BoxRec

Dream come true!!!! cant wait!!!!

Just a sorry state of affairs it really is. I'm sorry but with all the inactivity we see from some champions you would think the IBF would be able to have a bit of sympathy and recognise this situation for what it is. Now if he was purposely abstaining from making a fight then fair enough, but what's to gain by stripping him when he obviously wants to make a fight - instead they are giving the shot to somebody McDonnell has already taken care of. I thought Hearn had a bit of sway with the IBF, clearly not enough!

mickey1975 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Jackuk
With respect that statement adds nothing to the case nor detracts from it because it does not provide any evidence one way or the other. It us simply Jamie's version of events - so for instance Dennis says yes the mandatory was discussed its one persons word against the other.
Regardless of that I find it incredulous that Jamie didn't know anything about the 6 months mandatory situation - I'm only a fan and I heard about it.

By all accounts Jamie is not even a fan. Had to be told who Sugar Ray Leonard was once. The sort of guy who goes on holiday the day after winning the world title missing valuable publicity...

The irony of his twin missing a British title fight on terrestrial TV because his manager went on holiday.

fatchod2010 wrote:Dream come true!!!! cant wait!!!!

See you there mate, i'll bell you nearer the time

DMA,
Clearly the IBF have taken the view that he knew he had a mandatory to face within 6 months, and its Jamie who has turned down the fight.
I've no sympathy for any of the parties.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Jackuk
With respect that statement adds nothing to the case nor detracts from it because it does not provide any evidence one way or the other. It us simply Jamie's version of events - so for instance Dennis says yes the mandatory was discussed its one persons word against the other.
Regardless of that I find it incredulous that Jamie didn't know anything about the 6 months mandatory situation - I'm only a fan and I heard about it.

By all accounts Jamie is not even a fan. Had to be told who Sugar Ray Leonard was once. The sort of guy who goes on holiday the day after winning the world title missing valuable publicity...

The irony of his twin missing a British title fight on terrestrial TV because his manager went on holiday.

Team McDonnell love holidays.

Parson Cross wrote:DMA,
Clearly the IBF have taken the view that he knew he had a mandatory to face within 6 months, and its Jamie who has turned down the fight.
I've no sympathy for any of the parties.

But surely there are circumstances here where they could have extended the deadline by a week or so? I mean reading his statement it sounds like he only needed a day or two and clearly by changing promoters it has affected the signing of the fight. To me this isn't an occasion where the title holder doesn't want to defend his title, it's just a massive fornicate up by all parties. In this case it was better to extend the deadline by a few days and keep the legitimate champion defending his belt. Granted though I don't know the facts, only what I have read which probably makes all the difference.

DMA1987 wrote: I thought Hearn had a bit of sway with the IBF, clearly not enough!

Same here - but as Hall is managed / promoted by Hobson it seems that he has more sway (still surprised at this though - although he did get Clinton Woods a surprising number of opportunities with the IBF about 10 years ago).

At first I had sympathy for Hobson, but now I am not so sure - either way, there are some murky goings on - probably from all involved.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:Stuart Hall (15-2) of Darlington expected to contest the title. Bloody hell, that's big news for this town
What a chance if it happens, he'll have nothing to lose

Its a mess for Jamie but what's done is done. Now business is business.
Best result now would be Stuart Hall winning the title and making Jamie his voluntary defence. That bout would fill a Northern venue no problems and would be a cracker.

You'd have thought someone at Matchroom would have knowledge of the IBFs 6 month defence rule. I blame them and George Groves equally.

Hall fight supposed to be at Leeds arena in December I was told yesterday dont know how true it is but you never know .

DMA,
Jamie was under contract to Hobson like it or like it not.
That is challengeable but there is a process to go through.
In the meantime he had his mandatory obligations to fulfil.
Hobson says he knew that and offered him the fight - but by Jamie's own statement he turned it down because the money was piss poor.
Why should the IBF modify their rules to allow Jamie to go through a long winded process of challenging his contract ?
What he should have done is take the fight ktfo the poor opponent then his next is a voluntary and he could have served notice on everyone of his intentions.
If he wanted out why didnt he start the process the day after he won the title ?
No sympathy. Badly advised.
As for all this about fighting Hall if he wins, can you seriously see Hobson saying no problem pal ?

ha, yeah, like Hobson's going to allow that fight

Hilarious how some people think mate.
Bet he's got options on the opponent as well as wicket keeper !

Parson Cross wrote:DMA,
Jamie was under contract to Hobson like it or like it not.
That is challengeable but there is a process to go through.
In the meantime he had his mandatory obligations to fulfil.
Hobson says he knew that and offered him the fight - but by Jamie's own statement he turned it down because the money was piss poor.
Why should the IBF modify their rules to allow Jamie to go through a long winded process of challenging his contract ?
What he should have done is take the fight ktfo the poor opponent then his next is a voluntary and he could have served notice on everyone of his intentions.
If he wanted out why didnt he start the process the day after he won the title ?
No sympathy. Badly advised.
As for all this about fighting Hall if he wins, can you seriously see Hobson saying no problem pal ?

as far as i can see this post sums it up perfectly, great post well explained.

DMA1987 wrote:Just a sorry state of affairs it really is. I'm sorry but with all the inactivity we see from some champions you would think the IBF would be able to have a bit of sympathy and recognise this situation for what it is. Now if he was purposely abstaining from making a fight then fair enough, but what's to gain by stripping him when he obviously wants to make a fight - instead they are giving the shot to somebody McDonnell has already taken care of. I thought Hearn had a bit of sway with the IBF, clearly not enough!

To me anyway, it is blatantly obvious that Jamie has been well and truly screwed - wonder whether BBBofC have a view?

No he hasn't. He's screwed himself.

The Board have already made their position very clear Josco.
Jamie in contract with Hobson.
If he wants to challenge it, he should know the process or at least those "advising" him should.
If a Promotor walked away from a fighter mid contract some of the people here would be joining the lynch mob.
Why are those very same people sympathetic when it's the other way round ?
He's made his bed - now lie in it.

Parson Cross wrote:No he hasn't. He's screwed himself.

Not an easy thing to do in any circumstances, but harder still when others hold most of the cards. To make things worse the IBF then make themselves look more stupid than usual by stating that Jamie's situation will be considered when deciding next month's rankings - presumably this could mean that Jamie becomes No.1 in the ratings - above the two fighters who will now contest the title?

Parson Cross wrote:The Board have already made their position very clear Josco.
Jamie in contract with Hobson.
If he wants to challenge it, he should know the process or at least those "advising" him should.
If a Promotor walked away from a fighter mid contract some of the people here would be joining the lynch mob.
Why are those very same people sympathetic when it's the other way round ?
He's made his bed - now lie in it.

Thanks - you have a valid point. Hopefully the truth of it all will eventually emerge.

Josco,
The best he can hope for is being made mandatory to the winner of this fight for the vacant title.
I have a very nervous feeling he won't - but that depends if he gets himself with Eddie swiftly.
Money talks - all about the sanctioning fees !

I don't mean to seem harsh and Stuey Hall seems a really good fellow but is he really one of the best in the world?

palooka wrote:I don't mean to seem harsh and Stuey Hall seems a really good fellow but is he really one of the best in the world?

I suppose we will find out soon enough

palooka wrote:I don't mean to seem harsh and Stuey Hall seems a really good fellow but is he really one of the best in the world?

Obviously not. Plus McDonnell has already beaten him.

All that being said, and as much as I think the decision to strip stinks, I will be cheering him on when fight night comes

palooka wrote:I don't mean to seem harsh and Stuey Hall seems a really good fellow but is he really one of the best in the world?

And also, i was at the Hall v Jamie mac fight and it was a close well fought bout from both men. Yes Jamie won and Hall admits that, but if Jamie was good enough to be world champ/ one of the best in the world, then i honestly believe Stuey can be as well,

Like i said above though, we will see soon enough by the looks of it. And as DMA just posted, i will be cheering him on regardless of the situation that sadly Jamie mac finds himself in.