BoxRec

mickey1975 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:No reply Damien? Got anyone for a 12st 19yo who knows what he's doing? Lee knows him but won't put his name on here.

Lee meaning me?
If it's who I have in mind I'm very disappointed to hear he is going MBC. I've literally just had a conversation which lead me to believe he was getting a BBBoC license.
Also, I didn't think he had ever boxed amateur.

No, I meant the other Lee. No worries Damien, but he's probably in the top 5 ams in England in his weight. Very, very good.

Oh good

Just been to the record attempt show, and have to say that steve ward looked every bit the 59 year old.

I did think he would win to be honest but although it was competitive early on Ward just had no punch resistance and was stopped with a few seconds of the 3rd rd left following 3 knockdowns , 1 of those wasnt a knockdown it was a push, but a count was still given, but the other 2 were correctly scored as knockdowns. None were big knockdowns, just pretty much bundled over but punches did land.

The sad thing was that he said in the ring afterwards that he wont be retiring... I would like to think MBC will take a stand here and prevent him doing so on any shows they sanction. If they do allow him to box again then there will just simply be no defence against it.

The show itself was a nice well run dinner show, i just hope that between MBC, the promoter and even the boxer himself, that they come to a sensible decision and prevent him from continuing.

Looking On wrote:
The sad thing was that he said in the ring afterwards that he wont be retiring...

The MBC, or possibly the WBA, will probably dream up an over 50's belt. He could fight fight for the interim version of it in his next outing.

Hillman Imp wrote:

Floyd the snake wrote:Jimmy Byrne & Lee Murtagh & Sam Smith all very good mates , when you read some of Jimmy's comments to Sam on facebook it's all very un professional . Neutral official think not !!

Murtagh has now got his mate Matt Scriven reffing fights on his shows, very 'neutral' I think not.

If anything (and comments from actual boxers on this site) they feel that they get a fairer crack of the whip on MBC shows than they do on BBBofC shows.

Again, not necessarily defending MBC - however when you see the same refs and judges consistently used by certain promoters (not to mention when you see favourable reffing and judging decisions) then they can hardly be considered neutral either.

Again we go round in circles - it seems that every condition that the MBC is criticised for can also be used to criticise the Board which would indicate that the current status quo needs to be updated and improved.

Surely increased competition from new sanctioning bodies can only help this?

The boards will need to evolve, adapt and improve as only the best will survive - I can't see how this would not benefit the boxers, the fans and the sport in general.

bripez wrote:

Hillman Imp wrote:

Floyd the snake wrote:Jimmy Byrne & Lee Murtagh & Sam Smith all very good mates , when you read some of Jimmy's comments to Sam on facebook it's all very un professional . Neutral official think not !!

Murtagh has now got his mate Matt Scriven reffing fights on his shows, very 'neutral' I think not.

If anything (and comments from actual boxers on this site) they feel that they get a fairer crack of the whip on MBC shows than they do on BBBofC shows.

Again, not necessarily defending MBC - however when you see the same refs and judges consistently used by certain promoters (not to mention when you see favourable reffing and judging decisions) then they can hardly be considered neutral either.

Again we go round in circles - it seems that every condition that the MBC is criticised for can also be used to criticise the Board which would indicate that the current status quo needs to be updated and improved.

Surely increased competition from new sanctioning bodies can only help this?

The boards will need to evolve, adapt and improve as only the best will survive - I can't see how this would not benefit the boxers, the fans and the sport in general.

Not really mate. Theres only 2 or 3 boxers that signed with MBC that post on here. There are around 800 boxers licensed by the bbbofc. They dont seem to grumble or moan. It's also fair to point out that the MBC boxers have a bit of an axe to grind because they were refused licenses from the bbofc for whatever reason.

Promoters don't appoint officials. Area councils do. Each area will have a finite number of refs qualified to undertake certain fights. For example, promoters that put on a British eliminator, final eliminator, commonwealth or british title have to use an A star for those bouts. In the Midlands thats Terry O'Connor or John Keane. London would be IJL, Marcus McDonnell etc. Its slightly more complex than that but there are only 10 refs nationwide able to do those bouts. It stands to reason we will see the same refs doing that level of contest.

However, to put it in perspective, the MBC have done the equivalent of having Eddie Hearn reffing on his own shows. Matt Scriven may be slightly more impartial than Lee Murtagh doing his own shows, but he also promotes for the MBC. Its disgraceful.

Competition is good, but the MBC, in my opinion arent the guys to take it forward. They have a dodgy track record already. Their supporters will never acknowledge it. They never do and never will. But, the fact is in terms of percentage they have cancelled far more shows in their debut year than the bbbofc do, they have sanctioned horrific contests and allow boxers to box having been stopped 7 days before. That is indefensible. No matter how young the organisation is, its indefensible.I used to respect Rio's opinion and appreciate him coming on here to explain himself, but lately he's morphed from a full time bull shit machine to a non-existent entity. I've said it before, I cannot see the MBC being here in 12 months time and personally, if I'm correct I'll be very pleased.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying CharlesListon - I was just trying to make the point that if the MBC are criticised for something then we should not b so blinkered as jot to see the same kind of things happening within the BBBofC.

With regards to the independence of referees and judges, well the reality is that we are all aware of the situation and how things really work.

As time marches on and the supposedly imminent court case crushing of the BBBoC doesn't materialise I feel that MBC is likely to continue, however unless something significant changes I don't think it will become a genuine rival to the BBBoC. I suspect that it will do more harm to the various unlicensed groups.

Hillman Imp wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:Not really mate. Theres only 2 or 3 boxers that signed with MBC that post on here. There are around 800 boxers licensed by the bbbofc. They dont seem to grumble or moan. It's also fair to point out that the MBC boxers have a bit of an axe to grind because they were refused licenses from the bbofc for whatever reason.

Promoters don't appoint officials. Area councils do. Each area will have a finite number of refs qualified to undertake certain fights. For example, promoters that put on a British eliminator, final eliminator, commonwealth or british title have to use an A star for those bouts. In the Midlands thats Terry O'Connor or John Keane. London would be IJL, Marcus McDonnell etc. Its slightly more complex than that but there are only 10 refs nationwide able to do those bouts. It stands to reason we will see the same refs doing that level of contest.

However, to put it in perspective, the MBC have done the equivalent of having Eddie Hearn reffing on his own shows. Matt Scriven may be slightly more impartial than Lee Murtagh doing his own shows, but he also promotes for the MBC. Its disgraceful.

Competition is good, but the MBC, in my opinion arent the guys to take it forward. They have a dodgy track record already. Their supporters will never acknowledge it. They never do and never will. But, the fact is in terms of percentage they have cancelled far more shows in their debut year than the bbbofc do, they have sanctioned horrific contests and allow boxers to box having been stopped 7 days before. That is indefensible. No matter how young the organisation is, its indefensible.I used to respect Rio's opinion and appreciate him coming on here to explain himself, but lately he's morphed from a full time bull poo machine to a non-existent entity. I've said it before, I cannot see the MBC being here in 12 months time and personally, if I'm correct I'll be very pleased.

Cracking post

Spot on

Excellent post CharlesListon

On reflection - ANY person/promoter dealing with, defending or contemplating going the MBC route. ... I have one bit of advice to say to you - be mindfull of svengali.

INTEGRITY is more than a word that looks good.

leejonesjnr wrote:As time marches on and the supposedly imminent court case crushing of the BBBoC doesn't materialise I feel that MBC is likely to continue, however unless something significant changes I don't think it will become a genuine rival to the BBBoC. I suspect that it will do more harm to the various unlicensed groups.

I agree - they may develop into a second tier organisation (a proper "semi-pro" outfit if you like).

If this brings up the standards with regards to medicals, matchmaking and scoring etc. on that scene then it will be a positive.

Also, if it gives lads the opportunity to "box pro" then that can also be a good thing.

At the moment it seems that if you are not identified as a prospect then you have to go on the road and become a journeyman.

Not everyone can be a champion so in that situation I would rather retire on 15-5 with the MBC than with. 2-18 record with the BBBofC.

The "better" MBC boxers could then hopefully be given the opportunity to step up to the BBBofC if they want to give that a go.

As a fan surely both body's could co-exist and serve different sectors of the market just like in other sports?

Nope one of the organisations above are a private members club. If someone on the aera council doesn't like your face your screwed.

tijuana1 wrote:Nope one of the organisations above are a private members club. If someone on the aera council doesn't like your face your screwed.

And the other is a one man band run from his home/flat (not office) :geek2:

That is true but he hasn't stopped me from picking up some extra income along with me continuing my hobbie ,which I love and am very able to look after my self at that level of which I operate at 4/6 round fights. So therefore the MBC serve my purpose for what I want not the other way round I.e been served up as a sacrificial lamb against shit hot prospects. Im only talking for my own experiences. I couldn't give a monkey about why or why not other people box for mbc. im in it for my own gain 50/50 fights for me.

To clarify a few glaring errors...

Matt Scriven is a decent ref, had him ref on my own show earlier this month having not known him personally before, and also he no longer promotes shows, he only has a refs license.... so that puts that idea to bed..

Secondly, someone pointed out that only boxers turned down by bbbofc box on mbc and therfore have an axe to grind.... again incorrect... none of my lads have been turned down by bbbofc nor have i.. admittedly not the biggest stable of boxers but again, most have actually chosen to do mbc, not forced to, some have had no other option obviously and those are the ones you know of as generally they have already boxed bbbofc prior

Jimmy Byrne reffed the last Lee Murtagh show & scored the bouts as well , my biggest gripe on the day was the MC announced 2of the bouts were by split decision how when he was the only judge ??? Never seen this at a BBB of C show .

tijuana1 wrote:Nope one of the organisations above are a private members club. If someone on the aera council doesn't like your face your screwed.

That's definitely not the case in the midlands area mate

Hillman Imp wrote:Split decision, with one judge ... remarkable

About sums it up mate lol

spudder56 wrote:

tijuana1 wrote:Nope one of the organisations above are a private members club. If someone on the aera council doesn't like your face your screwed.

That's definitely not the case in the midlands area mate

Fair comment mate I should of re applied through your area. I was unlucky coming across a new guy on the board who I suspect had visions of wiping the cancer / journey men from the sport. He did have on his web page he works with the world elite boxing champs. Like I said on posts before thats all well but what about the guys at the bottom end of the food chain ? We can t all be world elite champs.

I know from experience that the midlands board is very understanding of the role of road warriors in boxing and when they bring them its more about making sure they are staying in shape and enjoying what they are doing than telling them off.If the midlands board do have worries they are more likely to have a quiet word with the manager and discuss wether this guy is really doing the best thing carrying on.

In my experience with the yorkshire area council its patronising been judged mostly by guys that haven't boxed as a pro on the road as an away fighter. Not that im saying they aren't good enough to do the job. Just stating a fact they call you in for a 3/4 fight losing streak then patronise you when your up against most of the odds fighting away. If all the councils followed the same procedures you couldn't argue with there decisions. But when your banning one boxer witj a 6 24 3 record stopped 4times and not banning guys for far worse records / offences that violate it seems unfair as though its not a level playing field

tijuana1 wrote:In my experience with the yorkshire area council its patronising been judged mostly by guys that haven't boxed as a pro on the road as an away fighter. Not that im saying they aren't good enough to do the job. Just stating a fact they call you in for a 3/4 fight losing streak then patronise you when your up against most of the odds fighting away. If all the councils followed the same procedures you couldn't argue with there decisions. But when your banning one boxer witj a 6 24 3 record stopped 4times and not banning guys for far worse records / offences that violate it seems unfair as though its not a level playing field

Are you saying that you prefer the alternative where you can get TKO'd and to box 7 days later and get KO'd then still get matched to box again without a problem ?

If you are - then I wish you luck

No. I was one of the first to say that's wrong you wouldn't get me taking a contest where the fighter had been stopped within the 7 days. You have misunderstood me all together
Im not gonna go round in circles tit for tat like jon p mentions a lot in this type of thread. At the end of the day its personal preference who people decide to box for. At my level I was never gonna win titles so it suits me now the route I take

tijuana1 wrote:That is true but he hasn't stopped me from picking up some extra income along with me continuing my hobbie ,which I love and am very able to look after my self at that level of which I operate at 4/6 round fights. So therefore the MBC serve my purpose for what I want not the other way round I.e been served up as a sacrificial lamb against poo hot prospects. Im only talking for my own experiences. I couldn't give a monkey about why or why not other people box for mbc. im in it for my own gain 50/50 fights for me.

I don't understand why you blame the BBBoC for your manager arranging fights that you were unable it be competitive in?

I blame them for not granting me a home win show to go out on to finish my 8 yrs plus career with them. That's all. Im not the worst boxer on the scene I do actually have a few wins but not mamy I grant them that lol. All I wanted was a 4rd home win.

damianhucker1 wrote:To clarify a few glaring errors...

Matt Scriven is a decent ref, had him ref on my own show earlier this month having not known him personally before, and also he no longer promotes shows, he only has a refs license.... so that puts that idea to bed..

Secondly, someone pointed out that only boxers turned down by bbbofc box on mbc and therfore have an axe to grind.... again incorrect... none of my lads have been turned down by bbbofc nor have i.. admittedly not the biggest stable of boxers but again, most have actually chosen to do mbc, not forced to, some have had no other option obviously and those are the ones you know of as generally they have already boxed bbbofc prior

Fine, if Matt doesn't promote or have any involvement in the running, matchmaking or any other behind the scenes role I have no issue with him reffing.

It was me that said about the 'axe to grind'. What I meant was that on this forum there are only 2 boxers that speak highly of the MBC and by their own admission, they are not happy with their perceived treatment by the bbbofc, hence the 'axe to grind' comment.

Damian, as an MBC promoter what insurance did you have in place for your debut show and what insurance will you have in place for your 2016 show?

Also, what is your understanding of the drug testing policy in place? The MBC are not registered with WADA or UKADA.