BoxRec

Is it still the case that boxers who have time left to serve on a criminal conviction are unable to get a BBBOC licence? I know this used to be the case, but is it still - seeing the likes of Towers, Murray, Harrsion etc... all getting a licence not too long after being released made me wonder.

Wales wrote:Is it still the case that boxers who have time left to serve on a criminal conviction are unable to get a BBBOC licence? I know this used to be the case, but is it still - seeing the likes of Towers, Murray, Harrsion etc... all getting a licence not too long after being released made me wonder.

It was certainly the case with Towers who boxed on an Irish license until his time was fully served.

As I understand it you will be not be granted a licence while your still under criminals licence conditions.

I know a very good light heavy who has been told he wont EVER be licensed due to a past conviction .

Promoter then put wheels in motion about a slovakian license but was then told wouldnt ever be allowed to box in UK that way as an overseas boxer either.

dbflex wrote:

Wales wrote:Is it still the case that boxers who have time left to serve on a criminal conviction are unable to get a BBBOC licence? I know this used to be the case, but is it still - seeing the likes of Towers, Murray, Harrsion etc... all getting a licence not too long after being released made me wonder.

It was certainly the case with Towers who boxed on an Irish license until his time was fully served.

Is that right? So can the fighter get licenced in ireland then fight as an overseas boxer?

Interesting.

As I understand it whatever the length of the original sentence whether served in prison or on licence has to be fully completed before a person can apply for a licence with the board

spudder56 wrote:As I understand it whatever the length of the original sentence whether served in prison or on licence has to be fully completed before a person can apply for a licence with the board

The person i was referring to , is from what i understand on a life license , hence being told he can never be licensed by the BBBoC .
Its wrong really as hes a good guy , hes learned from his past , and is now a youth worker , lets face it if hes rehabilitated enough to have been working with vulnerable kids for the last few years then i see no reason why the board shouldnt license him but i think that arguement has been well and truly covered with them and theres no budging , which is a shame as he genuinely is the best boxer in our area outside of Froch and gives carl a good spar for 5 or 6 rounds before his fitness starts to lag .

Id imagine Gomez will know this guy seeing as he appears to be closer to froch , but i wont be mentioning who i mean as its unfair to drag up old speculation .

damianhucker1 wrote:

spudder56 wrote:As I understand it whatever the length of the original sentence whether served in prison or on licence has to be fully completed before a person can apply for a licence with the board

The person i was referring to , is from what i understand on a life license , hence being told he can never be licensed by the BBBoC .
Its wrong really as hes a good guy , hes learned from his past , and is now a youth worker , lets face it if hes rehabilitated enough to have been working with vulnerable kids for the last few years then i see no reason why the board shouldnt license him but i think that arguement has been well and truly covered with them and theres no budging , which is a shame as he genuinely is the best boxer in our area outside of Froch and gives carl a good spar for 5 or 6 rounds before his fitness starts to lag .

Id imagine Gomez will know this guy seeing as he appears to be closer to froch , but i wont be mentioning who i mean as its unfair to drag up old speculation .

He's been named on here loads of times. Gary something isn't it?

damianhucker1 wrote:

spudder56 wrote:As I understand it whatever the length of the original sentence whether served in prison or on licence has to be fully completed before a person can apply for a licence with the board

The person i was referring to , is from what i understand on a life license , hence being told he can never be licensed by the BBBoC .
Its wrong really as hes a good guy , hes learned from his past , and is now a youth worker , lets face it if hes rehabilitated enough to have been working with vulnerable kids for the last few years then i see no reason why the board shouldnt license him but i think that arguement has been well and truly covered with them and theres no budging , which is a shame as he genuinely is the best boxer in our area outside of Froch and gives carl a good spar for 5 or 6 rounds before his fitness starts to lag .

Id imagine Gomez will know this guy seeing as he appears to be closer to froch , but i wont be mentioning who i mean as its unfair to drag up old speculation .

I also know who you mean and I agree he is a really nice guy and it is a shame that the boards rule doesn't appear to have any flexibility whatsoever

Wales wrote:

dbflex wrote:

Wales wrote:Is it still the case that boxers who have time left to serve on a criminal conviction are unable to get a BBBOC licence? I know this used to be the case, but is it still - seeing the likes of Towers, Murray, Harrsion etc... all getting a licence not too long after being released made me wonder.

It was certainly the case with Towers who boxed on an Irish license until his time was fully served.

Is that right? So can the fighter get licenced in ireland then fight as an overseas boxer?

Interesting.

Didn't Mark Heffron fight here on an Irish licence?

dbflex wrote:

Wales wrote:

dbflex wrote:
It was certainly the case with Towers who boxed on an Irish license until his time was fully served.

Is that right? So can the fighter get licenced in ireland then fight as an overseas boxer?

Interesting.

Didn't Mark Heffron fight here on an Irish licence?

He's only fought once here, has he been inside? Or did he go with the Irish license because he was signed with Gary Hyde?

He's only fought once here, has he been inside? Or did he go with the Irish license because he was signed with Gary Hyde?[/quote]

Think he wasn't allowed a British license because Hyde doesn't have one

So essentially there is a loop hole. If a fighter is willing to go out of his way to exploit it.

Wales wrote:

dbflex wrote:

Wales wrote:Is it still the case that boxers who have time left to serve on a criminal conviction are unable to get a BBBOC licence? I know this used to be the case, but is it still - seeing the likes of Towers, Murray, Harrsion etc... all getting a licence not too long after being released made me wonder.

It was certainly the case with Towers who boxed on an Irish license until his time was fully served.

Is that right? So can the fighter get licenced in ireland then fight as an overseas boxer?

Interesting.

What's the difference between that and Luxembourg. Why hasn't Smith gone mad and try to kick those promoters out of boxing? Double standards

So is this right...

Towers refused a BBBoC license as he was still under criminal license conditions so he went and got an Irish license. Did he then box on BBBoC sanctioned shows with this Irish licence?

The Insider wrote:So is this right...

Towers refused a BBBoC license as he was still under criminal license conditions so he went and got an Irish license. Did he then box on BBBoC sanctioned shows with this Irish licence?

Appears so.... although im sure its a little more sugar coated

What is the purpose of a boxing license? The only sporting license I've ever held was a motorcycle racing one which required you to pay 200 quid a year and take an eye test. Is a boxing license just the same(purpose of making money for the board)? Does it offer benefits?

Unlicensed boxing seems to be thriving at the moment and the way the shows are run is more professional.

banjo wrote:What is the purpose of a boxing license? The only sporting license I've ever held was a motorcycle racing one which required you to pay 200 quid a year and take an eye test. Is a boxing license just the same(purpose of making money for the board)? Does it offer benefits?

Unlicensed boxing seems to be thriving at the moment and the way the shows are run is more professional.

Medicals are a part of it, brain scans etc. I've never been to or been involved in an unlicensed show but I highly doubt they're more professional.

expe wrote:

banjo wrote:What is the purpose of a boxing license? The only sporting license I've ever held was a motorcycle racing one which required you to pay 200 quid a year and take an eye test. Is a boxing license just the same(purpose of making money for the board)? Does it offer benefits?

Unlicensed boxing seems to be thriving at the moment and the way the shows are run is more professional.

Medicals are a part of it, brain scans etc. I've never been to or been involved in an unlicensed show but I highly doubt they're more professional.

By professional I mean improving and becoming more professional I must reiterate, not as in better than pro shows.

danconnollyeire wrote:What's the difference between that and Luxembourg.

I would assume legitimate global recognition and global acceptance as a genuine authority. In reality, Luxembourg and Irish registered fighters both fight here if they want to so from the angle of your question, there isn't a difference.

banjo wrote:

expe wrote:

banjo wrote:What is the purpose of a boxing license? The only sporting license I've ever held was a motorcycle racing one which required you to pay 200 quid a year and take an eye test. Is a boxing license just the same(purpose of making money for the board)? Does it offer benefits?

Unlicensed boxing seems to be thriving at the moment and the way the shows are run is more professional.

Medicals are a part of it, brain scans etc. I've never been to or been involved in an unlicensed show but I highly doubt they're more professional.

By professional I mean improving and becoming more professional I must reiterate, not as in better than pro shows.

In safety terms id obviously agree , but... in general an unlicensed show is better than a pro show , from a spectators point of view , more closely matched , more bouts , more bang for your buck .

example here , last unlicensed show i attended that wasnt mine (to keep a balanced opinion ) vs Last pro show i attended .

Unlicensed - 20+ bouts including a good standard prizefighter tournament - £20
VS
Pro Show - 4 bouts of local ticket seller vs Journeyman - £30


No comparison really in terms of value for money .

Whilst evenly matched some of the standards are feckin awful. Dont get me wrong there are some good kids, but there are some bloody bad ones too.

Was the event you attended in Stoke per chance?

Its an absolute myth the quality is better. A lot of our famous journeymen(Dunn and Thorpe for two) now ply their trade unlicensed, usually against very raw, ex mma kids or so. Have the journeymen got better in their forties or are they just picking up an easier few quid. If you want well matched value, go down to an amateur show at your local WMC for a tenner. 15 well matched bouts with everyone trying their hearts out for a trophy.

mickey1975 wrote:Its an absolute myth the quality is better. A lot of our famous journeymen(Dunn and Thorpe for two) now ply their trade unlicensed, usually against very raw, ex mma kids or so. Have the journeymen got better in their forties or are they just picking up an easier few quid. If you want well matched value, go down to an amateur show at your local WMC for a tenner. 15 well matched bouts with everyone trying their hearts out for a trophy.

100% agree, Gary Reid was the "top billing" on Saturday and he looked shot to bits - there were better fighters on the bill granted, but the quality isnt as good.

Only thing i will say - A poorer quality, but equally matched fight can be more entertaining than one better quality fighter beating a home fighter winning 40-36.

Anyway, we digress.

Wales wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Its an absolute myth the quality is better. A lot of our famous journeymen(Dunn and Thorpe for two) now ply their trade unlicensed, usually against very raw, ex mma kids or so. Have the journeymen got better in their forties or are they just picking up an easier few quid. If you want well matched value, go down to an amateur show at your local WMC for a tenner. 15 well matched bouts with everyone trying their hearts out for a trophy.

100% agree, Gary Reid was the "top billing" on Saturday and he looked shot to bits - there were better fighters on the bill granted, but the quality isnt as good.

Only thing i will say - A poorer quality, but equally matched fight can be more entertaining than one better quality fighter beating a home fighter winning 40-36.

Anyway, we digress.

Yes it was at Stoke , My lad won rd 2 TKO vs a local lad around midway through the show , got a few boos as he landed a shot whilst the lad was going down but in fairness was just his momentum , no malice intended etc .


Gary Reids Knee went out in his Quarter Final , but being the tough guy he is he still kept trying , hes not shot , Not from what ive seen anyway , His punch resistance hasnt gone , hes been hit by who i believe is the biggest puncher that weight in the country as far as unlicensed goes and has stayed on his feet .

In the tournament the likes of Aaron Thomas ,was one of several former pros , People assume they go unlicensed because theyre no longer good enough for pro , well thats not always the case , many do it because they cant get enough fights for it to be worth it financially .

My lad takes on Aaron Thomas on the next show in stoke , We keep putting him in with good lads , hes only going to learn from it , bearing in mind from my understanding Thomas was Welsh Aba champion and unbeaten in the pro's , Not necesarilly saying my lad will beat him, but he will certainly test him at very least .

And to whoever mentioned about the journeymen now on unlicensed and said surely they cant be better now , well no they arent better , thats why theyre getting stopped by unlicensed lads , As far as i remember ive never had a pro Journeyman win on one of my shows , they may just be so used to boxing to survive or whatever but if your going to shows and seeing these journeymen winning on a regular basis then i can only assume they have a lower standard of boxers on that promotion .

As pointed out above , if they are matched correctly then 2 raw novices can put on an excellent bout to watch , its about the matchmaking differences between unlicensed and Pro that is the key , not necessarily the standard of the boxers , although i do try to provide a high a standard as possible .