What does the BBB of C need to do to build bridges ?

[safeerah]

At the moment there is a gap in the relationship between the BBB of C and its members in the industry i.e Boxers, Trainers, Managers, matchmakers and the promoters, it also seems to be losing face with part of the public, who support the Haye/Chisora show. What does the BBB of C need to do to win back support ? What have been the problems that have lead to this act of defiance ? What do they need to do in regards to rules and regulations ? How can they improve their relationship with people in the industry ? I think there are areas where they can improve the industry and remove doubt. I have listed some areas that can be improved, I am sure there are many other improvements to be made, so everyone's feed back is welcome.

(1) A Ranking system for titles in this country i.e Area titles, English titles and British titles with mandatary position, no voluntary defenses and the lonsdale belt is won outright when you first win it, enabling brit champs to fight the best straight away, because they have already secured the belt, the BBB of C should make the ranking system available on their website, with a table of how the ranking points are calculated,promoters would not then dictate who fights for titles, no deals would be done for easy defenses in the background, if eliminators are being carried out for the right to fight the champion from the top 4 in the rankings to determine the no 1 contender, then nobody else shall slip in through the back door to challenge for title in the meantime.

(2) Referees need to be more accountable for their decisions in the ring and need to be monitored on disputed decisions and how many are against away fighters, there needs to be more consistency both on decisions and fights stopped on cuts and there should be a ranking system for referees based performance, again made transparent on the website.

(3) All Champions from Area to British should defend within 4 months, instead of champions holding on to titles for too long without defending i.e Area and English titles where some have not been defended for 2 years and are then passed around the same promotional stable or friends stable.

(4) Rules of moving up in rounds should be equally applied to all, not one rule for one an another for others, depending on your promoter, also permissions for fighting for titles abroad should be equally applied.

I have many concerns and could go on all night, but what other areas of change do you all think could benefit the industry ?

[danboxer1]

It's a lovely idea but money talks unfortunately

[safeerah]

It's a lovely idea but money talks unfortunately

Money does have a lot to do with the industry, but maybe money has stepped over the line this time i.e Warren dispute with the board. It's a case of give an inch, take a mile.

[earsjohn]

At the moment there is a gap in the relationship between the BBB of C and its members in the industry i.e Boxers, Trainers, Managers, matchmakers and the promoters, it also seems to be losing face with part of the public, who support the Haye/Chisora show. What does the BBB of C need to do to win back support ? What have been the problems that have lead to this act of defiance ? What do they need to do in regards to rules and regulations ? How can they improve their relationship with people in the industry ? I think there are areas where they can improve the industry and remove doubt. I have listed some areas that can be improved, I am sure there are many other improvements to be made, so everyone's feed back is welcome.

(1) A Ranking system for titles in this country i.e Area titles, English titles and British titles with mandatary position, no voluntary defenses and the lonsdale belt is won outright when you first win it, enabling brit champs to fight the best straight away, because they have already secured the belt, the BBB of C should make the ranking system available on their website, with a table of how the ranking points are calculated,promoters would not then dictate who fights for titles, no deals would be done for easy defenses in the background, if eliminators are being carried out for the right to fight the champion from the top 4 in the rankings to determine the no 1 contender, then nobody else shall slip in through the back door to challenge for title in the meantime.

(2) Referees need to be more accountable for their decisions in the ring and need to be monitored on disputed decisions and how many are against away fighters, there needs to be more consistency both on decisions and fights stopped on cuts and there should be a ranking system for referees based performance, again made transparent on the website.

(3) All Champions from Area to British should defend within 4 months, instead of champions holding on to titles for too long without defending i.e Area and English titles where some have not been defended for 2 years and are then passed around the same promotional stable or friends stable.

(4) Rules of moving up in rounds should be equally applied to all, not one rule for one an another for others, depending on your promoter, also permissions for fighting for titles abroad should be equally applied.

I have many concerns and could go on all night, but what other areas of change do you all think could benefit the industry ?

1) Problem with a ranking system is that it will never be universally recognised as "correct". Look at the Boxrec Heavyweight ranks - Tyson Fury is the 7th best in the world? Yet they have a system that is transparent and available to all. And with no voluntary defences, you would just encourage people to concede the belts as soon as a difficult opponent is mandated (Fury v Price?). Also, with a ranking ladder type system, the Belt holder has inherently fewer options (ie, he can ONLY defend against the No 2 guy) while the guy at No 2 can fight the champ, or can fight an eliminator against no 3 or no 4. Where is the incentive to retain the belt if more lucrative fights can only be made if the belt is dropped?

A clear system where everyone knows where everyone is ranked is nice in theory but completely flawed in practice.

2) I'd like all officials to be more accountable, but only through the Board and not directly and in person. There have been a number of instances of bizarre scoring, strange stoppages and general inconsistency that the Board should have transparently investigated and communicated the results of. I don't believe that any of the officials involved are remotely corrupt, but when mistakes are made, there should be a mechanism for the Board to say"We've spoken to X and identified that Y happened because of Z". Surely it's better to have an official known to all as having made an innocent mistake than to have the same guy suspected of corruption?

3) And what happens when there is no credible challenger, or the no 2 guy is injured? Our British level fighters really do need to fight more often, but I think it comes down to a lack of money in the pot. There's not enough money being made throughout the industry, but arguably more guys at a higher level, demanding higher purses. When it's spread like that, the natural result is that there are fewer fights. Lowering purse demands would solve this, but is the least likely option. What will continue to happen is that Promoters will only put on shows for their own fighters, thus keeping as much of the money made within their own empire. The business of boxing is not designed to align with the needs of the viewing public.

4) Again, I'm not sure that this is realistic. Some 9-0 fighters are young and raw and need the protection that fewer rounds allow, but some are experienced former fighters in other combat sports who, if forced to wait until a pre-determined point to move up to 8, 10 and 12 rounds could be put off entering the sport at all. while this may help with No 3 above, it's not really the ideal solution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dismiss your thoughts out of hand - I believe there is much scope for improvement and this whole Haye-Chisora affair could bring about an opportunity for change. But changes would need to be made for the improvement of the sport and not simply for changes sake.

[safeerah]

At the moment there is a gap in the relationship between the BBB of C and its members in the industry i.e Boxers, Trainers, Managers, matchmakers and the promoters, it also seems to be losing face with part of the public, who support the Haye/Chisora show. What does the BBB of C need to do to win back support ? What have been the problems that have lead to this act of defiance ? What do they need to do in regards to rules and regulations ? How can they improve their relationship with people in the industry ? I think there are areas where they can improve the industry and remove doubt. I have listed some areas that can be improved, I am sure there are many other improvements to be made, so everyone's feed back is welcome.

(1) A Ranking system for titles in this country i.e Area titles, English titles and British titles with mandatary position, no voluntary defenses and the lonsdale belt is won outright when you first win it, enabling brit champs to fight the best straight away, because they have already secured the belt, the BBB of C should make the ranking system available on their website, with a table of how the ranking points are calculated,promoters would not then dictate who fights for titles, no deals would be done for easy defenses in the background, if eliminators are being carried out for the right to fight the champion from the top 4 in the rankings to determine the no 1 contender, then nobody else shall slip in through the back door to challenge for title in the meantime.

(2) Referees need to be more accountable for their decisions in the ring and need to be monitored on disputed decisions and how many are against away fighters, there needs to be more consistency both on decisions and fights stopped on cuts and there should be a ranking system for referees based performance, again made transparent on the website.

(3) All Champions from Area to British should defend within 4 months, instead of champions holding on to titles for too long without defending i.e Area and English titles where some have not been defended for 2 years and are then passed around the same promotional stable or friends stable.

(4) Rules of moving up in rounds should be equally applied to all, not one rule for one an another for others, depending on your promoter, also permissions for fighting for titles abroad should be equally applied.

I have many concerns and could go on all night, but what other areas of change do you all think could benefit the industry ?

1) Problem with a ranking system is that it will never be universally recognised as "correct". Look at the Boxrec Heavyweight ranks - Tyson Fury is the 7th best in the world? Yet they have a system that is transparent and available to all. And with no voluntary defences, you would just encourage people to concede the belts as soon as a difficult opponent is mandated (Fury v Price?). Also, with a ranking ladder type system, the Belt holder has inherently fewer options (ie, he can ONLY defend against the No 2 guy) while the guy at No 2 can fight the champ, or can fight an eliminator against no 3 or no 4. Where is the incentive to retain the belt if more lucrative fights can only be made if the belt is dropped?

A clear system where everyone knows where everyone is ranked is nice in theory but completely flawed in practice.

2) I'd like all officials to be more accountable, but only through the Board and not directly and in person. There have been a number of instances of bizarre scoring, strange stoppages and general inconsistency that the Board should have transparently investigated and communicated the results of. I don't believe that any of the officials involved are remotely corrupt, but when mistakes are made, there should be a mechanism for the Board to say"We've spoken to X and identified that Y happened because of Z". Surely it's better to have an official known to all as having made an innocent mistake than to have the same guy suspected of corruption?

3) And what happens when there is no credible challenger, or the no 2 guy is injured? Our British level fighters really do need to fight more often, but I think it comes down to a lack of money in the pot. There's not enough money being made throughout the industry, but arguably more guys at a higher level, demanding higher purses. When it's spread like that, the natural result is that there are fewer fights. Lowering purse demands would solve this, but is the least likely option. What will continue to happen is that Promoters will only put on shows for their own fighters, thus keeping as much of the money made within their own empire. The business of boxing is not designed to align with the needs of the viewing public.

4) Again, I'm not sure that this is realistic. Some 9-0 fighters are young and raw and need the protection that fewer rounds allow, but some are experienced former fighters in other combat sports who, if forced to wait until a pre-determined point to move up to 8, 10 and 12 rounds could be put off entering the sport at all. while this may help with No 3 above, it's not really the ideal solution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dismiss your thoughts out of hand - I believe there is much scope for improvement and this whole Haye-Chisora affair could bring about an opportunity for change. But changes would need to be made for the improvement of the sport and not simply for changes sake.

Read my comments again, this time with more thought, also most of the arguments you have put forward do not relate to my comments at all. These are national titles not worldwide titles, this ranking system would be deemed as you put it "correct" because iit would be implimented by the british boxing board and Boxrec are not an official ranking system, A champ relinquishing a title because of a proposed challenger, could happen in any occassion, What lucrative fights are you on about ? surely the best fighters fighting each other would achieve interest and thus be lucrative. Nobody said a young fighter should be allowed to move up in rounds quickly, you miss the point once again, what I relayed was that the decisions should be consistant, When discussing refs I did not say we would be deciding there fate, just the board and that it should be trasparant, if you believe they are honest mistakes, why are so many against the away fighter and in favour of the bigger promoters then ? answer me that then. Some questions for you, do you work in the industry ? Have you experienced any of these thing personally ? Do you understand how the industry works ? If not then i understand where your coming from.

[earsjohn]

Read my comments again, this time with more thought, also most of the arguments you have put forward do not relate to my comments at all. These are national titles not worldwide titles, this ranking system would be deemed as you put it "correct" because iit would be implimented by the british boxing board and Boxrec are not an official ranking system, A champ relinquishing a title because of a proposed challenger, could happen in any occassion, What lucrative fights are you on about ? surely the best fighters fighting each other would achieve interest and thus be lucrative. Nobody said a young fighter should be allowed to move up in rounds quickly, you miss the point once again, what I relayed was that the decisions should be consistant, When discussing refs I did not say we would be deciding there fate, just the board and that it should be trasparant, if you believe they are honest mistakes, why are so many against the away fighter and in favour of the bigger promoters then ? answer me that then. Some questions for you, do you work in the industry ? Have you experienced any of these thing personally ? Do you understand how the industry works ? If not then i understand where your coming from.

Look at the Super Bantams - how would you rank Scott Quigg, Carl Frampton and Rendall Munroe? You could ask 6 people and get 6 different answers, so which ever one the BBBC went with, five of my people would deem it incorrect.

The best fighting the best is always what we want to see, but consider the Super Middles. We got Groves v Degale - big event, lots of publicity and no real answer. They remain at 1 and 2, so the only fight available for Groves is DeGale (if he wants to keep his belt), while DeGale can fight the No 3 guy or Groves - he has more options. In this instance, James DeGale would have better short term options for losing than Groves would from winning.

I'm all for Board transparency, but if it comes with scapegoating of officials it will have the opposite to the desired effect of improving decisions.

I don't work in the industry.

I've experienced nothing personally

I clearly have no clue how the industry works.

Apologies for trying to discuss the topic with you, but having an alternative viewpoint. I'll crawl back into my hole and not dare to sully your thread with my inane, mindless babble.

[smoggy7188]

Interesting stuff Saf. I mostly agree with your 1st point about a ranking system and fighters having voluntary defences. I think eliminators need to mean something. Nothing against Kris Carslaw but how can he get a shot at Rose having lost an eliminator and the winner of the eliminator then having another eliminator which he went on to lose. There needs to be some sort of offical ranking system which I think everyone would agree with. Id like to see referees explain their decisions more ie I dont think it is good enough to say "he was in no position to continue", i think they should describe why they thought he couldnt continue and have that published. I would like to see some belts defended more however in fairness the board do put forward fights for certain belts and nobody ends up putting in a purse bid for them. They put Norton up to defend against several people and no purse bids were ever made for it. I think area titles need looking at because with the increased number of fighters about they are gonna be seen with alot more prestige than they used to especially the southern area and midlands titles.

[safeerah]

Read my comments again, this time with more thought, also most of the arguments you have put forward do not relate to my comments at all. These are national titles not worldwide titles, this ranking system would be deemed as you put it "correct" because iit would be implimented by the british boxing board and Boxrec are not an official ranking system, A champ relinquishing a title because of a proposed challenger, could happen in any occassion, What lucrative fights are you on about ? surely the best fighters fighting each other would achieve interest and thus be lucrative. Nobody said a young fighter should be allowed to move up in rounds quickly, you miss the point once again, what I relayed was that the decisions should be consistant, When discussing refs I did not say we would be deciding there fate, just the board and that it should be trasparant, if you believe they are honest mistakes, why are so many against the away fighter and in favour of the bigger promoters then ? answer me that then. Some questions for you, do you work in the industry ? Have you experienced any of these thing personally ? Do you understand how the industry works ? If not then i understand where your coming from.

Look at the Super Bantams - how would you rank Scott Quigg, Carl Frampton and Rendall Munroe? You could ask 6 people and get 6 different answers, so which ever one the BBBC went with, five of my people would deem it incorrect.

The best fighting the best is always what we want to see, but consider the Super Middles. We got Groves v Degale - big event, lots of publicity and no real answer. They remain at 1 and 2, so the only fight available for Groves is DeGale (if he wants to keep his belt), while DeGale can fight the No 3 guy or Groves - he has more options. In this instance, James DeGale would have better short term options for losing than Groves would from winning.

I'm all for Board transparency, but if it comes with scapegoating of officials it will have the opposite to the desired effect of improving decisions.

I don't work in the industry.

I've experienced nothing personally

I clearly have no clue how the industry works.

Apologies for trying to discuss the topic with you, but having an alternative viewpoint. I'll crawl back into my hole and not dare to sully your thread with my inane, mindless babble.

Thought it was a debate, sorry to hurt your feelings mate, the system in place at the moment is not working, just asking what ideas to improve it, people have, thats all, don't want to get in a ruck.

[desperados]

What have been the problems that have lead to this act of defiance ?

i can answer this one. plain and simple, shite decision making.

The handling of the chisora situation post munich-gate was shambolic to say the least.

Imagine you overstepped the mark in your work place, and your employeer told yo uas a punishment you weren to show up for work 'until further notice'. Baffled by this you ask if it's a suspension, or sacking, and they say 'no, you can phone us up at some point in the future and see about coming back....' what kind of punishment is that?

It's embarassing.

The BBBoC could have taken many different courses of action aganist Chisora. Lets not forget that Chisora had already lost a huge % of his purse because the commissions had fined him already. It's baffling that the men in charge over at the BBBoC actually sat down, and discussed the situation in detail, and thats the shambles of a punishment they came up with. A 'suspended 2 year ban' or somthing along those lines, to come into effect if Chisora crosses any more lines + a fine would have been suitable.

[earsjohn]

Read my comments again, this time with more thought, also most of the arguments you have put forward do not relate to my comments at all. These are national titles not worldwide titles, this ranking system would be deemed as you put it "correct" because iit would be implimented by the british boxing board and Boxrec are not an official ranking system, A champ relinquishing a title because of a proposed challenger, could happen in any occassion, What lucrative fights are you on about ? surely the best fighters fighting each other would achieve interest and thus be lucrative. Nobody said a young fighter should be allowed to move up in rounds quickly, you miss the point once again, what I relayed was that the decisions should be consistant, When discussing refs I did not say we would be deciding there fate, just the board and that it should be trasparant, if you believe they are honest mistakes, why are so many against the away fighter and in favour of the bigger promoters then ? answer me that then. Some questions for you, do you work in the industry ? Have you experienced any of these thing personally ? Do you understand how the industry works ? If not then i understand where your coming from.

Look at the Super Bantams - how would you rank Scott Quigg, Carl Frampton and Rendall Munroe? You could ask 6 people and get 6 different answers, so which ever one the BBBC went with, five of my people would deem it incorrect.

The best fighting the best is always what we want to see, but consider the Super Middles. We got Groves v Degale - big event, lots of publicity and no real answer. They remain at 1 and 2, so the only fight available for Groves is DeGale (if he wants to keep his belt), while DeGale can fight the No 3 guy or Groves - he has more options. In this instance, James DeGale would have better short term options for losing than Groves would from winning.

I'm all for Board transparency, but if it comes with scapegoating of officials it will have the opposite to the desired effect of improving decisions.

I don't work in the industry.

I've experienced nothing personally

I clearly have no clue how the industry works.

Apologies for trying to discuss the topic with you, but having an alternative viewpoint. I'll crawl back into my hole and not dare to sully your thread with my inane, mindless babble.

Thought it was a debate, sorry to hurt your feelings mate, the system in place at the moment is not working, just asking what ideas to improve it, people have, thats all, don't want to get in a ruck.

Not after a ruck at all - and exactly - it is a debate (my feelings are intact)

Totally agree that many parts of it aren't working, but I don't believe there can be a one size fits all policy to things like rankings and title defences, because of some of the reasons mentioned (the Rob Norton case is a classic example).

One potential solution - sponsorship. As I can tell, there is no financial incentive for winning the Lonsdale, other than the improved money earning opportunities it can offer your career (so fighters will use the belt for their career and not shape their career for the prestige of the belt - e.g. Amir Khan). And with the BBBC not exactly cash rich, surely there is scope for sponsorship of the title. Think of it along the lines of the Carling Cup or the Embassy World Snooker Championships - The Johnston Paints Heavyweight Championship or the Rainham Steel Welterweight Title. Yes, it would be anathema to traditionalists, but if it made a fight for the belt worthwhile in itself and with sponsors demanding higher quality opponents and fights, the money would naturally improve the state of affairs.

[safeerah]

Interesting stuff Saf. I mostly agree with your 1st point about a ranking system and fighters having voluntary defences. I think eliminators need to mean something. Nothing against Kris Carslaw but how can he get a shot at Rose having lost an eliminator and the winner of the eliminator then having another eliminator which he went on to lose. There needs to be some sort of offical ranking system which I think everyone would agree with. Id like to see referees explain their decisions more ie I dont think it is good enough to say "he was in no position to continue", i think they should describe why they thought he couldnt continue and have that published. I would like to see some belts defended more however in fairness the board do put forward fights for certain belts and nobody ends up putting in a purse bid for them. They put Norton up to defend against several people and no purse bids were ever made for it. I think area titles need looking at because with the increased number of fighters about they are gonna be seen with alot more prestige than they used to especially the southern area and midlands titles.

Yes smoggy, I felt for Hall, he should have fought for the title, not Carslaw, no matter how Carslaw did in the fight against Rose, on the referee front, remember that women judge ( Williams, I think ) in the lennox Lewis? Evander Hollyfield robbery she scored in favour of Hollyfield and scored Lewis's most dominent round to Hollyfield, so in the court hearing, they made her sit in front of a screen and watch the round where lewis was pounding Holyfield on the ropes for the whole round, as she was watching the round in total embarassment, they asked her questions on how on earth she could score this round to Holyfield, she could not give a reason, all she said was her view was not good, yeh right ! Purse bids are not really working at present, I mean some promoters won't work with each other and if the champ is not a big ticket seller, then they will freeze him out and get him stripped.

[grub]

My 10 pence for what its worth....

Re. point 1. I think an official ranking system would be a good idea, however, voluntary defences should be kept. Fighters could work their way into a 'mandatory' position to challange for the title (which would need to be more strongly enforced by the BBBC than some 'world' bodies). At the same time, champs could take voluntary matches against (for example) a top 10 fighter. This would expand the scope for fights being made compared to only allowing the champ to fight vs the 'mandatory' (some of the more exciting fights may not simply be no.1 v no.2 rated).

Area titles could be a route to a better ranking...this may improve the frequency of these titles being fought for.

[smoggy7188]

I think you have to be careful with area titles because the pool of fighters who could challenge for the southern area welterweight title for example is quite big whereas the pool for the northern area title is pretty much non existent. Its like you can win the wbo african title and fly up the rankings even though you have fought someone without a winning record.

[stujones]

Some interesting ideas, not sure if they can be objectively worked.

I like the idea of an offical rankings and yes, voluntary defences need to be kept. However, where do you draw the line on the voluntarys? Can everybody in the top ten in line to be a voluntary - yes, no? What about in divisions in which there is more (or less) depth of talent.

For example, remember when Junior Witter was British Light Welter champion, the BBBoC (rediculously in my view) deemed the WINNER of an eliminator fight (Alan Bosworth) as not being good enough to even share the same ring as Witter, so they gave Witter the Lonsdale outright.

Imagine if there was a rule that "anyone in the British top 5 is worthy of a voluntary challenge" - could have some major mis matches if it was like the Light Welter scene when Witter was champion - similarly, it might mean certain fighters are frozen out of it. For example, the 6th ranked current Super Bantamweight - when you have Munroe, Quigg, Frampton, Gallahad and Arthur taking the top 5 places - how is the 6th ranked fighter going to get a look in.

Also fighters might want to sit on their ranking, if it means they are in line for a potential voluntary British title fight.

What I would like to see being made is a series of tournaments for the British title. Like the French cup system.

Quarter Finals = 6 rounds, Semi Final 8 rounders, final = 10 rounder.... winner is mandatory for the British title (and it has to be the champions next defence). This is not done like Prizefighter on the same night, but over the course of a few months.

Used to love when Eurosport used to show cards from France with this system. I didn't know the fighters, but it made for enjoyable viewing - and unlike prizefighter they were more "proper" fights. As a fan, you'd get to know the fighter and could more accurately judge/predict what would happen in the future.

[safeerah]

My 10 pence for what its worth....

Re. point 1. I think an official ranking system would be a good idea, however, voluntary defences should be kept. Fighters could work their way into a 'mandatory' position to challange for the title (which would need to be more strongly enforced by the BBBC than some 'world' bodies). At the same time, champs could take voluntary matches against (for example) a top 10 fighter. This would expand the scope for fights being made compared to only allowing the champ to fight vs the 'mandatory' (some of the more exciting fights may not simply be no.1 v no.2 rated).

Area titles could be a route to a better ranking...this may improve the frequency of these titles being fought for.

I agree, good point on the volutary, if it has to be a top ten fighter, I am all for it, thats why a ranking system is inperitive. Good points.

[safeerah]

What have been the problems that have lead to this act of defiance ?

i can answer this one. plain and simple, shite decision making.

The handling of the chisora situation post munich-gate was shambolic to say the least.

Imagine you overstepped the mark in your work place, and your employeer told yo uas a punishment you weren to show up for work 'until further notice'. Baffled by this you ask if it's a suspension, or sacking, and they say 'no, you can phone us up at some point in the future and see about coming back....' what kind of punishment is that?

It's embarassing.

The BBBoC could have taken many different courses of action aganist Chisora. Lets not forget that Chisora had already lost a huge % of his purse because the commissions had fined him already. It's baffling that the men in charge over at the BBBoC actually sat down, and discussed the situation in detail, and thats the shambles of a punishment they came up with. A 'suspended 2 year ban' or somthing along those lines, to come into effect if Chisora crosses any more lines + a fine would have been suitable.

True

[safeerah]

Look at the Super Bantams - how would you rank Scott Quigg, Carl Frampton and Rendall Munroe? You could ask 6 people and get 6 different answers, so which ever one the BBBC went with, five of my people would deem it incorrect.

The best fighting the best is always what we want to see, but consider the Super Middles. We got Groves v Degale - big event, lots of publicity and no real answer. They remain at 1 and 2, so the only fight available for Groves is DeGale (if he wants to keep his belt), while DeGale can fight the No 3 guy or Groves - he has more options. In this instance, James DeGale would have better short term options for losing than Groves would from winning.

I'm all for Board transparency, but if it comes with scapegoating of officials it will have the opposite to the desired effect of improving decisions.

I don't work in the industry.

I've experienced nothing personally

I clearly have no clue how the industry works.

Apologies for trying to discuss the topic with you, but having an alternative viewpoint. I'll crawl back into my hole and not dare to sully your thread with my inane, mindless babble.

Thought it was a debate, sorry to hurt your feelings mate, the system in place at the moment is not working, just asking what ideas to improve it, people have, thats all, don't want to get in a ruck.

Not after a ruck at all - and exactly - it is a debate (my feelings are intact)

Totally agree that many parts of it aren't working, but I don't believe there can be a one size fits all policy to things like rankings and title defences, because of some of the reasons mentioned (the Rob Norton case is a classic example).

One potential solution - sponsorship. As I can tell, there is no financial incentive for winning the Lonsdale, other than the improved money earning opportunities it can offer your career (so fighters will use the belt for their career and not shape their career for the prestige of the belt - e.g. Amir Khan). And with the BBBC not exactly cash rich, surely there is scope for sponsorship of the title. Think of it along the lines of the Carling Cup or the Embassy World Snooker Championships - The Johnston Paints Heavyweight Championship or the Rainham Steel Welterweight Title. Yes, it would be anathema to traditionalists, but if it made a fight for the belt worthwhile in itself and with sponsors demanding higher quality opponents and fights, the money would naturally improve the state of affairs.

Good Idea, but the board are old school.

[safeerah]

Some interesting ideas, not sure if they can be objectively worked.

I like the idea of an offical rankings and yes, voluntary defences need to be kept. However, where do you draw the line on the voluntarys? Can everybody in the top ten in line to be a voluntary - yes, no? What about in divisions in which there is more (or less) depth of talent.

For example, remember when Junior Witter was British Light Welter champion, the BBBoC (rediculously in my view) deemed the WINNER of an eliminator fight (Alan Bosworth) as not being good enough to even share the same ring as Witter, so they gave Witter the Lonsdale outright.

Imagine if there was a rule that "anyone in the British top 5 is worthy of a voluntary challenge" - could have some major mis matches if it was like the Light Welter scene when Witter was champion - similarly, it might mean certain fighters are frozen out of it. For example, the 6th ranked current Super Bantamweight - when you have Munroe, Quigg, Frampton, Gallahad and Arthur taking the top 5 places - how is the 6th ranked fighter going to get a look in.

Also fighters might want to sit on their ranking, if it means they are in line for a potential voluntary British title fight.

What I would like to see being made is a series of tournaments for the British title. Like the French cup system.

Quarter Finals = 6 rounds, Semi Final 8 rounders, final = 10 rounder.... winner is mandatory for the British title (and it has to be the champions next defence). This is not done like Prizefighter on the same night, but over the course of a few months.

Used to love when Eurosport used to show cards from France with this system. I didn't know the fighters, but it made for enjoyable viewing - and unlike prizefighter they were more "proper" fights. As a fan, you'd get to know the fighter and could more accurately judge/predict what would happen in the future.

I have a fighter from france who fought and won a quarter final and a year later is still waiting to fight in the semi, instead he ending up fighting and losing a match for the euro title at a higher weight away from home, yet still no semi, the only you could guarantee it, is if match took place after a week, because things change.

[safeerah]

I think you have to be careful with area titles because the pool of fighters who could challenge for the southern area welterweight title for example is quite big whereas the pool for the northern area title is pretty much non existent. Its like you can win the wbo african title and fly up the rankings even though you have fought someone without a winning record.

maybe areas could be seeded based on numbers and quality eg ? The Lonsdale is a prized possession, I think most Boxers from britain would want to win it.

[smoggy7188]

I think you have to be careful with area titles because the pool of fighters who could challenge for the southern area welterweight title for example is quite big whereas the pool for the northern area title is pretty much non existent. Its like you can win the wbo african title and fly up the rankings even though you have fought someone without a winning record.

maybe areas could be seeded based on numbers and quality eg ? The Lonsdale is a prized possession, I think most Boxers from britain would want to win it.

Maybe you could do like a tournament for a shot at the english title where say the winners of central, midlands, north and south for exmaple all meet and whoever comes out the winner gets a shot at the english title or the winners of say two semi finals fight for the vacant english belt. But i guess that still doesnt take away the problem of the lack of fighters in some areas at certain weight divisions.

[Old bones Ian]

For me domestic rankings don't work.

Alot of boxers who would be ranked 1 or 2 would be above domestic level, say if a boxer had a world ranking and didn't want to box for the domestic title, would he then be demoted in the domestic rankings? So a lesser boxer would then be ranked above a world class boxer?

Ola Afolabi as an example, he wouldn't want to box for the domestic title, but in the rankings he'd be No1. So how long would he be ranked No1 if he has no intentions of boxing for the title?

[dalcumly]

I agree that there are issues to be considered regarding how boxing is controlled in this country - but I think I'm correct in suggesting that all the suggestions being made ,at the end of the day , are designed to get more people interested in the sport ,or at least to retain those we have . As an example of how far boxing has dropped in popularity is the fact that while doing research last year I discovered that in the late 1950's the readership of the boxing news was 150,000 per week .Its now down to around 10,000.
Boxing fans ,who choose to attend shows , like to see competitive and exciting fights. I have great respect for people like Billy Smith ,Johnny Greaves and Matt Seawright but the reality is that they are engaged by matchmakers simply to fill the bill as losing opponents for 'house' fighters . Fans ,over the years ,have cottoned on to this and simply stop attending .
If a fighter is continually losing then a pattern is formed and needs to be addressed by the Board . They do this on occasion and seek special reports on losing boxers - and suddenly they get a win or a draw then embark on another 50 fight losing streak. A fight is only a fight when both boxers have a chance of winning and that includes ridiculous title fights.
That is where real corruption lies ,when boxers get a top 10 rating , because a promoter needs a 'bum' for his main money earners next defence .
Why was boxing so popular 50 years ago ? When you can answer that - then we have the solution .
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic but we're in terminal decline . Haye v Chisora is an insult and regardless of what eventually happens with regard to the Boards statements ,all those involved , including those who attend are morally bankrupt . I know people want to see this fight ,I do too , but sometimes you've got to stand by your principles . If the fight was out my backdoor I wouldn't open the blinds .

[safeerah]

I agree that there are issues to be considered regarding how boxing is controlled in this country - but I think I'm correct in suggesting that all the suggestions being made ,at the end of the day , are designed to get more people interested in the sport ,or at least to retain those we have . As an example of how far boxing has dropped in popularity is the fact that while doing research last year I discovered that in the late 1950's the readership of the boxing news was 150,000 per week .Its now down to around 10,000.
Boxing fans ,who choose to attend shows , like to see competitive and exciting fights. I have great respect for people like Billy Smith ,Johnny Greaves and Matt Seawright but the reality is that they are engaged by matchmakers simply to fill the bill as losing opponents for 'house' fighters . Fans ,over the years ,have cottoned on to this and simply stop attending .
If a fighter is continually losing then a pattern is formed and needs to be addressed by the Board . They do this on occasion and seek special reports on losing boxers - and suddenly they get a win or a draw then embark on another 50 fight losing streak. A fight is only a fight when both boxers have a chance of winning and that includes ridiculous title fights.
That is where real corruption lies ,when boxers get a top 10 rating , because a promoter needs a 'bum' for his main money earners next defence .
Why was boxing so popular 50 years ago ? When you can answer that - then we have the solution .
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic but we're in terminal decline . Haye v Chisora is an insult and regardless of what eventually happens with regard to the Boards statements ,all those involved , including those who attend are morally bankrupt . I know people want to see this fight ,I do too , but sometimes you've got to stand by your principles . If the fight was out my backdoor I wouldn't open the blinds .

Very worrying about the decline in interest in boxing over the years, but I do think decreasing numbers reading the boxing news has also a lot to do with acess of information on the internet, spot on about the journeymen, also notice the lack of midweek shows compaired to the past, the way forward are risk fights, not easy fights, too much made of unbeaten records and the need to remain unbeaten.

[Adamj1987]

I agree that there are issues to be considered regarding how boxing is controlled in this country - but I think I'm correct in suggesting that all the suggestions being made ,at the end of the day , are designed to get more people interested in the sport ,or at least to retain those we have . As an example of how far boxing has dropped in popularity is the fact that while doing research last year I discovered that in the late 1950's the readership of the boxing news was 150,000 per week .Its now down to around 10,000.
Boxing fans ,who choose to attend shows , like to see competitive and exciting fights. I have great respect for people like Billy Smith ,Johnny Greaves and Matt Seawright but the reality is that they are engaged by matchmakers simply to fill the bill as losing opponents for 'house' fighters . Fans ,over the years ,have cottoned on to this and simply stop attending .
If a fighter is continually losing then a pattern is formed and needs to be addressed by the Board . They do this on occasion and seek special reports on losing boxers - and suddenly they get a win or a draw then embark on another 50 fight losing streak. A fight is only a fight when both boxers have a chance of winning and that includes ridiculous title fights.
That is where real corruption lies ,when boxers get a top 10 rating , because a promoter needs a 'bum' for his main money earners next defence .
Why was boxing so popular 50 years ago ? When you can answer that - then we have the solution .
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic but we're in terminal decline . Haye v Chisora is an insult and regardless of what eventually happens with regard to the Boards statements ,all those involved , including those who attend are morally bankrupt . I know people want to see this fight ,I do too , but sometimes you've got to stand by your principles . If the fight was out my backdoor I wouldn't open the blinds .

Very worrying about the decline in interest in boxing over the years, but I do think decreasing numbers reading the boxing news has also a lot to do with acess of information on the internet, spot on about the journeymen, also notice the lack of midweek shows compaired to the past, the way forward are risk fights, not easy fights, too much made of unbeaten records and the need to remain unbeaten.

Couldnt agree more with any of these points

[dalcumly]

Can I also touch on the boring ,oft repeated subject of promoters also being managers . Its simply ridiculous ! If I'm a boxer I want my manager to represent me in negotiations with matchmakers and promoters to get me the best deal . That is the best money with an opponent I want ,one that will challenge me and develop some skill I might be lacking . Nowadays we have the incredible situation that MY manager , negotiates with HIMSELF and HIS matchmaker about the purse and the opponent for ME !!!!!! And after he's negotiated with himself he then tells ME that I've got to sell 100 tickets to my pals to make HIS promotion viable !!!!
The fact is that a boxer should be employing a manager to work for HIM but in reality its the other way round . It is equivalent to a football agent TELLING his player who he's playing with next season ,how much he's getting, dictating how many personal appearance's he's to make and the bulk of the money goes to the agent !!!
When you have a person promoting and managing it becomes very difficult to get fights with rival promoters . That's how boxers struggle to get fights even at the top level . In the old days Jim Wicks would offer 'Enery to Harry Levene or Jack Solomons or Mike Barrett and whoever paid the highest purse got the fight . The boxer benefits and the manager gets his commission. That's the way it should be .
The difficulty is that if one of our boxers wins an Olympic gold and signs with a lesser known manager who is unconnected with any promoter , the promoters will squeeze him out unless he signs a promotional deal .
So , another rule change proposal is the removal of the right to manage and promote .