Page 1 of 2
Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 06:01
by dondada
http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/sport/Ex ... ticle.html?
Now a former IBC belt holder gets referred to as a former world champion in the British press. It just dilutes the real deal, IMO.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 06:07
by Scottrf
Not the first time I've seen that. Have seen it with Derry Matthews (No offense to him, just an example).
Not sure we needed an example of why they are bad Ian, I challenge you to find one where they are good.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 06:58
by dondada
Scottrf wrote: I challenge you to find one where they are good.
You need to get yourself on Jose Sulaiman's mailing list. His round robins are good value and just what you're looking for
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 07:06
by Scottrf
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Scottrf wrote: I challenge you to find one where they are good.
You need to get yourself on Jose Sulaiman's mailing list. His round robins are good value and just what you're looking for
True. To think, this time next year we could have a unified WBC Middleweight Title.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 07:11
by Dioufy
IBC? Ha ha ha.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 08:07
by TheCobra
IBC, oh dear. I remember the Hatton fight, Hatton mullered him then his dad jumping in, what a farce.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 08:14
by johnswan1
No offence, but it's complete bullshit considering this guy was never even British champion. He fought twice for British titles and lost both fights.
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 09:01
by chinny
This could run and run. KOTV the other night broadcast an interview with Mickey Ward with the caption "former world champion"
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 09:35
by SweetLikeSugar
chinny wrote:This could run and run. KOTV the other night broadcast an interview with Mickey Ward with the caption "former world champion"
I haven't seen it yet, but I think 'The Fighter' (the film about Micky Ward) ends with him beating Shea Neary to win the 'world' championship. I know the story probably needed a Hollywood ending but Joe Public will think he was a genuine world champion.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 09:37
by TheCobra
SweetLikeSugar wrote:chinny wrote:This could run and run. KOTV the other night broadcast an interview with Mickey Ward with the caption "former world champion"
I haven't seen it yet, but I think 'The Fighter' (the film about Micky Ward) ends with him beating Shea Neary to win the 'world' championship. I know the story probably needed a Hollywood ending but Joe Public will think he was a genuine world champion.
Ah well still actually looks like a half-decent watch.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 20 Jan 2011, 09:49
by stujones
Well Mickey Ward is the type of fighter who I don't mind people calling a world champion, been alot worst fighters than him with geniune, so called "big" 4 belts.... and Ward well.... was just Ward a true Warrior.
I don't call him one, but it doesn't bug me.
Always one I've pondered about whether he is HoF material.... for resume and achievements he shouldn't even be near it - but everytime I see Ward vs Gatti 1 and Ward vs Augustus I think - hell he should just be there and under his commeration they should just play the DVD of these fights. Although, looking at it logically he shouldn't be considered - because any fighter been in those callibre of fights should be considered (Lyle etc).
Not often though has there been a 10 round fight, with very little hype. Almost forgotton about, and really considered an "undercard" - captured the publics attention quite like Ward vs Gatti 1. One of the most talked about fights, post fight, on boxing forums was that one.
As for the thread at hand, well we could blame the now (I believe) defunct IBC - but I think the Journo has to label some blame.... yes, technically reporting the truth - but I don't think any Journalist who knows a little thing about boxing would, even for a local rag, class the IBC as a world champion.
Good boxer was Smith, retired too soon IMO, underachieved. I was convinced he would get to British and maybe EBU level when the likes of Hatton, Witter and Magee moved on.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 21 Jan 2011, 03:42
by oliverfennell
This is probably a perfect example of people who don't know about boxing writing about boxing. The writer probably just Googled Smith and/or took the fighter's word for it. You may say it's shoddy of the writer, but if you were asked to write about a sport you know little about, would you be able to tell the worth of whichever championships are involved? You might then say the paper shouldn't assign someone who knows little about boxing to cover the story, but then not every newspaper will have a knowledgeable boxing fan among its number, even on sportsdesk. In some of the papers I've worked for, I've been the only one.
Case in point: Wayne Llewelyn was in a news story for one of those papers, so a normal news reporter interviewed him. The story came through for editing with Llewelyn referred to as "the New York heavyweight champion". Luckily I was editing it and knew full well that not only did he never win such a title, he wouldn't even be eligible to contest it! I asked the reporter, and he said that was what Wayne himself had said. Cheeky...
I don't blame the reporter because if I interviewed, say, a golfer or darts player, I'd just assume whatever the sportsman in question told me would be true. But it shows the value of having a knowledgeable editor to check it afterwards.
The thing about the minor belts is that a boxer can call himself a "world champion" and anyone who doesn't follow the sport will just assume it's true.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 21 Jan 2011, 06:33
by DavidPayne
The other new reference I love, they had one on Total Wipeout the other day was....Semi-Professional fighter?
WTF?
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 21 Jan 2011, 06:46
by stujones
DavidPayne wrote:The other new reference I love, they had one on Total Wipeout the other day was....Semi-Professional fighter?
WTF?
Well thats really how I am describing these World series of Boxing participants.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 21 Jan 2011, 07:14
by dondada
oliverfennell wrote:This is probably a perfect example of people who don't know about boxing writing about boxing. The writer probably just Googled Smith and/or took the fighter's word for it. You may say it's shoddy of the writer, but if you were asked to write about a sport you know little about, would you be able to tell the worth of whichever championships are involved? You might then say the paper shouldn't assign someone who knows little about boxing to cover the story, but then not every newspaper will have a knowledgeable boxing fan among its number, even on sportsdesk. In some of the papers I've worked for, I've been the only one.
Case in point: Wayne Llewelyn was in a news story for one of those papers, so a normal news reporter interviewed him. The story came through for editing with Llewelyn referred to as "the New York heavyweight champion". Luckily I was editing it and knew full well that not only did he never win such a title, but no such tilte even exists, and even if it did, he wouldn't be eligible to contest it! I asked the reporter, and he said that was what Wayne himself had said. Cheeky...
I don't blame the reporter because if I interviewed, say, a golfer or darts player, I'd just assume whatever the sportsman in question told me would be true. But it shows the value of having a knowledgeable editor to check it afterwards.
The thing about the minor belts is that a boxer can call himself a "world champion" and anyone who doesn't follow the sport will just assume it's true.
Yeah, I don't blame the reporter or the sub or whoever on the paper. The reason I posted it is to show how the huge number of governing bodies - and their ratification by some people - leads to ever diminishing values/status...
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 21 Jan 2011, 07:16
by DavidPayne
Mind you, Luciano Bute is pictured with a t-shirt saying #1 on the front page of this site. Not sure thats anymore helpful.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 21 Jan 2011, 11:09
by oliverfennell
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:oliverfennell wrote:This is probably a perfect example of people who don't know about boxing writing about boxing. The writer probably just Googled Smith and/or took the fighter's word for it. You may say it's shoddy of the writer, but if you were asked to write about a sport you know little about, would you be able to tell the worth of whichever championships are involved? You might then say the paper shouldn't assign someone who knows little about boxing to cover the story, but then not every newspaper will have a knowledgeable boxing fan among its number, even on sportsdesk. In some of the papers I've worked for, I've been the only one.
Case in point: Wayne Llewelyn was in a news story for one of those papers, so a normal news reporter interviewed him. The story came through for editing with Llewelyn referred to as "the New York heavyweight champion". Luckily I was editing it and knew full well that not only did he never win such a title, but no such tilte even exists, and even if it did, he wouldn't be eligible to contest it! I asked the reporter, and he said that was what Wayne himself had said. Cheeky...
I don't blame the reporter because if I interviewed, say, a golfer or darts player, I'd just assume whatever the sportsman in question told me would be true. But it shows the value of having a knowledgeable editor to check it afterwards.
The thing about the minor belts is that a boxer can call himself a "world champion" and anyone who doesn't follow the sport will just assume it's true.
Yeah, I don't blame the reporter or the sub or whoever on the paper. The reason I posted it is to show how the huge number of governing bodies - and their ratification by some people - leads to ever diminishing values/status...
Agreed absolutely. But you know what - if I had somehow won an IBC or IBU or WBE belt (hell, maybe I still can...) and I was talking to somebody who didn't have a clue about boxing, I'd be tempted to call myself a "world champion" too.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 16:40
by dondada
King Geedorah wrote:Putting "world champion" looks a bit snooty, I can understand why the rabbit's ears are used but it does look sniffy.
Most of 'em are lucky to get that. 'WBC super-middleweight champion Carl Froch' usually suffices.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 16:42
by dondada
DavidPayne wrote:Mind you, Luciano Bute is pictured with a t-shirt saying #1 on the front page of this site. Not sure thats anymore helpful.
Hmmm. A T shirt saying 'BoxRec.com I'm #1' (i.e. I'm number one rated on a website) equates to an IBC titlist being called in the press a 'world champion'?
No.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 17:29
by greenyox3
Lest we forget, Audley was also a "world champion". He beat Richel Hersisia for the prestigious WBF Heavyweight Title in 2004. I'm guessing he vacated...
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 17:40
by dondada
greenyox3 wrote:Lest we forget, Audley was also a "world champion". He beat Richel Hersisia for the prestigious WBF Heavyweight Title in 2004. I'm guessing he vacated...
This is exactly my point mate. He was announced on the BBC, I believe, as a world champion. F**k off.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 17:44
by m1kee50
I recall an interview (think it was Oakey) when he said 'ask the people of Portsmouth if they had a world champion'... presumably after you explained who Tony Oakey was to the majority of Portsmouth.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 18:13
by greenyox3
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:greenyox3 wrote:Lest we forget, Audley was also a "world champion". He beat Richel Hersisia for the prestigious WBF Heavyweight Title in 2004. I'm guessing he vacated...
This is exactly my point mate. He was announced on the BBC, I believe, as a world champion. F**k off.
They seriously announced him as world champion?
that is beyond belief.
This is the kind of thing that makes casual fans turn away from boxing. It makes a mockery of the sport.
I guess the only saving grace is that most full-time boxing fans know who is (or rather, who isn't) the real champ, and we generally treat these alphabet tin belts with the mockery/contempt they deserve.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 19:24
by The_Don1
technically smith was a 'world champion' if boxing is in such a state that random governing bodies can appear and crown boxers world champions when they're not world class then who are the boxers/non-boxing press to dispute this, there's enough non world class world champions holding WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO belts around so if Smith is getting decent press off this then fair play to him, not his fault boxing is corrupt, don't hate the player, hate the game which is probably the point of this thread.
Re: Another example of why the governing bodies are bad
Posted: 22 Jan 2011, 20:19
by WelshDevil
Joe Bugner was referred to as a former World Heavyweight Champion a few times while on ITV's 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here'.
The title situation just gets worse and worse. The WBA have 3 belt holders in a few divisions and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a fight for the Undisputed WBA title sometime in the not so distant future.