BoxRec

What exactly IS this? Does it rank higher than an area title? Can anyone fight for it?

Yes, anyone who is licensed by the board to fight 10-rounders can compete for it. There are no rankings but in terms of typical quality of matches, they are roughly the same standard as Area title fights.

oliverfennell wrote:Yes, anyone who is licensed by the board to fight 10-rounders can compete for it. There are no rankings but in terms of typical quality of matches, they are roughly the same standard as Area title fights.

I would say lower.

Horse wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Yes, anyone who is licensed by the board to fight 10-rounders can compete for it. There are no rankings but in terms of typical quality of matches, they are roughly the same standard as Area title fights.

I would say lower.

I'm not in favour of the Master titles, but the boxers like them.

British Masters confused me for quite a long time. Basically, as long as you're not totally pants, i.e. making up the numbers for the odd payday, you can challenge for it........the British Masters "champion" has GOT to face you within a certain time frame or he will have the belt taken from him.
So basically if you are aspiring to greater heights or if you just want to get your hands on a strap of some kind as something to show for years' of hard work then the British Masters Title could be for you.
No doubt someone else will know the specifics a bit better but that's basically the size of it.

Old bones Ian wrote:

Horse wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Yes, anyone who is licensed by the board to fight 10-rounders can compete for it. There are no rankings but in terms of typical quality of matches, they are roughly the same standard as Area title fights.

I would say lower.

I'm not in favour of the Master titles, but the boxers like them.

I don't like them either. People give the Intercontinental titles a lot of stick but Masters titles are just as bogus.

I have no problem with British Masters titles. Fighters that win these belts are, on the whole at least, not likely to progress much further than Area level – although there have been cases like Gary Woolcombe, who went on to win the British title.

So what is the problem with them, the likes of Mark Philips, etc, having a belt and earning a bit more money? It also gives promoters a bit more scope. An Area belt can, obviously, only be between those of the same area. A Masters belt, however, can see boxers from anywhere across the UK getting matched.

I’ve seen a couple of cracking Masters fight, Simon Sherrington-Darren Gethin standing out as one of the best I have seen, though that could have gone on for the Midland Area title.

It’s not like it’s going to do the game long-term damage. If it was being touted as a massive belt – like the legions of world title belts that are in existence – then fair enough. But it’s not.

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:I have no problem with British Masters titles. Fighters that win these belts are, on the whole at least, not likely to progress much further than Area level – although there have been cases like Gary Woolcombe, who went on to win the British title.

So what is the problem with them, the likes of Mark Philips, etc, having a belt and earning a bit more money? It also gives promoters a bit more scope. An Area belt can, obviously, only be between those of the same area. A Masters belt, however, can see boxers from anywhere across the UK getting matched.

I’ve seen a couple of cracking Masters fight, Simon Sherrington-Darren Gethin standing out as one of the best I have seen, though that could have gone on for the Midland Area title.

It’s not like it’s going to do the game long-term damage. If it was being touted as a massive belt – like the legions of world title belts that are in existence – then fair enough. But it’s not.

Good post Tom. I am in complete agreement.

It gives small hall promoters greater scope and is something for lower level fighters to work towards - as long as it doesn't get misrepresented as being equivalent to the actual British title (and it doesnt) I have no problems with it.

Podmore_Birmingham wrote: It also gives promoters a bit more scope. An Area belt can, obviously, only be between those of the same area. A Masters belt, however, can see boxers from anywhere across the UK getting matched.

Fair enough, but there are also English/Celtic titles now too that I think serve roughly the same purpose. Although I guess the masters title allows English and Scottish boxers to compete for a title.

In which case, might it be logical to start phasing out the area titles? Given that there might only BE 3 or 4 pros registered in a weight division in a given area, it seems a bit farcical.

if its something that makes a journeyman try, then it cant be a bad thing.

Indeed, yeah- if its something that encourages promoters to book well matched, competative fights then its good for boxing.

whicker wrote:Fair enough, but there are also English/Celtic titles now too that I think serve roughly the same purpose. Although I guess the masters title allows English and Scottish boxers to compete for a title.

In which case, might it be logical to start phasing out the area titles? Given that there might only BE 3 or 4 pros registered in a weight division in a given area, it seems a bit farcical.

But English titles are seen as a step up from the Area titles. Can you imagine seeing, say, Mark Lloyd vs Terry Adams for the English title (it was a British Masters title fight in Wolverhampton in 2006)? There would be a hail of discontent.

That is where, as I have already illustrated, the Masters title comes in.

As for phasing out the Area title, maybe in some areas (Northern Area and Western Area doesn’t have many pros). However, Southern Area and Midland Area have plenty of active professionals.

I compile (Ok, anorak-ish) Midland ratings (up-to-date records, my positioning) and send them to some of the lads in the local papers so they know who are still active. Here is the amount of active fighters in the Midland Area.

Heavyweight: Six
Cruiserweight: Seven
Light-Heavy: 16
Super-Middle: 15
Middleweight: 17
Light-Middle: 23
Welterweight: 25
Light-Welter: 22
Lightweight: 15
Super-Feather: Three
Feather: Three
Super-Bantam: Five
Bantam: Three
Super-Flyweight: Four.

And here are the champions.

Cruiserweight: Carl Wright (Rugby)14-1-1 (5)

Light-Heavy:Tyrone Wright (Nottingham) 7-1-1 (3)

Super-Middle: Paul David (Northampton)8-3-0 (3)

Light-Middle: Manoo Salari (Worksop) 4-5-2 (3)

Welterweight: Adnan Amar (Nottingham) 20-1-0 (5)

Light-Welter:Billy Smith (Worcester) 12-60-1 (0)

Lightweight: Martin Gethin (Walsall) 12-0-1 (5)

Bantamweight: Andy Bell (Nottingham) 10-3-0 (3)

It means that the Area belt is still worthwhile and significant in the Midlands.

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:I have no problem with British Masters titles. Fighters that win these belts are, on the whole at least, not likely to progress much further than Area level – although there have been cases like Gary Woolcombe, who went on to win the British title.

So what is the problem with them, the likes of Mark Philips, etc, having a belt and earning a bit more money? It also gives promoters a bit more scope. An Area belt can, obviously, only be between those of the same area. A Masters belt, however, can see boxers from anywhere across the UK getting matched.

I’ve seen a couple of cracking Masters fight, Simon Sherrington-Darren Gethin standing out as one of the best I have seen, though that could have gone on for the Midland Area title.

It’s not like it’s going to do the game long-term damage. If it was being touted as a massive belt – like the legions of world title belts that are in existence – then fair enough. But it’s not.

Everything you said above can be applied to IC titles, too. What's the difference? One is OK because small hall grafters promote them, but the other is not because allegedly etc promotes them? That's a double standard. Area titles are a championship of an area. Regardless of levels of competition, that means something. Masters titles MEAN nothing. They are championships OF nothing. They don't even use rankings, which at least IC titles do. Just because you get a nice fuzzy warm feeling seeing journeymen fight for belts does not change this. In fact, when journeymen fight for IC titles, people get all up in arms about it, but when they fight for Masters titles, it's a good thing?

oliverfennell wrote:Everything you said above can be applied to IC titles, too. What's the difference? One is OK because small hall grafters promote them, but the other is not because allegedly allegedly etc promotes them? That's a double standard. Area titles are a championship of an area. Regardless of levels of competition, that means something. Masters titles MEAN nothing. They are championships OF nothing. They don't even use rankings, which at least IC titles do. Just because you get a nice fuzzy warm feeling seeing journeymen fight for belts does not change this. In fact, when journeymen fight for IC titles, people get all up in arms about it, but when they fight for Masters titles, it's a good thing?

No. Intercontinental titles are being billed as something that will lead a fighter to a world title, to give him a ranking within that organisation. That’s bogus and means that someone like Dean Hickman, say he were to win one, would be ranked highly within that body. Wouldn’t that be misleading?

When have you ever heard of someone winning a British Masters title and then being touted for a British title shot? Never. Mark Phillips won that British Masters belt and then went back to his normal duties.

I have never singled out any big promoter for use of any belts. People are led to believe that these Intercontinental belts are big belts, straps that will lead the fighters on to world title shots. I can guarantee you that 75 per cent of people that watch small hall boxing will tell you that the Masters belt is below Area but gives the fighters that won’t go any further something to aim for.

And who is to say these Intercontinental rankings are any good, eh? Least you know where you stand with a Masters belt. If you get Baz Carey against, say, Billy Smith then you know that they are two low-level fighters going to give it their all for a title.

We've seen some woeful imports (not just from Eastern Europe but from South America) come over and fight for these so-called Intercontinental titles and then get blown out in a round. Makes everyone (promoter, the relevant body for sanctioning it, etc) look ridiculous.

You don’t see promoters saying: “This man is going to win a British title and then take over the world after this Masters fight.” But you do hear this: “He is ready to fight for a world title. This belt means a lot… blah, blah,” after someone has won an IBF or WBO (not singling out those bodies) Intercontinental belt.

Wasn’t allegedly (again, I’m not singling him out here) saying that the WBO Intercontinental lightweight belt was a good stepping stone for Khan’s route to a world title? I know that the Dane, who got ripped to pieces on here, pulled out, but you get my point.

Another example of people being mislead, perhaps?

When has a journeyman (in the British sense of the word and not American – someone who has lost three times) fought for a Intercontinental title in recent memory?

What's worse, a boxer training hard for a number of years winning a few 'bought and paid for belts', selling a few more tickets, getting a bit more of a following, and essentially bulking up their retirement fund a little
or a boxer doing all the same without the titles, making less money, retiring with basically f1ck all in the bank and having to get a job down the local warehouse or factory.

If you look at it from the view of the fans in the know, of course the titles mean nothing, the defences are pointless and the promoter literally pays for the belts,
but isn't it fair for a boxer to try and make as much money as possible in the shortest time possible from the fans that aren't in the know.

bridportboxer wrote:What's worse, a boxer training hard for a number of years winning a few 'bought and paid for belts', selling a few more tickets, getting a bit more of a following, and essentially bulking up their retirement fund a little
or a boxer doing all the same without the titles, making less money, retiring with basically f1ck all in the bank and having to get a job down the local warehouse or factory.

If you look at it from the view of the fans in the know, of course the titles mean nothing, the defences are pointless and the promoter literally pays for the belts,
but isn't it fair for a boxer to try and make as much money as possible in the shortest time possible from the fans that aren't in the know.

Of course I'm not against any boxer making a bit more money and I actually am not a particularly outspoken critic of belts generally. Good luck to them. It's just I feel Masters titles and IC titles are just as bad as each other, but for some reason the Masters gets support.

Tom, I hear you about the promotion of IC titles as a supposed "stepping stone" to something bigger, but essentially they are a bigger version of the Masters. They are championships OF nothing, they are basically money-earning tools.

And of course I agree the rankings are not necessarily any good, but at least there's some semblance of order/reward with the IC belts. The Masters titles are a free-for-all. You say Masters champs rarely go on to something bigger, and use that as a justification? I say that legitimises MY argument that they are bogus belts.

While we're on the subject, what do you think of the "International Masters" titles being touted by Sanigar recently?

so if you are a british masters champion what are you a champion of

1southpaw wrote:so if you are a british masters champion what are you a champion of

Exactly what I was thinking. The problem with most of the titles nowadays is that anyone can fight for them at any time, more or less.

What are you a champion of if you win, say, the IBF Intercontinental? A champion of a continent? Nope.

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:What are you a champion of if you win, say, the IBF Intercontinental? A champion of a continent? Nope.

In theory, its kinda of a tier down from the World Champion, or a "junior" world champion. But I do agree, its farcical.

The whole point of a championships is that the individual should work his way towards it. If it was established that the British Masters belt was for journeymen who had hit a winning streak (although how likely is that) to be paired together then thats at least viable. Alternativly, a belt for fighters with over 50 fights- just random suggestions. Possibly something like " Veterans " title would work better?

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:What are you a champion of if you win, say, the IBF Intercontinental? A champion of a continent? Nope.

Exactly why I compared the Masters with the IC. Champion OF nothing. But at least with the IC you are ranked by X and X.

oliverfennell wrote:

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:What are you a champion of if you win, say, the IBF Intercontinental? A champion of a continent? Nope.

Exactly why I compared the Masters with the IC. Champion OF nothing. But at least with the IC you are ranked by X and X.

I dont know why you are so down on the Masters title Oli, I have a feeling your mate Audley may be competing for one sooner or later..

TerribleTerry wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Podmore_Birmingham wrote:What are you a champion of if you win, say, the IBF Intercontinental? A champion of a continent? Nope.

Exactly why I compared the Masters with the IC. Champion OF nothing. But at least with the IC you are ranked by X and X.

I dont know why you are so down on the Masters title Oli, I have a feeling your mate Audley may be competing for one sooner or later..

I'm not down on it any more than I'm down on IC titles. What does bother me is that some people give Masters titles credit while decrying the ICs, when IMO they're exactly the same principle, but the Masters are of lower quality.

Journeymen have their role in the sport, and I have every respect for them and their role, but there's a reason why they are what they are, and a reason why they are not champions. This is just another example of the "titles for everybody" culture in boxing which we unanimously complain about when it isn't involving some "decent blokes" we might have met once or twice.

Think of it this way - if there was an equivalent "journeyman's championship" by whatever name anywhere else in the world, we'd all be lambasting it.

If we're going to have "Sunday League" boxing, at least get some rankings set up so the paying punter knows he's watching #47 vs #62, and isn't misled by the "Championship Boxing" poster in his kebab shop into thinking he's going to watch two boxers of "championship" quality.

oliverfennell wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Exactly why I compared the Masters with the IC. Champion OF nothing. But at least with the IC you are ranked by X and X.

I dont know why you are so down on the Masters title Oli, I have a feeling your mate Audley may be competing for one sooner or later..

I'm not down on it any more than I'm down on IC titles. What does bother me is that some people give Masters titles credit while decrying the ICs, when IMO they're exactly the same principle, but the Masters are of lower quality.

Journeymen have their role in the sport, and I have every respect for them and their role, but there's a reason why they are what they are, and a reason why they are not champions. This is just another example of the "titles for everybody" culture in boxing which we unanimously complain about when it isn't involving some "decent blokes" we might have met once or twice.

Think of it this way - if there was an equivalent "journeyman's championship" by whatever name anywhere else in the world, we'd all be lambasting it.

If we're going to have "Sunday League" boxing, at least get some rankings set up so the paying punter knows he's watching #47 vs #62, and isn't misled by the "Championship Boxing" poster in his kebab shop into thinking he's going to watch two boxers of "championship" quality.

I dont know why you are trying to debunk the supporters of the title as some sort of easily influenced group who's judgements and opinions are coloured by the fact that they once met a journeyman pro; its both insulting and does not counter the central themes that boxing is a game of levels, small hall promoters need 'tools' at their disposal to help get punters through the gate (when is the last time you paid your way into a non televised show out of interest Ol?), and, yes, this is a title to be fought for by a lower tier of boxer.

So what?

As long as it isn't mispresented to the paying public (which in my experience it isnt) then I have no problem with it.

Terry D wrote:

1southpaw wrote:so if you are a british masters champion what are you a champion of

The Universe. You take a mandatory against Dolph Lungren.

Oooh, tough fight