BoxRec

bripez wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:I'm quite surprised that there seems to be a lot of people on here who want multiple organisations operating in the UK.

Very few boxers want anything other than BBBoC licenses in my experience, including those who hold an MBC license. It wasn't a choice, they couldn't get a BBBoC license so settled for MBC.

Ok mate, I will ignore the fact that I try to give my opinion on points that you raise and you completely ignore mine and continue in another tangent

I don't think that most people on here necessarily want multiple sanctioning bodies - myself included.

I can only speak for myself, however as a boxing fan i just want to see the best competitive fights - not just the title fights but all the way down the card. I am sure that boxers are the same - they just want to box on a regular basis and test themselves against their peers.

Unfortunately, this is not happening. As the BBBofC are currently the only sanctioning body in the UK what are they doing about it? - they continue to sanction fights that are massively stacked in one boxers favour, not every now and again but in the vast majority of fights.

If the board will not do anything willingly, then if the emergence of the likes of the MBC forces them to look at themselves and to do what is right for the sport then I am all for it.

MBC cards seem to be at best equally weighted, so no progress there?
There are plenty of shows, boxers can fight often.
What would you like me to comment on that I havent?

I really don't see why people are so staunch when it comes to the British Boxing Board of Control.

If there is an entity out there; a licensing commission/private company/whatever, that can vet a boxer and issue a licence, as well as ensure the safety procedures of an event are in place, then what is the problem?

Forget titles, licensing is about regulation not titles.

Ok mate, I will ignore the fact that I try to give my opinion on points that you raise and you completely ignore mine and continue in another tangent


Happens a lot on this post, particular by the Board followers, ironically, the same people that accused myself of doing so, though i have answered every point put to myself. Seems they have the same mentality of the BBBoC - 'Their way, or now way, and ignore the rest'.

Divs.

I am certainly pro BBBoC but I am not anti MBC, I have had no dealings with them.

What relationship do you guys have with the BBBoC/MBC?

dw01 wrote:Ok mate, I will ignore the fact that I try to give my opinion on points that you raise and you completely ignore mine and continue in another tangent


Happens a lot on this post, particular by the Board followers, ironically, the same people that accused myself of doing so, though i have answered every point put to myself. Seems they have the same mentality of the BBBoC - 'Their way, or now way, and ignore the rest'.

Divs.

The same thing happened earlier in this thread - the MBC guy answered every single question in full and yet a handfull of posters appeared to not want to listen to what he was saying and just repeated the same stuff that he had already addressed.

leejonesjnr wrote:I am certainly pro BBBoC but I am not anti MBC, I have had no dealings with them.

What relationship do you guys have with the BBBoC/MBC?

I am neither pro or anti anything, I am just a regular boxing fan who is frustrated with the current non-level playing field (if this makes sense) that in my opinion is not doing the sport any favours.

As the whole point of the BBBofC is to look after the interests of all of their members and not a select few, it seems to me that this is not happening. If the emergence of the likes of the MBC results in the board looking at themselves and seeing how they can best serve their members (and therefore the sport) then I think that can only be a good thing.

bripez wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:I am certainly pro BBBoC but I am not anti MBC, I have had no dealings with them.

What relationship do you guys have with the BBBoC/MBC?

I am neither pro or anti anything, I am just a regular boxing fan who is frustrated with the current non-level playing field (if this makes sense) that in my opinion is not doing the sport any favours.

As the whole point of the BBBofC is to look after the interests of all of their members and not a select few, it seems to me that this is not happening. If the emergence of the likes of the MBC results in the board looking at themselves and seeing how they can best serve their members (and therefore the sport) then I think that can only be a good thing.

I see.
I feel that the BBBoC does a good job.

leejonesjnr wrote:

bripez wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:I am certainly pro BBBoC but I am not anti MBC, I have had no dealings with them.

What relationship do you guys have with the BBBoC/MBC?

I am neither pro or anti anything, I am just a regular boxing fan who is frustrated with the current non-level playing field (if this makes sense) that in my opinion is not doing the sport any favours.

As the whole point of the BBBofC is to look after the interests of all of their members and not a select few, it seems to me that this is not happening. If the emergence of the likes of the MBC results in the board looking at themselves and seeing how they can best serve their members (and therefore the sport) then I think that can only be a good thing.

I see.
I feel that the BBBoC does a good job.

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

dw01 wrote:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

I suppose that is where we differ. I don't consider the idea of pro boxers breaking the terms of their license by 'fighting on the quiet' to be acceptable.
Some bodies allow it certainly, including MBC who have made an arrangement to stage joint boxing/kickboxing shows in a gym in Scotland.
HOWEVER, just because some bodies allow it doesn't mean that people should ignore the conditions of the license that they have chosen to take out. If a boxer wants to effect change then why not canvas for support and appeal to the board etc. If they have no joy then make the choice to accept that they cannot kickbox or if kickboxing is more important to them, end their boxing career or go to someone like MBC.

dw01 wrote:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

Where are you based dw01 ?

leejonesjnr wrote:

dw01 wrote:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

I suppose that is where we differ. I don't consider the idea of pro boxers breaking the terms of their license by 'fighting on the quiet' to be acceptable.
Some bodies allow it certainly, including MBC who have made an arrangement to stage joint boxing/kickboxing shows in a gym in Scotland.
HOWEVER, just because some bodies allow it doesn't mean that people should ignore the conditions of the license that they have chosen to take out. If a boxer wants to effect change then why not canvas for support and appeal to the board etc. If they have no joy then make the choice to accept that they cannot kickbox or if kickboxing is more important to them, end their boxing career or go to someone like MBC.

That's one of my main reasons i support other licensing bodies who are, i would consider, a little more open-minded, modern, and accepting of other combat sports. I'm aware of the Scottish situation with the WKA - arguably one of the oldest, and at one time, most credible bodies. Even in their own rulebook (which can be downloaded from their site at WKAASSOCIATION ) you see they have fairly good medical procedures in plance, albeit, not as stringent as the BBBoC or MBC. To me, Boxing & Kickboxing are the two closest ringsports you can get. If the MBC implement a stringent licensing & safety policy, it can only be good for the kickboxing element on co-sanctioned shows. The other reason i am in favour is that they are slashing the costs for boxers & promoters. Which surely is a good thing.

Looking On wrote:

dw01 wrote:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

Where are you based dw01 ?

May i ask why you would like to know?

I think it is in the best interest of the fighters i've referred to above, to not answer that.

dw01 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:

dw01 wrote:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

I suppose that is where we differ. I don't consider the idea of pro boxers breaking the terms of their license by 'fighting on the quiet' to be acceptable.
Some bodies allow it certainly, including MBC who have made an arrangement to stage joint boxing/kickboxing shows in a gym in Scotland.
HOWEVER, just because some bodies allow it doesn't mean that people should ignore the conditions of the license that they have chosen to take out. If a boxer wants to effect change then why not canvas for support and appeal to the board etc. If they have no joy then make the choice to accept that they cannot kickbox or if kickboxing is more important to them, end their boxing career or go to someone like MBC.

That's one of my main reasons i support other licensing bodies who are, i would consider, a little more open-minded, modern, and accepting of other combat sports. I'm aware of the Scottish situation with the WKA - arguably one of the oldest, and at one time, most credible bodies. Even in their own rulebook (which can be downloaded from their site at WKAASSOCIATION ) you see they have fairly good medical procedures in plance, albeit, not as stringent as the BBBoC or MBC. To me, Boxing & Kickboxing are the two closest ringsports you can get. If the MBC implement a stringent licensing & safety policy, it can only be good for the kickboxing element on co-sanctioned shows. The other reason i am in favour is that they are slashing the costs for boxers & promoters. Which surely is a good thing.

I would imagine that the other financial cut is boxers pay but perhaps someone who actually knows for sure can comment on that? Dunno, I haven't seen the gym but holding shows in the home fighters gym doesn't sound great to me.

dw01 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:

dw01 wrote:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion of Bripez, except I have a few fighters that are considering boxing pro - one of whom has beaten various pro (who've fought on the quiet), and loads of reasonable level unlic. Boxers. However, if they get a Board licence they can no longer fight kick or thai, and two regularly fight on a few of the world's biggest kickboxing promotions. The MBC, I believe, as well as a number of other national federations/bodies do permit to fight outside of boxing.

I suppose that is where we differ. I don't consider the idea of pro boxers breaking the terms of their license by 'fighting on the quiet' to be acceptable.
Some bodies allow it certainly, including MBC who have made an arrangement to stage joint boxing/kickboxing shows in a gym in Scotland.
HOWEVER, just because some bodies allow it doesn't mean that people should ignore the conditions of the license that they have chosen to take out. If a boxer wants to effect change then why not canvas for support and appeal to the board etc. If they have no joy then make the choice to accept that they cannot kickbox or if kickboxing is more important to them, end their boxing career or go to someone like MBC.

That's one of my main reasons i support other licensing bodies who are, i would consider, a little more open-minded, modern, and accepting of other combat sports. I'm aware of the Scottish situation with the WKA - arguably one of the oldest, and at one time, most credible bodies. Even in their own rulebook (which can be downloaded from their site at WKAASSOCIATION ) you see they have fairly good medical procedures in plance, albeit, not as stringent as the BBBoC or MBC. To me, Boxing & Kickboxing are the two closest ringsports you can get. If the MBC implement a stringent licensing & safety policy, it can only be good for the kickboxing element on co-sanctioned shows. The other reason i am in favour is that they are slashing the costs for boxers & promoters. Which surely is a good thing.

They accept other sports, but the rules are that fighters have to make a choice between one or the other. You wouldn't see a footballer playing county cricket in the summer or a golfer taking time off to play tennis, so why should it be any different in boxing?

Yet the board allow a cricketer to box.......

That's one of my main reasons i support other licensing bodies who are, i would consider, a little more open-minded, modern, and accepting of other combat sports. I'm aware of the Scottish situation with the WKA - arguably one of the oldest, and at one time, most credible bodies. Even in their own rulebook (which can be downloaded from their site at WKAASSOCIATION ) you see they have fairly good medical procedures in plance, albeit, not as stringent as the BBBoC or MBC. To me, Boxing & Kickboxing are the two closest ringsports you can get. If the MBC implement a stringent licensing & safety policy, it can only be good for the kickboxing element on co-sanctioned shows. The other reason i am in favour is that they are slashing the costs for boxers & promoters. Which surely is a good thing.[/quote]
They accept other sports, but the rules are that fighters have to make a choice between one or the other. You wouldn't see a footballer playing county cricket in the summer or a golfer taking time off to play tennis, so why should it be any different in boxing?[/quote]


Mate, the question should be "Why should it be the same?".

A professional athlete/fighter should be permitted to do whichever combat sport he wishes, as long as it's safe and well regulated. Yes, i know the Board 'accepts' other sports, that was a bit of a play on words there, i'm sure you know i meant that they should be permitted to fight other styles also. Athletic Commissions permit it. Many National Federations and Licensing Commissions permit it.

Looking On wrote:Yet the board allow a cricketer to box.......

In all fairness, if someone is fit enough to box - mentally and physically, i don't see a reason why they cannot obtain a licence. The Yanks licence loads of pro's without ABA experience.

Looking On wrote:Yet the board allow a cricketer to box.......

Former cricketer. If he was still playing cricket he wouldn't have been anywhere near a boxing ring.

dw01 wrote: Mate, the question should be "Why should it be the same?".

A professional athlete/fighter should be permitted to do whichever combat sport he wishes, as long as it's safe and well regulated. Yes, i know the Board 'accepts' other sports, that was a bit of a play on words there, i'm sure you know i meant that they should be permitted to fight other styles also. Athletic Commissions permit it. Many National Federations and Licensing Commissions permit it.

They are permitted to take part in the sport they choose, but that means one sport, not two or three. I would say that those bodies are wrong to do so, it's slightly better with the athletic commissions because they oversee all combat sports, but a fighter could be knocked out in a kickboxing bout, then a week later get into a boxing ring as the board may not know he'd been knocked out a week previously because it took place in a different sport under a different governing body.

expe wrote:

dw01 wrote: Mate, the question should be "Why should it be the same?".

A professional athlete/fighter should be permitted to do whichever combat sport he wishes, as long as it's safe and well regulated. Yes, i know the Board 'accepts' other sports, that was a bit of a play on words there, i'm sure you know i meant that they should be permitted to fight other styles also. Athletic Commissions permit it. Many National Federations and Licensing Commissions permit it.

They are permitted to take part in the sport they choose, but that means one sport, not two or three. I would say that those bodies are wrong to do so, it's slightly better with the athletic commissions because they oversee all combat sports, but a fighter could be knocked out in a kickboxing bout, then a week later get into a boxing ring as the board may not know he'd been knocked out a week previously because it took place in a different sport under a different governing body.

This is true, but this is happening right now with pro's on the alternative scene. This year alone, i know a pro boxer that's had his jaw broken and plates insterted through taking an 'unlicensed' fight... I know another pro that regularly travels the UK fighting on shows - sometimes 2-3 times in one weekend... Another got TKO'd on a local show to me a few weeks ago and fought very recently on a pro show.

I am not knocking the BBBoC for these things, after all how are they supposed to know. But things like kickboxing, thaiboxing, etc, deals could easily be entered into with those regulating bodies whereby certain minimum requirements must be met, and fight records reported to between each other. It would keep the fighter active, and increase his earning potential. Organisations such as the ISKA or IKF have very high standards in kickboxing, i am sure they'd be more than welcome to a working relationship, after all, there's simply not enough pro boxing shows on for the lower-level fighters, and not enough money in the kickboxing game.

Sounds to me like the problem is pro boxers who think it is okay to cheat the sport rather than the BBBoC.
How will allowing a boxer to also kickbox have any effect on these unnamed pros who are regularly boxing unlicensed?

leejonesjnr wrote:Sounds to me like the problem is pro boxers who think it is okay to cheat the sport rather than the BBBoC.
How will allowing a boxer to also kickbox have any effect on these unnamed pros who are regularly boxing unlicensed?

On those boxers? Probably none.

On other boxers that have an interest in both sports? It would give them more opportunity to ply their trade of combat, earn a little more, and build up their experience a lot quicker.


I don't understand your 'cheating on the sport' comment. The sport is the sport. It was there before certain people (Board) decided to interfere and nominate 'themselves' as the regulatory body. There's no such case of cheating on the sport in this instance, it's a case of a boxer not wanting to be restricted by policies that Lord/Lady/QC/Sir whatsthereface has decided to implement... Also, again, let's not kid ourselves - the Board's policies are mainly implements because of the insurance companies' demands.


I think it's plain to see that opinions of some won't be swayed. One thing that we should all agree on though, and that is boxing should be safe, and well ran. To me, it doesn't matter who does that - be it the British Boxing Board of Control, Malta Boxing Commissions, or Bob Trollop's Boxing Association. If a fighter is clear to fight, all should respect that. We can all see that this is 'solely' about the Board wanting the monopoly on British professional boxing, and nothing at all else. Dress it up as you please.

Have a good night.

dw01 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:Sounds to me like the problem is pro boxers who think it is okay to cheat the sport rather than the BBBoC.
How will allowing a boxer to also kickbox have any effect on these unnamed pros who are regularly boxing unlicensed?

On those boxers? Probably none.

On other boxers that have an interest in both sports? It would give them more opportunity to ply their trade of combat, earn a little more, and build up their experience a lot quicker.


I don't understand your 'cheating on the sport' comment. The sport is the sport. It was there before certain people (Board) decided to interfere and nominate 'themselves' as the regulatory body. There's no such case of cheating on the sport in this instance, it's a case of a boxer not wanting to be restricted by policies that Lord/Lady/QC/Sir whatsthereface has decided to implement... Also, again, let's not kid ourselves - the Board's policies are mainly implements because of the insurance companies' demands.


I think it's plain to see that opinions of some won't be swayed. One thing that we should all agree on though, and that is boxing should be safe, and well ran. To me, it doesn't matter who does that - be it the British Boxing Board of Control, Malta Boxing Commissions, or Bob Trollop's Boxing Association. If a fighter is clear to fight, all should respect that. We can all see that this is 'solely' about the Board wanting the monopoly on British professional boxing, and nothing at all else. Dress it up as you please.

Have a good night.

Simple, sign a document agreeing to a code of conduct, terms and conditions, whatever you wish to call it and then intentionally break that agreement whilst attempting to conceal your actions - cheating, dishonest, not acceptable.

If you are interested in safety then surely you don't want licensed boxers to be allowed to fight kickboxers anyway? Kickboxing in the UK has zero drug testing, zero brain scans, zero eye testing, blood testing etc etc. For this reason no reputable body would allow their boxers to take part in kickboxing? I am sure that much of the conditions are indeed to do with insurance, I don't see that as a problem? I also find it bizarre that someone so interested in kickboxing cannot see the value of the BBBoC, kickboxing would be in a much better state if there was a similar body in the UK rather than the dozens of organisations that exist today.

leejonesjnr wrote:

dw01 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:Sounds to me like the problem is pro boxers who think it is okay to cheat the sport rather than the BBBoC.
How will allowing a boxer to also kickbox have any effect on these unnamed pros who are regularly boxing unlicensed?

On those boxers? Probably none.

On other boxers that have an interest in both sports? It would give them more opportunity to ply their trade of combat, earn a little more, and build up their experience a lot quicker.


I don't understand your 'cheating on the sport' comment. The sport is the sport. It was there before certain people (Board) decided to interfere and nominate 'themselves' as the regulatory body. There's no such case of cheating on the sport in this instance, it's a case of a boxer not wanting to be restricted by policies that Lord/Lady/QC/Sir whatsthereface has decided to implement... Also, again, let's not kid ourselves - the Board's policies are mainly implements because of the insurance companies' demands.


I think it's plain to see that opinions of some won't be swayed. One thing that we should all agree on though, and that is boxing should be safe, and well ran. To me, it doesn't matter who does that - be it the British Boxing Board of Control, Malta Boxing Commissions, or Bob Trollop's Boxing Association. If a fighter is clear to fight, all should respect that. We can all see that this is 'solely' about the Board wanting the monopoly on British professional boxing, and nothing at all else. Dress it up as you please.

Have a good night.

Simple, sign a document agreeing to a code of conduct, terms and conditions, whatever you wish to call it and then intentionally break that agreement whilst attempting to conceal your actions - cheating, dishonest, not acceptable.

I understand this wholly. Yes, they are breaking their 'agreement' with the BBBoC. But let's face it, there's been a massive misconception that's went on for years with regards to the BBBoC's status. I'd say 90% of people actually believe that the Board is some form of government-recognised institution, if not funded, body for pro boxing in the UK. So many of the older generation of boxing coaches seem to think this also. I have spoken with many who are under this illusion too. Strange as it sounds. And the BBBoC coined the phrase 'unlicensed' in order to make sound non-Board events as something underground, dangerous and wrong.

If you are interested in safety then surely you don't want licensed boxers to be allowed to fight kickboxers anyway? Kickboxing in the UK has zero drug testing, zero brain scans, zero eye testing, blood testing etc etc. For this reason no reputable body would allow their boxers to take part in kickboxing? I am sure that much of the conditions are indeed to do with insurance, I don't see that as a problem? I also find it bizarre that someone so interested in kickboxing cannot see the value of the BBBoC, kickboxing would be in a much better state if there was a similar body in the UK rather than the dozens of organisations that exist today.

You've missed my point on that one. If a boxer holds a BBBoC or an MBC licence, then they've already had the brain & blood tests, etc, and obviously passed. How long before they need a new one? In that timeframe they should be permitted to fight, pick up experience, and earn money. All the big kickboxing organisations insist on a ringside physician, pre-fight checks, etc, so i don't see the problem.

Also, on that note. The BBBoC allow boxers to fight abroad under the sanction of a foreign authority ie French, Italian, German, or wherever it may be. Not all of those licensing bodies have the same medical policies (as has been stated many times in this thread) as the BBBoC. So if we look at it logically, it's OK for a BBBoC licensed boxer to box on a far lesser medically supervised/safe event in a foreign country, but not fight on a domestic (or international) kickboxing promotion that may have the same standard of cover as the BBBoC.

It's hypocritical. The BBBoC is one big hypocritical, elitist, body that is run by people unelected by its members, yet who dictates everything to them.

On a side note:

The MBC/WKA deal could be very good. It may not be good for the boxing purists, but many people like both sports. If the MBC has the same safety standards of the BBBoC, and are agreeing to partner with the WKA, then this would 'raise' the safety standards of WKA Kickboxing events.



NOT EVERY national boxing commission/licensing authority insists on brain scans either. Yes, i agree that on a safety level it is great that brain scans are implemented, but they're not a legal requirement either. Isn't there more serious head injuries in Rugby? Yet they don't have to have brain scans (as far as i'm aware). We could play on that one single aspect all day long.