BoxRec

Newbridge's Bradley Pryce, who lost in a British welterweight title challenge to Neil Sinclair last year, continues to sit on the sidelines serving a Boxing Board suspension.
In only his second fight at welterweight, Pryce put up an excellent (though losing) challenge to hard-hitting Neil Sinclair in Belfast in February 2003.
He also took part in the domestic fight of the year in 2002 with Bolsover's Gavin Down.
The future looked rosy.
But after the Welshman was convicted of causing girlfriend Rachel Godwin actual bodily harm in a nightclub (he bit her), a hearing was held at the British Boxing Board of Control in Cardiff in which he was suspended till the end of this month.
"Bradley and I respect their ruling, but I can't see how this benefits anyone," said trainer Enzo Calzaghe when the suspension was extended for a further three months in October. "It is a serious blow to the career of a promising fighter who is really trying to put his life back together.
"Because of his suspension he has had to miss a big European fight. I think to carry on punishing him is a bit heavy."
Still, the suspension is nearly up now. I just hope the Board are as consistent with other fighters who break the law. I wonder how hard, for instance, they'll be on big money-earner Herbie Hide when his hearing takes place on February 7. He was convicted recently of carrying a 10-inch knife, the latest in a series of brushes with the law for the Norwich man.

Good point Bennie, like all hierarchial organisations the BBBC operate a strict "Rules for one and rules for another"policy. As Enzo stated, the punishment for Pryce should set a presedent for other fighters who break the law to be punished. But i cannot see it happening, i hope Pryce gets back on track as he can make a noise at domestic level or certainly make things a little more interesting.

I remember the first time I saw Bradley Pryce fight, I thought he had real potential to go on to be a world beater.

Since then he seems to have been badly matched, put in against way more experienced and big hitting fighters. He was also clearly fighting 12 rounders long before he had the fitness to do so, there was that fight, I forget against who, where he just totally ran out of gas, and was staggering around the ring like a drunk getting whacked senseless.

I seem to remember the referee, who I think might have been Dave Pariss saving his ass by administering a standing 8 count which I recall wasn't even in the rules, or something similar. I think it was the Jason Hall fight.

Since then of course, Bradley has had his clock cleaned by Ted Bami and Neil Sinclair, and looks like he hasn't got the stoutest set of whiskers on him. Shame really because he's fast and he can really bang when he plants his feet.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I seem to remember the referee, who I think might have been Dave Pariss saving his ass by administering a standing 8 count which I recall wasn't even in the rules, or something similar. I think it was the Jason Hall fight.

He turned his back in the Hall fight in a gesture of surrender, and the ref turned him around and allowed him to carry on. A lot of refs do that nowdays, when they should stop the fight. The worst ever was when Kennedy McKinney turned his back in the 12th and final round against Welcome Ncita and walked back to his corner. Referee Steve Smoger pulled him back, turned him around, and waved it on. McKinney knocked out Ncita for the IBF super-bantamweight title about a minute later.

At the very least, the fighter who turns his back should be issued a warning and asked if they want to continue. Ideally as you say, the fight should be stopped at that point. However, I guess referees are worried about misinterpreting a fighter's actions.

In the hall fight the ref also intervened at a crucial point when Pryce was getting absolutely hammered around the ring, for no real reason, as he didn't stop the fight.

bennie wrote:
"Bradley and I respect their ruling, but I can't see how this benefits anyone," said trainer Enzo Calzaghe when the suspension was extended for a further three months in October.

When a boxer commits any sort of assault, he brings the boxing game into disripute. More so than any other sport.

I think it benefits the game as a whole for the BBBofC to make such a clear statement that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated from people they license.

It also benefits the laydeez of wales of course.

BBBoC got it right. No complaints.

There are no ladies in wales.

Just kidding, that charlotte church eh, bit of a secret nypho if you as me....which you're not.

Anyway, yes it is good what they've done, so long as they apply the same stringent criteria to other fighters.

Nothing is ever consistent in boxing, so I see no reason to suspect the BBBofC will be consistent either.