BoxRec

leejonesjnr wrote:

dw01 wrote:

kamicazze wrote:Yeah there's no doubt about that. I think the criticism lays in there not having been a competitive MBC show yet. We know bbb of c have mismatches but they often have competitive cards too.

And in all fairness, it's the promoter's job to matchmake. You'll always get occasional mismatches.

I'm quite excited to see how the MBC develops in the UK. I think it's going to open the floodgates for others to compete for the UK market too.

Well, no, it is the matchmakers job to matchmake.

Well no,, the buck stops with the promoter, who not only sometimes matches but also hires the matchmaker and can vetoe any fight he doesnt see as appropriate

With regards to poor matchmaking - many of the fights on the shows have involved up and comers and would no different in compete venues had they been on a bbb of c show instead.

How can this boxer fight for a 'title'

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

and how can he face someone like this who has never fought over a 6 rounder?

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

This was my concern about any commission or sanctioning body that emerges with promises. Someone will get killed before long with poor matchmaking and someone needs to be held accountable for it.

mimmy123 wrote:How can this boxer fight for a 'title'

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

and how can he face someone like this who has never fought over a 6 rounder?

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

This was my concern about any commission or sanctioning body that emerges with promises. Someone will get killed before long with poor matchmaking and someone needs to be held accountable for it.

So.... how exactly does that match differ from any other BBBoC sanctioned show ????? the only difference is its got a title on it.... and in all honesty, worse matches than that have boxed for masters titles.... seriously over exaggerating when saying it will lead to people being killed. Its just unbeaten prospect vs Journeyman.... Look on any Matchroom show and youll see exactly the same

Looking On wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:How can this boxer fight for a 'title'

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

and how can he face someone like this who has never fought over a 6 rounder?

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

This was my concern about any commission or sanctioning body that emerges with promises. Someone will get killed before long with poor matchmaking and someone needs to be held accountable for it.

So.... how exactly does that match differ from any other BBBoC sanctioned show ????? the only difference is its got a title on it.... and in all honesty, worse matches than that have boxed for masters titles.... seriously over exaggerating when saying it will lead to people being killed. Its just unbeaten prospect vs Journeyman.... Look on any Matchroom show and youll see exactly the same

Thats my opinion. and I dont think its an exaggeration that poor match ups can lead to injury some serious and sometimes worse. Also btw, do they both warrent a title fight, is it desrved? Was these 2 names just picked out of a hat at random/ are these the best qualified to dispute a 'title'?

mimmy123 wrote:

Looking On wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:How can this boxer fight for a 'title'

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

and how can he face someone like this who has never fought over a 6 rounder?

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

This was my concern about any commission or sanctioning body that emerges with promises. Someone will get killed before long with poor matchmaking and someone needs to be held accountable for it.

So.... how exactly does that match differ from any other BBBoC sanctioned show ????? the only difference is its got a title on it.... and in all honesty, worse matches than that have boxed for masters titles.... seriously over exaggerating when saying it will lead to people being killed. Its just unbeaten prospect vs Journeyman.... Look on any Matchroom show and youll see exactly the same

Thats my opinion. and I dont think its an exaggeration that poor match ups can lead to injury some serious and sometimes worse. Also btw, do they both warrent a title fight, is it desrved? Was these 2 names just picked out of a hat at random/ are these the best qualified to dispute a 'title'?

Well with that opinion i can only assume you disaprove of boxing in general if you dont think unbeaten lads should ever box journeymen, maybe you should find a tiddlywinks forum

So they are the best 2 qualified to fight for a 'title'? Lads above them and surely there are lads above them in the rankings get a bite of the cherry first. isnt that how boxing works? Im not foolish to say it does not happen boxers step aside etc but come on, this is shameful.

Also dont you think it devalues boxing when a bloke can fight for a title after not winning his last 30 fights?

mimmy123 wrote:Also dont you think it devalues boxing when a bloke can fight for a title after not winning his last 30 fights?

Good point. Surely there is only one answer to this question.

JimJim2009 wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:Also dont you think it devalues boxing when a bloke can fight for a title after not winning his last 30 fights?

Good point. Surely there is only one answer to this question.

Very valid point. On the other hand The man in question has won a midlands area and british masters title.

mimmy123 wrote:Also dont you think it devalues boxing when a bloke can fight for a title after not winning his last 30 fights?

Hang on.... i couldnt care less about the title, anyone in the know is well aware of what a title is worth.... what annoyed me is you claimed that the MBC putting an unbeaten prospect in with a journeyman meant there would end up being a death. despite it being nothing that doesnt happen on every sinlge BBBoC show.

So in all honesty i find any arguement you have on this subject as invalid as you either know sod all about boxing, or the more likely (and that is as close to a complement as your gonna get) is that your just so anti MBC that your going to pick fault anyway... because lets face it...your criticising them for something that happens on every show across the entire world...

Looking On wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:Also dont you think it devalues boxing when a bloke can fight for a title after not winning his last 30 fights?

Hang on.... i couldnt care less about the title, anyone in the know is well aware of what a title is worth.... what annoyed me is you claimed that the MBC putting an unbeaten prospect in with a journeyman meant there would end up being a death. despite it being nothing that doesnt happen on every sinlge BBBoC show.

So in all honesty i find any arguement you have on this subject as invalid as you either know sod all about boxing, or the more likely (and that is as close to a complement as your gonna get) is that your just so anti MBC that your going to pick fault anyway... because lets face it...your criticising them for something that happens on every show across the entire world...

Ive never critised them, I infact asked Luca a few questions early on in the thread. Im not against MBC im against instances THAT could have a downside, whether thats on a BBBoC bill, MBC bill, Mickey Mouse bill or any bill for that matter thats not my argument im affraid.

Also I said ANY commision sanctioning body, I did not single anyone out!

kamicazze wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:Also dont you think it devalues boxing when a bloke can fight for a title after not winning his last 30 fights?

Good point. Surely there is only one answer to this question.

Very valid point. On the other hand The man in question has won a midlands area and british masters title.

Joe bugner is a former British commonwealth and European heavyweight champion but I wouldn't put him in a title fight now. Form has to play a part.

Exactly Its like saying Anthony joshua put in with Danny Williams because Williams fought and beat Mike Tyson. Even though Joshua has only had 10 fights I would have thought a fight such as this would raise eyebrows wouldn't it, or am I wrong and a fight such as Joshua v Williams would be a good match up? A upcoming 'novice' against a journeyman?

mimmy123 wrote:Exactly Its like saying Anthony joshua put in with Danny Williams because Williams fought and beat Mike Tyson. Even though Joshua has only had 10 fights I would have thought a fight such as this would raise eyebrows wouldn't it, or am I wrong and a fight such as Joshua v Williams would be a good match up? A upcoming 'novice' against a journeyman?

Now your just being a prat.... We all know Williams shouldnt be boxing at all....at least a journeymen in the main can defend themseles. Williams is a punch bag

You are very quick to judge me.

How do you know a boxer who has lost the last 30 fights can defend himself?

mimmy123 wrote:How do you know a boxer who has lost the last 30 fights can defend himself?

because ive watched him fight recently... have you?

Looking On wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:How do you know a boxer who has lost the last 30 fights can defend himself?

because ive watched him fight recently... have you?

Every reply from you seems to be one direction. Ciao

It is interesting that many people criticize the MBC for their matchmaking whilst totally disregarding matchmaking from the BBBofC.

I am not defending either body, in the main the matchmaking from both is shite !

If anybody disagrees with me I will happily take a bet on any future BBBofC show as I am sure that I could (along with most people) predict the winner in the vast majority of the fights.

bripez wrote:It is interesting that many people criticize the MBC for their matchmaking whilst totally disregarding matchmaking from the BBBofC.

I am not defending either body, in the main the matchmaking from both is shite !

If anybody disagrees with me I will happily take a bet on any future BBBofC show as I am sure that I could (along with most people) predict the winner in the vast majority of the fights.

Im not disputing what you say. My argument is that I cannot see how a guy with 30 losses on the trot gets a title shot? For me it seems names in a hat and the lucky 2 are.

I agree there has been poor match making with other bodies too. Thats a fact

Personally, I think sanctioning titles is a bad move from the MBC. It's one thing to be licensing fighters and sanctioning events, it's another to be dishing out titles for meaningless championships.

dw01 wrote:Personally, I think sanctioning titles is a bad move from the MBC. It's one thing to be licensing fighters and sanctioning events, it's another to be dishing out titles for meaningless championships.

We all know the titles mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.... if they help put a few more casual bums on seats at the small hall shows then i dont see a problem.... now if they started claiming to be the second coming or something then thats a whole different matter

Sanctioning titles is a necessary evil in my opinion for 2 reasons.
1) it helps sell a show
2) a boxer needs something to aim for

Not every boxer will be able to go for elite titles. So lower ones keep them in the game. The amount of time a fighter puts in to what they get out is less than a minimum wage. Fighters will carry on for so long because they love fighting but when it becomes a chore, it's the potential glories that keep them going. Take away the potential glories and many would knock it on the head as soon as that feeling (which at some point it would) comes on.

You make a good point Kam. My only issue is that a boxer with 20 losses in a row gets a 'title' shot when a fellow boxer of say 3 straight wins then 5 losses, another 2 wins then 5 losses etc misses out. What gives the right for a guy who cannot win get that shot first? I understand what you are saging but there are 2 sides to a coin. That guy with a mediocre record misses out to a constant loser, so the mediocre boxer gets dissalusioned. My old fashioned theory is you win, you go up the ladder and the more you win the more opportunities come your way. Not lose all the time and you get a belt.. But i do get where you are coming from.