

They want no part of it

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:37

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 15:50

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 14:29

Low

So you think its a strong possibility?

The Board is a Limited Company. Limited Companies need to make a profit. I think they would make KSI v Fury happen for financial reasons. The regulator part is secondary.

You don’t understand the structure of the BBBoC and their finances

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 17:05

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:37

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 15:50
So you think its a strong possibility?

The Board is a Limited Company. Limited Companies need to make a profit. I think they would make KSI v Fury happen for financial reasons. The regulator part is secondary.

You don’t understand the structure of the BBBoC and their finances

No, I don't so tell me.

samwbr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:44

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

They want no part of it

Why not, if KSI has a board licence. Didn't he fight on a Hearn show in the States in a regulated situation.

Why would that be different if KSI had a Board licence. He's surely better than a lot of other people that have a licence, and Fury has one as well. That statement doesn't make any sense that they don't want any part of it.

Didn't Idris Virgo fight on one of those shows. If he wanted his licence back, would they want no part of that. Also, what about all those other fighters from white collar they have granted licences to.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 17:10

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 17:05

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:37

The Board is a Limited Company. Limited Companies need to make a profit. I think they would make KSI v Fury happen for financial reasons. The regulator part is secondary.

You don’t understand the structure of the BBBoC and their finances

No, I don't so tell me.

That wasn’t intended to sound insulting.
The BBBoC don’t have any fortunes to make from that or any contest.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 17:19

samwbr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:44

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

They want no part of it

Why not, if KSI has a board licence. Didn't he fight on a Hearn show in the States in a regulated situation.

Why would that be different if KSI had a Board licence. He's surely better than a lot of other people that have a licence, and Fury has one as well. That statement doesn't make any sense that they don't want any part of it.

Didn't Idris Virgo fight on one of those shows. If he wanted his licence back, would they want no part of that. Also, what about all those other fighters from white collar they have granted licences to.

KSI has never has a BBBoC license. He could get one but would have to do a bit of hoop jumping and besides (I believe) thinking he is above proving himself, he is making more money running the unlicensed bullshit and wearing his own belt.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 17:19

samwbr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:44

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 12:45 What are the odds that Robert Smith and Co. from the Board licence KSI to fight Tommy Fury.

That should make any impending contest 'respectable".

They want no part of it

Why not, if KSI has a board licence. Didn't he fight on a Hearn show in the States in a regulated situation.

Why would that be different if KSI had a Board licence. He's surely better than a lot of other people that have a licence, and Fury has one as well. That statement doesn't make any sense that they don't want any part of it.

Didn't Idris Virgo fight on one of those shows. If he wanted his licence back, would they want no part of that. Also, what about all those other fighters from white collar they have granted licences to.

Robert Smith was on George Groves pod, worth a listen to hear what he thinks.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:37

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 15:50

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 14:29

Low

So you think its a strong possibility?

The Board is a Limited Company. Limited Companies need to make a profit. I think they would make KSI v Fury happen for financial reasons. The regulator part is secondary.

The Board has to strike the right balance and to do so to exercise authority in a totally unbiased way in the long term interest of boxing. For this task the present Board is well equipped with a huge store of experience amongst its Stewards. It is worth stressing that the Board is a non-profit making limited company and that no one with a financial involvement in the sport can sit as a Steward.

https://bbbofc.com/boxing-facts

And this is exactly why boxing is finished as a sport nowadays. It's just fake and rigged.

Clearly KSI is the "marketable" guy, so no chance were they going to DQ him for using the elbow. Give him the win, let everybody forget all about it and then milk money from his next fight.

Faker than WWE.

tigermoth87 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 23:16 And this is exactly why boxing is finished as a sport nowadays. It's just fake and rigged.

Clearly KSI is the "marketable" guy, so no chance were they going to DQ him for using the elbow. Give him the win, let everybody forget all about it and then milk money from his next fight.

Faker than WWE.

Lol, when people act like these kinds of controversies are new. This kind of thing is as old as the sport itself.

tigermoth87 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 23:16 And this is exactly why boxing is finished as a sport nowadays. It's just fake and rigged.

Clearly KSI is the "marketable" guy, so no chance were they going to DQ him for using the elbow. Give him the win, let everybody forget all about it and then milk money from his next fight.

Faker than WWE.

KSI v Fournier wasn't boxing any more than my nephew and I kicking a ball is Champions League

Can't really believe I watched the highlights of that.

Don't think the Elbow was intentional - just look at his balance trying to set up the, the lad does not know how to box. Think it was just a missed punch.

Fournier was clearly hurt after the first shot, so either he was still a bit concussed from the original punch or he found a way out as there wasn't that much on the elbow.

However, it was an illeagal blow but unintentional so should be a no contest - RJJ vs Griffin 1 it wasn't.

Callowland wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 16:37

mickey1975 wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 15:50

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 14:29

Low

So you think its a strong possibility?

The Board is a Limited Company. Limited Companies need to make a profit. I think they would make KSI v Fury happen for financial reasons. The regulator part is secondary.

It's a limited company by guarantee, which is massively different to a limited company with shares. It's essentially a non-profit organisation.

Fournier in his post fight interview...

'Im a 12 round fighter'............since fekkin when?

And Fournier calling someone a cheat, the same Fournier that was banned for PEDs about 3 years ago. Hypocritical tool.

Yes it was an elbow, I dont think it was deliberate to be honest, it was just a poor technique issue.

Boxing is full of fights that should have been NC'd etc over the years. If the BBBC can ignore Bradley Skeetes plight last time out (Punched 3 times while on the floor) then a less professional governing body are not going to NC a fight for a mal shot that 'may' have been accidental.

KSI isnt that skilful to throw an elbow on purpose and didn't need to clearly winning the fight, Fournier was there to survive.