BoxRec

i mean to fight for the british or international masters titles is there a ratings system somewhere or can anyone just fight for it i ask because i was checking carl drakes record and noticed that in his second fight at super middle he won the british masters title but had lost both his previous 2 fights

No ratings. You put in a challenge to the current title holder and he has the option to either fight you or vacate.

mexican roadsweeper wrote:No ratings. You put in a challenge to the current title holder and he has the option to either fight you or vacate.

wow that is truly terrible

The idea is there is no ducking or politics involved. It's a title for anyone but because anybody can contest it, it does make the belt very low rent.

They serve a purpose though, they give the fighters something to fight for and allow small hall promoters the opportunity to stage a 'main event' fight.

THe minimum a promoter has to pay is £1800 to the champion and £1200 to the challenger. I have staged and am staging these titles and these are minimums. I feel boxers should receive more than this and would pay accordingly.

Wake up call wrote:The idea is there is no ducking or politics involved. It's a title for anyone but because anybody can contest it, it does make the belt very low rent.

They serve a purpose though, they give the fighters something to fight for and allow small hall promoters the opportunity to stage a 'main event' fight.

im not disputing the fact its a good idea but i disagree with the fact someone coming off 2 losses and 1 at a lower weight shouldnt be elligable for a title i would apply the same logical to pac-maragrito neither derserve a shot at the belt

The only requirement is that the boxer must be licensed to contest 10 rounds by the Board.

Not a fan of the titles. They don't MEAN anything. Even IC belts have parameters. And I'm not a fan of any title that approves Michael Pinnock (record something like 4-80 at the time, without looking it up) as a challenger.

so what are you a champion of if you win one of these titles ???

1southpaw wrote:so what are you a champion of if you win one of these titles ???

That's exactly my point. Even with bogus world belts, you can say you're the champion of an organisation. Even with the IC belts, they make you eligible for the sanctioning body's world title. The Masters belts are just a way for literally almost anybody to put the words "championship boxing" on their bills, but how many of them actually deliver championship quality, or at least a match to define superiority of a region or a rankings bracket? We have all crowed on about the WBU and WBF and the like, but the Masters titles get a pass from the critics because they involve smaller promoters and "honest pros". Sorry, but speaking purely as a punter, advertising "championship boxing" and serving up Michael Pinnock or Keith Jones is like advertising steak and delivering one of those kiosk burgers you get at old-fashioned seaside resorts.

(No disrespect whatsover to Pinnock and Jones as honest journeymen boxers, I'm just saying billing those kinds of guys as "championship" material is BS)

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. If any other country or sanctioning body had a championship for which literally almost ANY BOXER was eligible, we'd criticise it, wouldn't we? And rightly so.

oliverfennell wrote:

1southpaw wrote:so what are you a champion of if you win one of these titles ???

That's exactly my point. Even with bogus world belts, you can say you're the champion of an organisation. Even with the IC belts, they make you eligible for the sanctioning body's world title. The Masters belts are just a way for literally almost anybody to put the words "championship boxing" on their bills, but how many of them actually deliver championship quality, or at least a match to define superiority of a region or a rankings bracket? We have all crowed on about the WBU and WBF and the like, but the Masters titles get a pass from the critics because they involve smaller promoters and "honest pros". Sorry, but speaking purely as a punter, advertising "championship boxing" and serving up Michael Pinnock or Keith Jones is like advertising steak and delivering one of those kiosk burgers you get at old-fashioned seaside resorts.

(No disrespect whatsover to Pinnock and Jones as honest journeymen boxers, I'm just saying billing those kinds of guys as "championship" material is BS)

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. If any other country or sanctioning body had a championship for which literally almost ANY BOXER was eligible, we'd criticise it, wouldn't we? And rightly so.

the state title in oz are only 8 rounders so they are in reach of most fighters i suppose ??

These belts dnt mean anything but I think there great because it let's fighters who arnt going to reach the top an fight for the best titles get a go and try an win somthing for the mantle peace! I've got one an there nice looking belts to!

These titles are there for untelevised public shows or dinner shows. There's plenty of good hard working pros with a following who want to see their man fighting for a title. As we know, British and commonwealth fights are at a good standard( most of the time) but how much does fights like that cost to put on ? As a trainer, I've been involved in these fights and they have plenty of meaning to the guys, mybe just short of British title level, who fight for them.

1southpaw wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

1southpaw wrote:so what are you a champion of if you win one of these titles ???

That's exactly my point. Even with bogus world belts, you can say you're the champion of an organisation. Even with the IC belts, they make you eligible for the sanctioning body's world title. The Masters belts are just a way for literally almost anybody to put the words "championship boxing" on their bills, but how many of them actually deliver championship quality, or at least a match to define superiority of a region or a rankings bracket? We have all crowed on about the WBU and WBF and the like, but the Masters titles get a pass from the critics because they involve smaller promoters and "honest pros". Sorry, but speaking purely as a punter, advertising "championship boxing" and serving up Michael Pinnock or Keith Jones is like advertising steak and delivering one of those kiosk burgers you get at old-fashioned seaside resorts.

(No disrespect whatsover to Pinnock and Jones as honest journeymen boxers, I'm just saying billing those kinds of guys as "championship" material is BS)

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. If any other country or sanctioning body had a championship for which literally almost ANY BOXER was eligible, we'd criticise it, wouldn't we? And rightly so.

the state title in oz are only 8 rounders so they are in reach of most fighters i suppose ??

Yes, but to go back to your original question, with the Masters title, what are you champion OF? At least with an Aussie state title, you have earned bragging rights for a geographical region.

cbellshaw wrote:These titles are there for untelevised public shows or dinner shows. There's plenty of good hard working pros with a following who want to see their man fighting for a title. As we know, British and commonwealth fights are at a good standard( most of the time) but how much does fights like that cost to put on ? As a trainer, I've been involved in these fights and they have plenty of meaning to the guys, mybe just short of British title level, who fight for them.

Maybe so, but I'm talking as a punter. Sure, a Masters title might mean something to an individual boxer, even if as a trophy/memento. I'm sure every boxer who's won a WBF Intercontinental belt is happy to have it on his mantlepiece, but that doesn't change the fact it's true worth is negligible, and also that billing such fare as "championship boxing" is misleading. And again, since most fans rightly criticise the like of WBF, WBU, Intercon belts etc, then I say criticism of the Masters is fair too.

oliverfennell wrote:

cbellshaw wrote:These titles are there for untelevised public shows or dinner shows. There's plenty of good hard working pros with a following who want to see their man fighting for a title. As we know, British and commonwealth fights are at a good standard( most of the time) but how much does fights like that cost to put on ? As a trainer, I've been involved in these fights and they have plenty of meaning to the guys, mybe just short of British title level, who fight for them.

Maybe so, but I'm talking as a punter. Sure, a Masters title might mean something to an individual boxer, even if as a trophy/memento. I'm sure every boxer who's won a WBF Intercontinental belt is happy to have it on his mantlepiece, but that doesn't change the fact it's true worth is negligible, and also that billing such fare as "championship boxing" is misleading. And again, since most fans rightly criticise the like of WBF, WBU, Intercon belts etc, then I say criticism of the Masters is fair too.

I agree with what you say ,from a neutral punters point of view, but if a boxer is selling out small halls on non televised shows its good to attach a title to it. Yes, in the boxing world they mean very little but anything that helps keep public shows going must be supported. Having a show billed as championship boxing is still promoting the sport. I don't think its misleading. If your a follower of boxing you will know what a masters title is and if your a supporter of someone boxing for one, then you would go to the bout regardless. As a fan, you can critise these titles but again i think the more small local shows the better. For me, they have their place.

cbellshaw wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

cbellshaw wrote:These titles are there for untelevised public shows or dinner shows. There's plenty of good hard working pros with a following who want to see their man fighting for a title. As we know, British and commonwealth fights are at a good standard( most of the time) but how much does fights like that cost to put on ? As a trainer, I've been involved in these fights and they have plenty of meaning to the guys, mybe just short of British title level, who fight for them.

Maybe so, but I'm talking as a punter. Sure, a Masters title might mean something to an individual boxer, even if as a trophy/memento. I'm sure every boxer who's won a WBF Intercontinental belt is happy to have it on his mantlepiece, but that doesn't change the fact it's true worth is negligible, and also that billing such fare as "championship boxing" is misleading. And again, since most fans rightly criticise the like of WBF, WBU, Intercon belts etc, then I say criticism of the Masters is fair too.

I agree with what you say ,from a neutral punters point of view, but if a boxer is selling out small halls on non televised shows its good to attach a title to it. Yes, in the boxing world they mean very little but anything that helps keep public shows going must be supported. Having a show billed as championship boxing is still promoting the sport. I don't think its misleading. If your a follower of boxing you will know what a masters title is and if your a supporter of someone boxing for one, then you would go to the bout regardless. As a fan, you can critise these titles but again i think the more small local shows the better. For me, they have their place.

But would you similarly justify, for example, a WBF Intercontinental title fight?