BoxRec

We all get pissed off with them for their strange decisions. For example, we blame the promoters for the miss-matches we get fed regularly. But it is the BBBoC who sanction them right?

I bet there are enough people to form a breakaway British Boxing Alliance and run the game right. What do you think?

carlbcfc wrote:We all get pissed off with them for their strange decisions. For example, we blame the promoters for the miss-matches we get fed regularly. But it is the BBBoC who sanction them right?

I bet there are enough people to form a breakaway British Boxing Alliance and run the game right. What do you think?

They way the board is going It might not be too far away x

princess wrote:

carlbcfc wrote:We all get pissed off with them for their strange decisions. For example, we blame the promoters for the miss-matches we get fed regularly. But it is the BBBoC who sanction them right?

I bet there are enough people to form a breakaway British Boxing Alliance and run the game right. What do you think?

They way the board is going It might not be too far away x

But won't they cause even further confusion to the paying public two British champions. Surely they just need to be more credible organisation for example over boxers purses being late. There repsonse the boxer has to complain to us struck me as not being very good.

The board are an absolute joke.

End thread.

They do a very good job, best in the world

I see your point with confusion. But the threat of an Alliance of some sort would surely stick a rocket up their arse. TV don't care who is sanctioning it if it is legit, so long as it is the best fighting the best to boost their ratings.

princess wrote:

carlbcfc wrote:We all get pissed off with them for their strange decisions. For example, we blame the promoters for the miss-matches we get fed regularly. But it is the BBBoC who sanction them right?

I bet there are enough people to form a breakaway British Boxing Alliance and run the game right. What do you think?

They way the board is going It might not be too far away x

The BBBoC has got a lot better since Robert Smith took over from Simon Block IMO. He's corrected the ridiculous cuts rule, he's hauling judges and refs in front of the board if they've made mistakes and punishing them if necessary. I like him when I've seen him interviewed as well (the fact that he's being publicly interviewed is an improvement in its self), on Ringside he bought up the idea of having 5 judges and he also acknowledged that the '10 point must system' is restrictive, which shows to me that he's not stuck in the dark ages.

There's undoubtedly room for improvement, but I believe Robert Smiths ethics and intentions are good. If you'd like to join his fan club then PM for the details



(don't PM me)

^^ good points, chambers.

Final round wrote:They do a very good job, best in the world

Maybe they do, but that don't say much for the rest does it? It is a great organization, with great history. It just needs a clearout.

How can the board improve?


Listen more?

Stop sanctioning foreign bums, and start forcing the use of British talent more? Keeping the cash in the UK.

..........

...........

Chambers2 wrote:

princess wrote:

carlbcfc wrote:We all get pissed off with them for their strange decisions. For example, we blame the promoters for the miss-matches we get fed regularly. But it is the BBBoC who sanction them right?

I bet there are enough people to form a breakaway British Boxing Alliance and run the game right. What do you think?

They way the board is going It might not be too far away x

I agree. The BBBoC has got a lot better since Robert Smith took over from Simon Block IMO. He's corrected the ridiculous cuts rule, he's hauling judges and refs in front of the board if they've made mistakes and punishing them if necessary. I like him when I've seen him interviewed as well (the fact that he's being publicly interviewed is an improvement in its self), on Ringside he bought up the idea of having 5 judges and he also acknowledged that the '10 point must system' is restrictive, which shows to me that he's not stuck in the dark ages.

There's undoubtedly room for improvement, but I believe Robert Smiths ethics and intentions are good. If you'd like to join his fan club then PM for the details



(don't PM me)

What punishments have we seen the likes of Ian John Lewis actually get? He messed up the Prizefighter contest and 2 months later was refereeing a major world title fight, I wouldn't call that a punishment.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

princess wrote:
They way the board is going It might not be too far away x

I agree. The BBBoC has got a lot better since Robert Smith took over from Simon Block IMO. He's corrected the ridiculous cuts rule, he's hauling judges and refs in front of the board if they've made mistakes and punishing them if necessary. I like him when I've seen him interviewed as well (the fact that he's being publicly interviewed is an improvement in its self), on Ringside he bought up the idea of having 5 judges and he also acknowledged that the '10 point must system' is restrictive, which shows to me that he's not stuck in the dark ages.

There's undoubtedly room for improvement, but I believe Robert Smiths ethics and intentions are good. If you'd like to join his fan club then PM for the details



(don't PM me)

What punishments have we seen the likes of Ian John Lewis actually get? He messed up the Prizefighter contest and 2 months later was refereeing a major world title fight, I wouldn't call that a punishment.

Robert Smith said there were punishments (punishments isn't the right word) in place for poor performing refs/judges, I don't know specific examples. Hopefully we get to see more of this, starting with IJLs 114-114 scorecard

Does anyone know the details behind the IBF attempting to form a rival to the BBBoC?

Chambers2 wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

Chambers2 wrote: I agree. The BBBoC has got a lot better since Robert Smith took over from Simon Block IMO. He's corrected the ridiculous cuts rule, he's hauling judges and refs in front of the board if they've made mistakes and punishing them if necessary. I like him when I've seen him interviewed as well (the fact that he's being publicly interviewed is an improvement in its self), on Ringside he bought up the idea of having 5 judges and he also acknowledged that the '10 point must system' is restrictive, which shows to me that he's not stuck in the dark ages.

There's undoubtedly room for improvement, but I believe Robert Smiths ethics and intentions are good. If you'd like to join his fan club then PM for the details



(don't PM me)

What punishments have we seen the likes of Ian John Lewis actually get? He messed up the Prizefighter contest and 2 months later was refereeing a major world title fight, I wouldn't call that a punishment.

Robert Smith said there were punishments (punishments isn't the right word) in place for poor performing refs/judges, I don't know specific examples. Hopefully we get to see more of this, starting with IJLs 114-114 scorecard

I can say I'm banging Kelly Brook tonight, doesn't mean it's actually happening...

BBBoC is far from perfect but I really hope there is no new splinter formations - it would create a mess.

A pedantic point on the rules of boxing:

Rule 3.6 "When officiating in the boxing ring the Referee shall wear a clean with shirt, a black bow tie and dark trousers and black shoes or boxing pumps. The Referee shall wear a jacket or track suit top when officiating at outdoor promotions".

So, why is it that this rule seems to be ignored with Referees wearing black polo shirts for Prizefighter? Pedantic yes, the principle of having clear rules that are consistently upheld should be exercised.

Also:

Rule 3.31 "Points will be awarded:

For "attack" - direct clean hits with the knuckle part of the glove of either hand to any part of the front or side of the head or body above the belts/

For "defence" - guarding, slipping, ducking or getting away from an attack. Where contestants are otherwise equal the majority of points will be given to the one who does most leading off or displays the better style."

This is as ambigious as it can get:

According to points awarded for defence - examples cited included 'guarding' 'slipping' or 'ducking' an attack. This merits the judge awarding points. However, it is contradicted by instruction of points to be given to the boxer "who does the most leading off or displays the better style". And what is the difference in style between "leading off" or "better style"? Is it the same thing?

Do judges actually award points for evasive defensive style? I never heard a commentator sum up their scoring of a round with x boxer deployed superior defensive qualities and nicked the round etc etc....

Finally, there needs to be transparency on what actions the board take with official complaints that are made. I fault the IABA with many things, but at least they publish details of disciplinary actions on the website. The BBBoC should do the same and they should also publish minutes of Board meetings so that their membership and the paying public can see what has been said and what is being actioned.

More people have the opportunity to be an MMA fighter these days than a pro boxer. One reason is maybe progression if faster in MMA, and the fact in my experience that you don't have to 'buy your way in' by selling tickets. Why does a PRO boxer need to have 20 fights to 'learn the trade'? What are the Ams and the gym for?

LeedsLad wrote:The board are an absolute joke.

End thread.

Another well thought out response by you

It needs to become electable by and accountable to its paying members. I understand there would be a danger of promoters etc electing 'their own men', but surely there has to be some form of democracy in an organisation that wouldn't exist at all but for the money of the boxing community, which is mandatory and not voluntary.

I just don't think they're doing a good job at the moment, in all sorts of respects.

They need to employ a few independent, senior executives on decent money and make sure they have some teeth (literally and metaphorically).

This sort of thing is something ive thought long and hard about before .

Nobody put the board in charge other than themselves so how they have the right to make mandatory expectations either physical or financial is beyond me , fine pay for a service but surely no one is allowed to monopolise anything either, if there was one big electrical supplies retailer in this country would they be allowed to say no one else can open an eletrical shop and if they did they wouldnt sell products that each other sell , basically having to choose your side .

It would all get very messy , but .... doesnt mean it wouldnt be good long term

competition is good for any business , but in my view it would be difficult for the new organisation to be seen as being as good as the original one by most in the sport unless they could get a couple of good sized promotors on board , it could easily end up like ufc , having a closed brand , id much prefer it to end up as another body like having wba/wbc/wbo etc , so that boxing for one organisation doesnt automatically rule them out for the other , a bit of competition could help improve the level of both organisations , maybe rejoining again in the future .

or maybe is the mma model of having closed organisations like ufc the way forward ?????

Glyn Leach wrote:It needs to become electable by and accountable to its paying members. I understand there would be a danger of promoters etc electing 'their own men', but surely there has to be some form of democracy in an organisation that wouldn't exist at all but for the money of the boxing community, which is mandatory and not voluntary.

x2

The BBBofC appointed Medway man and ex-St Marys,Chatham ABC boxer Ian John-Lewis as referee and sole judge for Medway man and ex-St Marys, Chatham boxer Tom Dallas' fight with Zack Page in Medway - won by Dallas via controversial decision. Why would any foreign opposition with any ambition want to come here and go up against that sort of officialdom. Rather worrying and does little to inspire confidence in them.

Anyone know if the boxing media made anything of the matter?

The board need to improve the way it does it's business, no doubt. But the last thing this sport needs is another "governing" body. Two "British" titles per division? No thanks.

Cholo_cws wrote:The BBBofC appointed Medway man and ex-St Marys,Chatham ABC boxer Ian John-Lewis as referee and sole judge for Medway man and ex-St Marys, Chatham boxer Tom Dallas' fight with Zack Page in Medway - won by Dallas via controversial decision. Why would any foreign opposition with any ambition want to come here and go up against that sort of officialdom. Rather worrying and does little to inspire confidence in them.

Anyone know if the boxing media made anything of the matter?

Stupidity to appoint the IJL in this situation. IJL is straight as they come but he himself shouldn't have put himself in this position either. Asking for trouble. To add to it wasn't IJL managed by Frank Maloney as well, did Maloney promote the show and Dallas?

Someone at the BAord must have screwed up on this one but thats not to say that IJL did anything wrong whjatsoever but the perception to the outsider could be the oppositer so someone should have prevented the situation at the outset. For me the Board are a top body with a few people on there who are questionable in their motives. Our refs are the best IMO and everyone can have a bad day at the office but due to the nature of Boxing the victim of mistakes is set back much further tan most sports. Having said that IJL was awful in the Lynes fight and that should be explained no doubt.

boxingchat wrote:

Cholo_cws wrote:The BBBofC appointed Medway man and ex-St Marys,Chatham ABC boxer Ian John-Lewis as referee and sole judge for Medway man and ex-St Marys, Chatham boxer Tom Dallas' fight with Zack Page in Medway - won by Dallas via controversial decision. Why would any foreign opposition with any ambition want to come here and go up against that sort of officialdom. Rather worrying and does little to inspire confidence in them.

Anyone know if the boxing media made anything of the matter?

Stupidity to appoint the IJL in this situation. IJL is straight as they come but he himself shouldn't have put himself in this position either. Asking for trouble. To add to it wasn't IJL managed by Frank Maloney as well, did Maloney promote the show and Dallas?

Someone at the BAord must have screwed up on this one but thats not to say that IJL did anything wrong whjatsoever but the perception to the outsider could be the oppositer so someone should have prevented the situation at the outset. For me the Board are a top body with a few people on there who are questionable in their motives. Our refs are the best IMO and everyone can have a bad day at the office but due to the nature of Boxing the victim of mistakes is set back much further tan most sports. Having said that IJL was awful in the Lynes fight and that should be explained no doubt.

You've gone rather quiet on the allegedly front mate, how are things going?