BoxRec

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Chambers2 wrote:I thought the boxing politics situation couldn't get any worse, but now they've managed to come up with a new way to fcuk us about, by waiting til the purse bid results have been released and if they don't go the way they like it then the fighter withdraws. I'm sort of dreading the results of the Haye-JMM bids and the subsequent pissing about.

To add insult to injury Ricky Hatton goes and fcuks off to some distant backwater TV channel and I now have to pay an extra fiver to watch the little fecker on Box Office, I already pay a small fortune for my Sky package and I point blank refuse to payout again to subscribe to Setanta.

Its good to get things off your chest

jomothepure wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Yes. There's no one, other than the casual fans/viewers, who did not know Gunn/Enzo was a total mismatch. Completely wrong of the WBO to rank Gunn in their top 15. Either they are complete imbeciles, or there is something more dodgy, like they put a soft touch in the rankings for an easy defence.

If the bbbofc had put their foot down though, what would it have achieved? Gunn got a big payday; Enzo made a "defence" of his shiny belt, Warren kept one of his "world" champions in the game, Enzo's fans saw their guy mash up his opponent, ITV got an exciting KO, in a world title fight no less, on the box. The WBO got their sanctioning fee.

So who loses out?

Us - "us" being the sad cases who know something about the lie of things, who know that this is not a world title fight, this is a circus show duping fans who are none the wiser. They also lose out, although they do not know it, because they are duped into believing the Gunn fight was anything other than a club fight with bells on.

So the only group who loses out is small enough to be ignored. Therefore the beeb have absolutely no intention of taking a stand because it would be trading on far too many important toes.

And in the interests of balance, the Gunn/SN thing can be applied to Valero/Lozada, Mundine/Nievas etc etc.

It's shit, and I'd love a board with teeth, but I can't see it happening

Kilburn wrote:I don't know if Ricky Hatton doesn't see the bigger picture or what, or I'm just being unreasonable, but if you ask me it is a real shame that when he's exposed to the national terrestrial audience it's only when he's ballooned in weight and is busy taking the piss out of himself on The Weakest Link or Jonathan Ross. Then with a big fight like this coming up and there is some very impressive looking training footage on offer, a chance for people to at least get an idea of just what a serious athlete and competitor Hatton is when he is out of the pub, it's hidden away on channel 429.

He could do so much more if a wider audience saw the fighter rather than the pie eater. I wonder sometimes that maybe it is enough for Hatton that the whole of Manchester knows the real score and is behind him. I've no doubt that his city will be "Setanta'd" up to the hilt this weekend.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

I think you've answered your own question there sunshine.

If the board refused to sanction it, SN would have had them by the bollocks, if the guy is ranked in the top 15, I am willing to bet it would satisfy the board's own criteria, and save him failing his medical, or some irregularity with his visa, there is little they could do.

The problem is that it is not easy to define a total mistmatch, it's not something that is easy to quantify, the best example could be their win loss ratio, but then you could have a guy who was 22-5, but had only ever won against complete palookas, and whose five losses came against club fighters, would this guy be permitted to fight for a title?

You can already see the difficulties, using rankings as a criteria is not perfect, but what criteria DO you use.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge
for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Completely right chambers. At the very least, the bbbofc should adopt some form of the ALI Act used in America, which I don't think goes far enough anyway. And even then it would take a massive reversal of bahaviour on the part of promotors to reduce the number of titles and mismatches. Titles and mismatches make their boxers look good, which gets them pretty records, higher rankings, and more money, which arguably is their primary aim.

I'm probably being hugely naive here BUT...when it comes to matches (especially for titles) wouldn't it be better if the BBBoC simply refused to sanction matches which were obviously imbalanced?

I don't mean supposed 'learning' fights for prospects. But it was the WBO which ranked Bobby Gunn in a position which allowed him to challenge for Enzo's title.

Wouldn't boxing have been better served if the Board had turned round and said "I don't care where you've got this man ranked. He's not fighting Enzo on these shores."

There would probably be loads of restraint of trade issues but a Board with teeth, for me, would go a huge way to saving British boxing.

Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing. At least Gunn protested and tried to come out fighting so that's one up on the aforementioned. How would British Champion, John Keeton go with Gunn as food for thought?

The Board were, and are about to be again, affiliated to these organisations which means they have people on the committees that do the rankings so don't paint them whiter than white.

Mismatches will happen and do happen, albeit in a less dramatic way, in every sport around and quality control could be tighter agreed, but for God's sake Bobby Gunn was just one of many that you could name over the years but remember he was NOT the main event on this show and TV, I assume, paid nothing extra for it and the corwd at the venue would have come to see Calzaghe with or without Enzo on the card.

As for titles, TV allowed the influx of these titles, no one else and when it suits, especially SKy, they drop them. Is this fair on the fighters?

ITV Allowed the WBU, via Shea Neary's fights, and Sky followed suit with WBU and IBO and even WBF titles. Barry Hearn started the trend years ago and if TV suffered and ultimately paid and billed these fights as 'World' Titles' other Promoters and their fighters were bound to follow suit. Fighters want to fight for titles it's as simple as that and TV demands a bauble at the end of a fight, why?I don't know.

The so-called big three of the WBC/IBF and WBA have all been involved in ratings manipulation and corruption scandals over the years and as a result of these scandals the 'good guys' or 'opportunists' in the organizations fragmented to form the others. The WBA splintered, to form the WBC and the WBC splintered, to form the IBF. The IBF and WBO splintered to give us the WBU and the WBU splintered to give us the IBO.   

For me none is better than the others and the only resson the WBC, WBA and IBF hold the respect they do is that they have been around the longest. Fighters ame titles and not the othger way around. Benn/Eubank mad ethe WBO and Ali, Leonard etc the WBC. Tyson made the IBF big and Hatton the WBU, you get my point. In fact, for those of you who have been in the game longer than five minutes, I remember a time when the IBF were frowned upon and then the WBO but now the IBF are considered okay, despite their former leader being found GUILTY of corruption and the FBI overseeing their operation to this very day. 

There is not one organisation, or a person involved at some time, who has not been involved in a scandal. The same probably goes for every sport and every company in the World.

One things for sure, Football, Ice-Skating, Cycling, Cricket, the Sports of Kings - Horse racing and even the Olypics have been corrupted of late yet Boxing, despite mismatches has remained relatively clean.

Nigel Benn V Eubank was not the first WBO fight in this country to be televised that was Chris Pyatt V John David Jackson, a good fight and a quality match in anyone's book.

Every organisation has sanctioned  a fair share of mismatches over the years and probably the WBC and WBA more than most. However, on a positive note, list how many great and memorable fights each has sanctioned and this will far out weigh the bad ones.

Why does everyone on here constantly knock the sport. What about the great fights Warren has put on over the past 30 odd years, yet Bobby Gunn is the stick he is constantly beaten with, not Benn V McClellan or paying £400k out for brain scans, saving the Board and raising £300k for watson (Who he never, ever promoted) and, not to mention, raising over two million pounds for charity through boxing...Bobby 'bloody' Gunn is still the yardstick!

Still as long as Tommy 'Tightwad' Gilmour and Jane 'fornicate the Board' Couch get MBE's then all in the garden is rosy. Where's an MBE for Eubank, for Benn for Peter Buckly and a knighthood for Lennox Lewis and Frank Bruno in all this? Someone should investigate that organisation!

In conclusion of my Friday rant, it's easy to throw mud at the new guys, the Promoters and the TV companies, but stop and think for a minute. What about the fighters? Don't you think they get a major say in who they fight? Most of them turn down more opponents than they fight, I know that for a fact. The quality control should start there and how refreshing it would be for a fighter to say " I am not fighting him he's not good enough, I can't take all this money for that?"

Would Hatton be taking these 'super' fights if he were not already a multi-millionaire through the WBU title he was happy to defend for nearly £8m?

The Fighters and the fighters alone should be protecting their own sport and not subscribing to the self-preservation society.

Most if not all Promoters have egos and they would like nothing better than to stage super fights week in week out but sadly the fighters are not of the same frame of mind.

The promoters want the big fights, the TV companies want the big fights as do the fans and the commissions.  What makes more money for everyone big fights or little fights?

Sadly, until the fighters take a reality check then this decline will continue and the Bobby Gunns of this world will rise again.

Here endeth the lesson!  :TU:

boxingchat wrote:Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing.

Kilburn wrote:

boxingchat wrote:Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing.

That is a crap comparison. Nobody would have complained had Enzo bleen blowing out the likes of Gurov and Bonin, at least they had proven something and could represent a test. But Bobby Gunn? It was indefensible garbage.

Kilburn wrote:

boxingchat wrote:Bobby Gunn was shite, we know that now, but he WAS ranked by the WBO and even higher by the WBC. Gurov and Bonin both crumbled in equally as quick a time and yet Haye suddenly becomes the saviour of British Boxing.