British - Commonwealth - European...?

[leejonesjnr]

A few people have mentioned the ‘traditional route’ on the thread about the EBU title.
The idea is that each is a step up but in my eyes certainly and I believe most would agree, the British title is above the Commonwealth these days.
Agree?
If so, when did they switch places?

[chinarich]

I think the problem with the Commonwealth belt is that it can sometimes be picked up against relatively weak opposition - you only need to import a member of a Commonwealth state with a deceptively decent record. Which has gradually devalued the belt over time, so there are plenty of British boxers who have won it yet failed in attempts at the Lonsdale. Difficult to pinpoint the time, but definitely in my opinion it’s lost a lot of value over the last ten years...

[wesshaw1985]

Let's take HW.
Sexton > Thomas > Kabayel would be a good path into the World Rankings.
Could you skip a step? Yes. But you would have missed out on a good learning fight and will get found out at a later stage imo...

[paddy chavez]

The commonwealth has been a bit below the British title since the 80s I'd say

[Mimmy]

I can think of one british boxer who took the commonwealth title by fighting a poor boxer with a somewhat 'decent' record. Nigel Benn v Abdul Sanda.

Im trying to think of others too.

[keirw]

Let's take HW.
Sexton > Thomas > Kabayel would be a good path into the World Rankings.
Could you skip a step? Yes. But you would have missed out on a good learning fight and will get found out at a later stage imo...

Heavyweight is one division where the belts appear to be in the correct order. But that isn't always the case.

For example, at lightweight would Ritson be considered an easier fight than Coyle? Or at Cruiserweight, is Watkins more accomplished than Askin?

As Machiavelli once said "It is not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles"

And as long as there are British champions who are considered better than their Commonwealth or European counterparts, there will be an arguement for skipping the traditional route. Which is a shame.

[olij999]

I can think of one british boxer who took the commonwealth title by fighting a poor boxer with a somewhat 'decent' record. Nigel Benn v Abdul Sanda.

Im trying to think of others too.

Chris Pyatt took the vacant European against John van Elteren, who had a tidy record despite coming off a stoppage loss. Not Pyatt's fault, of course, but a very one-sided one-rounder. Can't think of a British fighting winning (rather than defending) a Commonwealth title against someone moderate but with a good record. That may be because the bigger issue back then is that it was almost impossible to trace the records of African fighters accurately at that time. So rather than having a fancy record, it was more likely that someone would end up fighting for the title based on limited experience, which would only get found out afterwards - e.g. Chris Pyatt v James Tapisha, Henry Wharton v Sipho Moyo.

PS - I don't really agree with your view of Sanda as a poor boxer with a decent record. I think he was an OK boxer with a patchy record. By the time he fought Benn, he'd beaten Cliff Gilpin (who gave Lloyd Honeyghan two hard British title fights, admittedly at welter, a couple of years before), gone the distance with Tony Sibson over 12, and fought Hunter Clay (who took Herol Graham 15 rounds) three times. So while he was not earth-shattering, he could handle himself.

[mickey1975]

Wharton-Carr was brutal.

[wesshaw1985]

no reason Askin and Watkins cant unify the British and Commonwealth Titles and look to face Ngabu for the European straight after.
same goes for Callum Johnson going after Dominic Boesel.
Rocky Fielding vs. Kashtanov/Krasniqi winner.
Langford vs. Cameron to unfiy and the winner against Szeremeta.
etc.

Creates interest and storylines just going for the titles.
Too many fighters want to skip levels and jump into one big money fight then disappear...

[TheGman]

I can think of one british boxer who took the commonwealth title by fighting a poor boxer with a somewhat 'decent' record. Nigel Benn v Abdul Sanda.

Im trying to think of others too.

Tony bellew vs broken spear

[TheGman]

I remember jackson asiku beating marc callaghan in one round for the vacant commonwealth title then matchroom fed jamie mckeever to him too and the same happened there,that was in about 2005,mckeever was a former british title holder and the commonwealth title holder dispatched of him with ease,these african fighters are hot and cold,some are good and some are absolutely piss poor

[Mimmy]

I can think of one british boxer who took the commonwealth title by fighting a poor boxer with a somewhat 'decent' record. Nigel Benn v Abdul Sanda.

Im trying to think of others too.

Chris Pyatt took the vacant European against John van Elteren, who had a tidy record despite coming off a stoppage loss. Not Pyatt's fault, of course, but a very one-sided one-rounder. Can't think of a British fighting winning (rather than defending) a Commonwealth title against someone moderate but with a good record. That may be because the bigger issue back then is that it was almost impossible to trace the records of African fighters accurately at that time. So rather than having a fancy record, it was more likely that someone would end up fighting for the title based on limited experience, which would only get found out afterwards - e.g. Chris Pyatt v James Tapisha, Henry Wharton v Sipho Moyo.

PS - I don't really agree with your view of Sanda as a poor boxer with a decent record. I think he was an OK boxer with a patchy record. By the time he fought Benn, he'd beaten Cliff Gilpin (who gave Lloyd Honeyghan two hard British title fights, admittedly at welter, a couple of years before), gone the distance with Tony Sibson over 12, and fought Hunter Clay (who took Herol Graham 15 rounds) three times. So while he was not earth-shattering, he could handle himself.

I stand by my remarks regarding Sanda. I remember after the Benn fight I thought to myself how the hell did he stay the distance with Tony Sibson? Sanda's first 17 fights were against nothing to note, which isnt derogatory for Sanda but those opponets were nothing special at all, and their end career result shows that.

Gilpin seemed to be his best opponent after those 17 fights I agree but lets not get carried away. After Gilpin was beat by Laing his career was very up and down and it seemed his best days were over. Gilpin took out his passport and travelled around as a regular journeyman and was getting beat more frequently. His looses were generally over points but did he even have the heart anymore?

Tony Sibson had had a long career when he met Sanda for the Commonwealth title so im not reading anything into that fight at all. Sibbo also didnt have the 'dig' (imo) that Benn had, and im not really sure if Sibbo had a devastating punch at middleweight.

I still go by what I said Sanda had a 'decent' record on paper until you examine the oppo. Saying that Benn did too but the difference was Benn was a puncher who could take out so meeting Sanda for the title was a no brainer really.

[olij999]

I can think of one british boxer who took the commonwealth title by fighting a poor boxer with a somewhat 'decent' record. Nigel Benn v Abdul Sanda.

Im trying to think of others too.

Chris Pyatt took the vacant European against John van Elteren, who had a tidy record despite coming off a stoppage loss. Not Pyatt's fault, of course, but a very one-sided one-rounder. Can't think of a British fighting winning (rather than defending) a Commonwealth title against someone moderate but with a good record. That may be because the bigger issue back then is that it was almost impossible to trace the records of African fighters accurately at that time. So rather than having a fancy record, it was more likely that someone would end up fighting for the title based on limited experience, which would only get found out afterwards - e.g. Chris Pyatt v James Tapisha, Henry Wharton v Sipho Moyo.

PS - I don't really agree with your view of Sanda as a poor boxer with a decent record. I think he was an OK boxer with a patchy record. By the time he fought Benn, he'd beaten Cliff Gilpin (who gave Lloyd Honeyghan two hard British title fights, admittedly at welter, a couple of years before), gone the distance with Tony Sibson over 12, and fought Hunter Clay (who took Herol Graham 15 rounds) three times. So while he was not earth-shattering, he could handle himself.

I stand by my remarks regarding Sanda. I remember after the Benn fight I thought to myself how the hell did he stay the distance with Tony Sibson? Sanda's first 17 fights were against nothing to note, which isnt derogatory for Sanda but those opponets were nothing special at all, and their end career result shows that.

Gilpin seemed to be his best opponent after those 17 fights I agree but lets not get carried away. After Gilpin was beat by Laing his career was very up and down and it seemed his best days were over. Gilpin took out his passport and travelled around as a regular journeyman and was getting beat more frequently. His looses were generally over points but did he even have the heart anymore?

Tony Sibson had had a long career when he met Sanda for the Commonwealth title so im not reading anything into that fight at all. Sibbo also didnt have the 'dig' (imo) that Benn had, and im not really sure if Sibbo had a devastating punch at middleweight.

I still go by what I said Sanda had a 'decent' record on paper until you examine the oppo. Saying that Benn did too but the difference was Benn was a puncher who could take out so meeting Sanda for the title was a no brainer really.

Some fair points there - think it probably comes down to where you draw the line of someone being OK. I would still put Sanda as better than fighters like Tapisha, Moyo and Van Elteren and think he froze a bit against Benn (as did a lot of Benn's opponents around that time). Would disagree with you on Gilpin, though - his record didn't become patchy immediately after Laing. Between that and Honeyghan 1, he had a half-point loss to Joey Singleton, a draw and a loss in France in eight-rounders he would not have been supposed to win, but had five wins, including two Area title fights and a knockout win in Holland. That was pretty tidy form in those days. After the second Honeyghan fight, he did have more losses abroad, and I'm sure you're right that his motivation was less up at middleweight. However, he was still good enough to lose only by a couple of rounds to a young Michael Watson in an eight right near the end, and take Sumbu Kalambay the distance. If he was a journeyman, it was at a very good level.

But I am in danger of turning this into a Cliff Gilpin thread, so will leave it there!

[Mimmy]

Chris Pyatt took the vacant European against John van Elteren, who had a tidy record despite coming off a stoppage loss. Not Pyatt's fault, of course, but a very one-sided one-rounder. Can't think of a British fighting winning (rather than defending) a Commonwealth title against someone moderate but with a good record. That may be because the bigger issue back then is that it was almost impossible to trace the records of African fighters accurately at that time. So rather than having a fancy record, it was more likely that someone would end up fighting for the title based on limited experience, which would only get found out afterwards - e.g. Chris Pyatt v James Tapisha, Henry Wharton v Sipho Moyo.

PS - I don't really agree with your view of Sanda as a poor boxer with a decent record. I think he was an OK boxer with a patchy record. By the time he fought Benn, he'd beaten Cliff Gilpin (who gave Lloyd Honeyghan two hard British title fights, admittedly at welter, a couple of years before), gone the distance with Tony Sibson over 12, and fought Hunter Clay (who took Herol Graham 15 rounds) three times. So while he was not earth-shattering, he could handle himself.

I stand by my remarks regarding Sanda. I remember after the Benn fight I thought to myself how the hell did he stay the distance with Tony Sibson? Sanda's first 17 fights were against nothing to note, which isnt derogatory for Sanda but those opponets were nothing special at all, and their end career result shows that.

Gilpin seemed to be his best opponent after those 17 fights I agree but lets not get carried away. After Gilpin was beat by Laing his career was very up and down and it seemed his best days were over. Gilpin took out his passport and travelled around as a regular journeyman and was getting beat more frequently. His looses were generally over points but did he even have the heart anymore?

Tony Sibson had had a long career when he met Sanda for the Commonwealth title so im not reading anything into that fight at all. Sibbo also didnt have the 'dig' (imo) that Benn had, and im not really sure if Sibbo had a devastating punch at middleweight.

I still go by what I said Sanda had a 'decent' record on paper until you examine the oppo. Saying that Benn did too but the difference was Benn was a puncher who could take out so meeting Sanda for the title was a no brainer really.

Some fair points there - think it probably comes down to where you draw the line of someone being OK. I would still put Sanda as better than fighters like Tapisha, Moyo and Van Elteren and think he froze a bit against Benn (as did a lot of Benn's opponents around that time). Would disagree with you on Gilpin, though - his record didn't become patchy immediately after Laing. Between that and Honeyghan 1, he had a half-point loss to Joey Singleton, a draw and a loss in France in eight-rounders he would not have been supposed to win, but had five wins, including two Area title fights and a knockout win in Holland. That was pretty tidy form in those days. After the second Honeyghan fight, he did have more losses abroad, and I'm sure you're right that his motivation was less up at middleweight. However, he was still good enough to lose only by a couple of rounds to a young Michael Watson in an eight right near the end, and take Sumbu Kalambay the distance. If he was a journeyman, it was at a very good level.

But I am in danger of turning this into a Cliff Gilpin thread, so will leave it there!

We are all entitled to our opinion matey, no worries on that score.

[bennie]

Mimmy, you need to stick to the heavyweights. Sanda was a good fighter who gave Sibbo a hard 12-rounder and even wobbled him at one point . He had never been stopped when Benn took him out in two rounds. Benn was so ecstatic that his celebrations led to a split between him and manager Burt McCarthy, who had told him to tone it down. You then beltittle Tony Sibson by saying he didn't have a devastating punch at middleweight - have you seen Alan Minter's nose? I could quote a dozen other examples when Sibbo was truly explosive. Cliff Gilpin is another fighter who you are plain wrong about. He gave Lloyd Honeyghan his hardest ever fight (Honeyghan readily admits it) long after he had supposedly lost heart, as you put it. He had Honeyghan on the floor.

[bennie]

.

[jonp]

Mimmy, you need to stick to the heavyweights. Sanda was a good fighter who gave Sibbo a hard 12-rounder and even wobbled him at one point . He had never been stopped when Benn took him out in two rounds. Benn was so ecstatic that his celebrations led to a split between him and manager Burt McCarthy, who had told him to tone it down. You then beltittle Tony Sibson by saying he didn't have a devastating punch at middleweight - have you seen Alan Minter's nose? I could quote a dozen other examples when Sibbo was truly explosive. Cliff Gilpin is another fighter who you are plain wrong about. He gave Lloyd Honeyghan his hardest ever fight (Honeyghan readily admits it) long after he had supposedly lost heart, as you put it. He had Honeyghan on the floor.

Great knowledge there Gilpin was one of the hardest men he worked with len woodhall told me

[jamamb]

ya i see it more as commonweallth to british to european

in theory the commonwealth sounds like it could be stronger because it encompasses more countries then the british, but in reality the standard is clearly lower.

the british title is one of the strongest in the world outside the world titles

[banjo]

It depends on the division, sometimes domestically a weight class can be stacked but continental can be pretty poor, there's been some real fornicating puddings at European level so in that case the British is harder to win than the European but some other divisions might be the other way round, the very low weight divisions are very poor domestically.