A question about British Masters/International Masters belts

[Russ L]

Who actually administers them/mandates the challengers/etc?

They're never in the BBofC circulars so I assume it's not them.

[mickey1975]

I think Bruce Baker started them up.I cant remeber the details,but the criteria for fighting for them was quite flexible.

[Wake up call]

They are run and sanctioned by the promoters association.

[Russ L]

Ah right. Cheers.

[whicker]

With no disrespect, it's a title for the sake of a title- a bit like a trophey. And nothing wrong with that, of course.

Has anyone defend one more than once or twice? Nearly all fights seem to be for vacant masters titles.

[Deno1986]

bit of a silly question but why is it called a British Masters Title, it's not exactly as if the boxers are over 55 fighting for the title?

[Deno1986]

With no disrespect, it's a title for the sake of a title- a bit like a trophey. And nothing wrong with that, of course.

Has anyone defend one more than once or twice? Nearly all fights seem to be for vacant masters titles.

Carl Baker defended the Heavyweight Masters once, I remember seeing it when I was looking up his record for before Prizefighter.

[oliverfennell]

The ONLY criteria is that the competing boxers are licensed by the BBBC to contest 10 rounds. As championships, they mean NOTHING. They mean even less than intercontinental straps, because at least they bring the winner a ranking with the affiliated alphabet body. Masters titles are merely, as Whicker said, trophies or mementoes of a contest for the winner. Of course, any boxer would appreciate a keepsake for a win, but as far as the audience is concerned, it is not "championship boxing" in any legit sense of the word. Even Michael Pinnock (4-61-9 at the time) and Keith Jones (9-86-7) have fought for Masters belts. That says it all. If boxers with those stats fought for any other title in any other country, we'd roundly condemn it.

[whicker]

If they are accepted for what they are, I think they are OK.

they are not titles, the holders are not champions- never the less, it adds a lot to a small hall shows to have a masters bout- a ten round bout for a recognised trophey/belt.

It would be very rare that fighters at this level would be involved in 10 round bouts otherswise (except perhaps area titles) so physically its a challenging contest for the fighters too.

[MeanMachine.biz]

Originally the master's title was said to be an official eleiminator for the British title, that was the plan but somehow it got lost allong the years. The first ever Master title was won by Mathew Barney against Bobby Bangher at the Royal Garden hotel in Kensington.

[m1kee50]

maybe they should make it something for a landmark fight... two boxers in their 50th fight or whatever, they can fight for something a bit special.

[danboxer1]

i'm not 100% certain but i'm sure it goes something like this.
Anyone can fight for it as long as the board approve of them doing a 10 rounder.and if a promoter offers a challenge to a BM champion they have to accept the fight.as long as the promoter can guarantee the purse(which is set at £1500 each).if they dont accept then the title is then made vacant.but dont quote me on that i may very well be wrong.