BoxRec

Fair enough, I look forward to your guy continuing to win in style and breaking the top ten.

orbtastic wrote:Well it generally helps if you want to taken seriously, particularly when criticising someone else on a public forum?

Now you both know a malapropism isn't something you go to the see the doctor for.

Even if you were confused in the manner you imply, you would go to see the doctor about a malapropism, not for one.

Unless it were Dr Spooner, perhaps. 8)

I'm sure he has something he could prescribe (or should I say describe) that would give you one.

Boxingcutsman wrote:

The Law wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:Listen, firstly Whittles character is not in question, secondly no one said Altaf that he doesn't know fuk all about boxing, what I said was if he truly believes what he wrote then he must know fuk all about boxing. Obviously you are all misreading what was wrote and interpretating it how you like because your fond of the guy, that's fair enough, he proberly is a nice fella but on this occasion his rankings are a load of shit, FACT. He replied to the E-mail and stood by putting a SM losing fighter in the top 10 over Chris and he has never even won at Cruiserweight, so for me that says it all. Plus for you fools who said Chris hasn't fought anybody with a pulse yet, look at who he has fought and look at the others in the division and you will see he has fought tougher opposition. And has for he works hard, long hours for free, and his great knowledge of the sport, boo woo, what the fuk do you think us trainers and boxers do 7 days a week, traveling the country, spending our own money etc ? All for some writter to over look your hard work. Bottom line he fuked up here and should of just admitted it, what ever kind of a person or job he does.

Did Andy give you an explanation as to how the Boxing News Rankings work? Their ratings may not be influenced by personal opinions (like the Boxrec rankings). I would recommend that you speak to Andy directly (either via phone or at the next local show).

Read the comments mate, he already has given his explanation, simply he feels Paul David, Nathan Owens etc deserve to be in top 10 but Chris doesn't

Dean, I still think you should speak to him directly via phone or in person rather than criticising him here because it will be far more productive and I am pretty confident that Andy will give you a thorough explanation which will clear up any confusion. It's good to talk

I genuinely feel it's a mistake on the writers behave because clearly even if Chris has beaten x amount of journeymen he's still beat a ex British champ in very good style,better form than others mentioned in the top ten.
Now like a good trainer eat a slice of humble pie and move on,look what all the pies done to me [/quote]

You choose to do that though so you cant complain about it too much.[/quote]


Listen, no ones is complaining about doing what we do, what the point is, is that people are saying he does his job for free or pittance because he loves boxing, so my point is So Do We [/quote]

Thats a valid point, I wouldnt argue with that.

Horse wrote: http://boxingnewsonline.net/Rankings.as ... wRankings1

Is this their site? Where are the cruiserweight and heavyweight rankings?

They have McIntosh above Bellew at light heavyweight. A lot of their other rankings seem messed up as well. The rankings seem to be over a year out of date.

Boxingcutsman, are the rankings from the magazine more up to date than those from the website?

Horse wrote:

Horse wrote: http://boxingnewsonline.net/Rankings.as ... wRankings1

Is this their site? Where are the cruiserweight and heavyweight rankings?

They have McIntosh above Bellew at light heavyweight. A lot of their other rankings seem messed up as well. The rankings seem to be over a year out of date.

Boxingcutsman, are the rankings from the magazine more up to date than those from the website?

Yes I'm 100% sure they are mate, they are his recent rankings in the magazine mate

Boxingcutsman wrote:Yes I'm 100% sure they are mate, they are his recent rankings in the magazine mate

How can Keane not be in the rankings then?

Does anyone else in the world share his opinion?

Can understand CK's management being disappointed with this, but as mentioned previously, Boxing News rankings are just an unofficial opinion so surely not too important in the bigger picture?

Just out of interest, do the BBBofC have any kind of rankings system (I presume not)? And, if I'm correct, how do they decide mandatory challengers/eliminator contests? For example, for somebody like Chris Keane, who has just won an Area title, is there any kind of clear pathway for him to become mandatory challenger for the English/British titles? Or is it just a case of the Board saying "he's had a few good wins, let's stick him in as the mandatory"? I'm hoping not, but guessing that this might be the case.

Jack B wrote:Can understand CK's management being disappointed with this, but as mentioned previously, Boxing News rankings are just an unofficial opinion so surely not too important in the bigger picture?

Just out of interest, do the BBBofC have any kind of rankings system (I presume not)? And, if I'm correct, how do they decide mandatory challengers/eliminator contests? For example, for somebody like Chris Keane, who has just won an Area title, is there any kind of clear pathway for him to become mandatory challenger for the English/British titles? Or is it just a case of the Board saying "he's had a few good wins, let's stick him in as the mandatory"? I'm hoping not, but guessing that this might be the case.

Rob Smith explained the process when I interviewed him a few years ago. I can dig it out tomorrow although I'd appreciate an emailed reminder.

dbflex wrote:

Jack B wrote:Can understand CK's management being disappointed with this, but as mentioned previously, Boxing News rankings are just an unofficial opinion so surely not too important in the bigger picture?

Just out of interest, do the BBBofC have any kind of rankings system (I presume not)? And, if I'm correct, how do they decide mandatory challengers/eliminator contests? For example, for somebody like Chris Keane, who has just won an Area title, is there any kind of clear pathway for him to become mandatory challenger for the English/British titles? Or is it just a case of the Board saying "he's had a few good wins, let's stick him in as the mandatory"? I'm hoping not, but guessing that this might be the case.

Rob Smith explained the process when I interviewed him a few years ago. I can dig it out tomorrow although I'd appreciate an emailed reminder.

They use the Boxing News Ratings! :-)

dbflex wrote:

Jack B wrote:Can understand CK's management being disappointed with this, but as mentioned previously, Boxing News rankings are just an unofficial opinion so surely not too important in the bigger picture?

Just out of interest, do the BBBofC have any kind of rankings system (I presume not)? And, if I'm correct, how do they decide mandatory challengers/eliminator contests? For example, for somebody like Chris Keane, who has just won an Area title, is there any kind of clear pathway for him to become mandatory challenger for the English/British titles? Or is it just a case of the Board saying "he's had a few good wins, let's stick him in as the mandatory"? I'm hoping not, but guessing that this might be the case.

Rob Smith explained the process when I interviewed him a few years ago. I can dig it out tomorrow although I'd appreciate an emailed reminder.

I would like to hear the methods as to who gets nominated for particular titles. I have always thought that some sort of rankings system though as evidenced in this thread would probably controversial. It would bring some more transparency and probably some much needed publicity.

wrimc wrote:

dbflex wrote:

Jack B wrote:Can understand CK's management being disappointed with this, but as mentioned previously, Boxing News rankings are just an unofficial opinion so surely not too important in the bigger picture?

Just out of interest, do the BBBofC have any kind of rankings system (I presume not)? And, if I'm correct, how do they decide mandatory challengers/eliminator contests? For example, for somebody like Chris Keane, who has just won an Area title, is there any kind of clear pathway for him to become mandatory challenger for the English/British titles? Or is it just a case of the Board saying "he's had a few good wins, let's stick him in as the mandatory"? I'm hoping not, but guessing that this might be the case.

Rob Smith explained the process when I interviewed him a few years ago. I can dig it out tomorrow although I'd appreciate an emailed reminder.

I would like to hear the methods as to who gets nominated for particular titles. I have always thought that some sort of rankings system though as evidenced in this thread would probably controversial. It would bring some more transparency and probably some much needed publicity.

In an ideal world the Board would nominate who they deemed the best fighters for their titles but the sports politics often plays a huge part. What happens is a fighters camp makes an application for their fighter to fight for a title and the board deliberate. More often than not a deal is already struck between two fighters promotional teams and they then give the Board the fighters names, proposed date of the fight and the venue and leave the Board to say yay or nay.

Next time someone picks up on a Bunceism or Lillis slip up hopefully they get directed to the phone to talk it through rather than publicly criticising.

Final round wrote: Next time someone picks up on a Bunceism or Lillis slip up hopefully they get directed to the phone to talk it through rather than publicly criticising.

Hardly comparable. There are a few inaccurate comments about Andy in this thread. I also doubt that Dean contacted Andy directly via email. No quotes from Andy have been provided and we are merely basing this on hearsay. Does Andy have sole influence over the ratings at Boxing News? Are the ratings subjective or objective? So many unanswered questions ....

I may know the answer to the aforementioned questions but I believe it's something for Dean and Andy to discuss on a personal level.

I would like Dean to discuss this amicably with Andy because both of them are very reasonable guys and the misconceptions can easily be overcome. I think they will come to a mutual understanding to some extent. Big Dean is regularly at shows in the Midlands and can easily have a chat with Andy, he's very approachable.

I found it! It was actually Robert Smith's predecessor Simon Block who outlined the process of choosing title challengers:

"Stewards who are representing their area will often be asked by a manager in that era to put someone forward, and managers and promoters suggest people to Rob and myself. But very often there is one outstanding challenger. If there are more, we go through their records, assess the boxers and the Boxing News ratings are a helpful guide."

dbflex wrote: Boxing News ratings are a helpful guide."

The Insider wrote:

dbflex wrote: Boxing News ratings are a helpful guide."

What's funny about that Phil ?
Is it funny that if that is the case Chris won't fight for a title yet ?
Or is it funny that if that's the case then Andy has dropped a bollock ?
Don't understand what's funny there mate, please enlighten your old betting buddy

It's funny to me because I already posted that the Board "used" to use the BN ratings 5 posts back Dean, although it's worth mentioning the emoticon I used is a "Yes" variety and not a "lol" one big fella :-). I doubt that Chris' BN ranking will have a detrimental effect on wether Chris fights for a title or not.

The Insider wrote:It's funny to me because I already posted that the Board "used" to use the BN ratings 5 posts back Dean, although it's worth mentioning the emoticon I used is a "Yes" variety and not a "lol" one big fella :-). I doubt that Chris' BN ranking will have a detrimental effect on wether Chris fights for a title or not.

Oh I see, so it was more of I told them so earlier, and don't you start picking on me on how I write things and grammar now aswell, your supposed to be my mate I've already had stick of a English language Dr from Oxford on here picking on my words in there right context
Yh I hope not mate, frustrating constantly waiting around and getting knocked back, boxing pisses me off sometimes

Just thought I'd clear it up for you Dean :-)

Oh and I know your not daft pal as at least 70% of your tattoos are spelt correctly!

The Insider wrote:Just thought I'd clear it up for you Dean :-)

Oh and I know your not daft pal as at least 70% of your tattoos are spelt correctly!

Funny fuker

Boxingcutsman wrote:

The Insider wrote:Just thought I'd clear it up for you Dean :-)

Oh and I know your not daft pal as at least 70% of your tattoos are spelt correctly!

Funny fuker

You knows it.

Boxingcutsman wrote:

The Insider wrote:It's funny to me because I already posted that the Board "used" to use the BN ratings 5 posts back Dean, although it's worth mentioning the emoticon I used is a "Yes" variety and not a "lol" one big fella :-). I doubt that Chris' BN ranking will have a detrimental effect on wether Chris fights for a title or not.

Oh I see, so it was more of I told them so earlier, and don't you start picking on me on how I write things and grammar now aswell, your supposed to be my mate I've already had stick of a English language Dr from Oxford on here picking on my words in there right context
Yh I hope not mate, frustrating constantly waiting around and getting knocked back, boxing pisses me off sometimes

You would have had a stick "off" a English language Dr from Oxford, not "of". And its "an" English, not "a". You need to cut down on the training mate and brush up your English if you want to start carrying on on here!

Ah Mickey, as Ian deftly pointed out, once you open the door of criticism it's never shut.

One should never start a sentence with a conjunction. Its is not in the possessive form either, it's in the contracted form but that's what cracks me up about Billy, he gives it the "what's it matter how you spell things so long as you give it a go" but yet when someone criticises him he fires back straight away with "come back when you've boxed or trained professionally". Surely by his weird logic it wouldn't matter how good or bad someone is so long as they give it a go and we all know what they mean?

That said, he does come in for a disproportionate amount of stick on here and I've defended him in the past but maybe part of that is down to how he comes across when talking to people.

If I was as petty as he says I'd have pointed out the inherent irony in him misspelling grammar.

The level of writing by some genuinely baffles me, I wonder who writes their job applications, CVs or any form of formal letter for them. Then again the sheer level of people who seemingly can't understand the difference between your and you're always makes my head hurt.

I don't even have A-levels. Maybe I just paid more attention at school?