BoxRec

According to boxrec records Gary Jacobs only had 2 British title wins but I 'm convinced he owns a Lonsdale Belt outright?
Am I right?

I can't see any fights between when he won the belt and when Del Bryan regained the vacant title that could have been for the belt and I would be surprised if there was any fights missing on his record or that Boxrec has completely missed a title change.

Jacobs must have relinquished after beating Wright in order to box Proto for the European in October. Del Bryan or Pat Barrett must have been mandatory and they boxed for the vacant title in September. Both Bryan and Barrett were serious challengers and better than Proto or it may have been the dates forced Gary's hand.

Didn't Jacobs win his british title fights before the BBBC changed the rules and made domestic champs have more defences in order to get the belt outright ?

JimJim2009 wrote:Didn't Jacobs win his british title fights before the BBBC changed the rules and made domestic champs have more defences in order to get the belt outright ?

At the moment it's 3 defences, it used to be 2, but I don't know of any point where only 1 defence would have been enough to win the belt outright, I don't think the board would make it that easy.

expe wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:Didn't Jacobs win his british title fights before the BBBC changed the rules and made domestic champs have more defences in order to get the belt outright ?

At the moment it's 3 defences, it used to be 2, but I don't know of any point where only 1 defence would have been enough to win the belt outright, I don't think the board would make it that easy.

Though they did something for Junior Witter didn't they? He was head and shoulders above everyone else in the division (except Ricky Hatton) - I think I remember they 'granted' Junior a belt though I may be wrong.

palooka wrote:

expe wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:Didn't Jacobs win his british title fights before the BBBC changed the rules and made domestic champs have more defences in order to get the belt outright ?

At the moment it's 3 defences, it used to be 2, but I don't know of any point where only 1 defence would have been enough to win the belt outright, I don't think the board would make it that easy.

Though they did something for Junior Witter didn't they? He was head and shoulders above everyone else in the division (except Ricky Hatton) - I think I remember they 'granted' Junior a belt though I may be wrong.

He only made one defence, against Colin Lynes, in 3 1/2 years as champion, I believe he was awarded the belt because there were no suitable challengers available after Alan Bosworth, who he had stopped in 3 rounds to win the belt, won an eliminator, but he had clearly gone up a couple of levels since then, so the board awarded him the belt outright, I think that was at the time of 2 defences to win the belt, but I'm not sure when the rule changed.

Its win the belt and 2 defenses to win the belt outright - thought it always had been.

palooka wrote:Its win the belt and 2 defenses to win the belt outright - thought it always had been.

I think it's 4 british title fight wins and you keep it, in the same weight division

bigjack wrote:

palooka wrote:Its win the belt and 2 defenses to win the belt outright - thought it always had been.

I think it's 4 british title fight wins and you keep it, in the same weight division

At the moment it's 3 defences and one has to be a mandatory, so yes, 4 defences, not sure whether weight divisions matter or not though, it changed from 2 defences a few years ago.

The old rules were 3 notches on the same belt, it didn't matter if you won and lost three times in a row, you still got 3 wins so got to keep it outright.

The new rules are 3 defences, one being a mandatory. I don't know if the notches rule still applies or not.

The board can also award a belt if it's felt that you've been active/dominant at the weight after winning the title and there are a lack of challengers to defend against within a certain time period. I believe Charlie Magri and Witter were awarded belts in this way.

They're nice belts, having held one I'd have no qualms being awarded one in that fashion.

I may be wrong but I always thought that Scotlands John McCluskey from Hamilton was awarded a Lonsdale Belt in the flyweight division in the late 60s because there were no challengers after winning the British Title and defending once

expe wrote:

bigjack wrote:

palooka wrote:Its win the belt and 2 defenses to win the belt outright - thought it always had been.

I think it's 4 british title fight wins and you keep it, in the same weight division

At the moment it's 3 defences and one has to be a mandatory, so yes, 4 defences, not sure whether weight divisions matter or not though, it changed from 2 defences a few years ago.

Cheers

4 wins, not four defences.

orbtastic wrote:4 wins, not four defences.

yes four wins,they could all be challenges as long as you win the four you keep it.

Yup.

I think you could theoretically win belts at two weights with four notches apiece.

I know Rhodes made history with 90 days or whatever it was at the time, it's highly unlikely to be beaten.

I'm also not sure sure what happens if you notch up enough wins for two belts at the same weight in different spells, the way Crawford Ashley almost did and Rhodes could have done in his second tenure. I have a feeling the board changed the rules to stop the awarding of a second belt at the same weight.

I know Cooper won 3 Lonsdale belts and others have more than one but Henry essentially is what caused the rules to be changed, I believe.

According to Hugman, Jacobs did not win a Lonsdale Belt outright.