BoxRec

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

Terry D wrote:

1southpaw wrote:so if you are a british masters champion what are you a champion of

The Universe. You take a mandatory against Dolph Lungren.

Oooh, tough fight

HA HA HA

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

Terry D wrote:

1southpaw wrote:so if you are a british masters champion what are you a champion of

The Universe. You take a mandatory against Dolph Lungren.

Oooh, tough fight

Dolph's still got it, kinda..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZifsUlirvVc

TerribleTerry wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote: I dont know why you are so down on the Masters title Oli, I have a feeling your mate Audley may be competing for one sooner or later..

I'm not down on it any more than I'm down on IC titles. What does bother me is that some people give Masters titles credit while decrying the ICs, when IMO they're exactly the same principle, but the Masters are of lower quality.

Journeymen have their role in the sport, and I have every respect for them and their role, but there's a reason why they are what they are, and a reason why they are not champions. This is just another example of the "titles for everybody" culture in boxing which we unanimously complain about when it isn't involving some "decent blokes" we might have met once or twice.

Think of it this way - if there was an equivalent "journeyman's championship" by whatever name anywhere else in the world, we'd all be lambasting it.

If we're going to have "Sunday League" boxing, at least get some rankings set up so the paying punter knows he's watching #47 vs #62, and isn't misled by the "Championship Boxing" poster in his kebab shop into thinking he's going to watch two boxers of "championship" quality.

I dont know why you are trying to debunk the supporters of the title as some sort of easily influenced group who's judgements and opinions are coloured by the fact that they once met a journeyman pro; its both insulting and does not counter the central themes that boxing is a game of levels, small hall promoters need 'tools' at their disposal to help get punters through the gate (when is the last time you paid your way into a non televised show out of interest Ol?), and, yes, this is a title to be fought for by a lower tier of boxer.

So what?

As long as it isn't mispresented to the paying public (which in my experience it isnt) then I have no problem with it.

Apologies if I caused offence with the line about maybe knowing some journeyman pros, that wasn't my intention, but I do struggle to understand why this is OK and other titles aren't, and the only thing I could think of was because it is "our" title, i.e. homegrown, featuring boxers who are "one of us", put on by struggling promoters who do it for the love of the sport. All that is well and good, but it doesn't for one second change the fact that it is a meaningless championship.

And again, if this same idea was replicated elsewhere in the world, what would you think of it? What if in, say, the US, you had something like Marcus Rhode v Matt Hicks for the "US Masters heavyweight title", what would you think?

I can appreciate the journeymen will try harder when there's a prize on the line, and any boxer likes a belt on his mantelpiece regardless of its denomination, but again, as a punter (and yes, of course I have paid my way to non-televised shows), it means nothing to me. Why not make the matches anyway and perhaps put a trophy on the line for the winner. Then you've got your incentive, without it being a bogus "championship" to be defended later.

I saw that Lee noble (now 10-7) outpointed Anthony Young (now 4-7) for the British Middleweight Master title.

Fair enough, it was something to include as part of a headline for the show " Championship Boxing " - and if thats required to sell tickets, then fair enough.

However, in the context of a "title fight" it is meaningless. Young was coming off 4 losses, Noble had a very mixed record. I fail to see what grounds could be given for his being a "Championship" fight. It seems like an entirely random matchup.

That said, it might inspire Noble.

I must admit I'm with Oliver on this one - I was watching the regional news a few weeks ago and Jane Couch was on there as she's now promoting. Her headliner was Bristolian Danny Butler and Couch was spouting off about him winning the British title and how she hoped he'd go on to challenge for a world title... because of my knowledge of the sport I knew this was all complete bollocks and it was actually the Masters title, but 'Joe Public' would have been completely misled by the concept... not to mention Butler's potential.
In an era where we all readily acknowledge the plethora of world titles make for a confusing situation that confuses all but the most hardcore of fans, surely we shouldn't be supporting the emergence of titles that actually add to the confusion?!

Deserter wrote: surely we shouldn't be supporting the emergence of titles that actually add to the confusion?!

Most people will no doubt agree. However, I think that it must also be acknowledged that being able to promote an event as a "Title Fight" is in some cases necessary in order to draw fans, and keep professional shows at this level in business.

What I would say is that the fights should BE title fights, not just random matchups.

I have nothing against a title for people below the ability level of a British Title. BUT it should mean something. Maybe fighters on undercards who are evenly matched, fighting for a chance of a British Masters Title fight etc.

if they arent British or English level then why not just make it an area title fight?

Id rather see it as an 'eliminator for the area title' than a 'masters' belt, myself, at least then it has a bearing on the rest of the titles