Is the BBBoC competent at overseeing boxing in the UK

I think they are competent, far from ideal though.

 

The Americans can't say **** about the Board licensing guys who shouldn't be allowed to continue fighting. Deakin is a journeyman in his 20's, who obviously passes all the medicals etc.

They license Holyfield, they licensed old Ali who already had symptoms of Parkinsons, not to mention Eric Crumble, the guy who got knocked out in each of his 31 fights, 22 times inside the first round.

People who live in glass countries shouldn't throw stones. Our board isn't perfect, but I'd take it over their vast selection of pimps and shysters all day long.

 

This. I think are the solid in terms of organizing their rankings and ensuring the British beltholders meet their mandatory challengers. Not perfect but compared to the WBA and WBC they are stellar.

 

This topic's getting dull now. Clearly they haven't been treating their members with much respect recently, promoters or fighters. They seem more determined to protect their fiefdom than deliver a fit-for-purpose service.

They're not awful, they keeps things ticking over, but they are partly to blame for the woeful lack of mainstream interest in the sport.

 

wow, stopped 8 times and hes only 26. that type of situation will only end badly.

 

That's quite a harsh assessment in my view. The Luxembourg bull**** was a clever move by you-know-who but it was morally wrong.

The Board has its heart in the right place. They have a VERY tough job.

 

i dont know if it was morally wrong, its a fight the world wanted to see, in the grand scheme of things they hadn't dnoe that much wrong compared to previous fighters but someone (the board) was trying to deny them from making a living, which they had no legal basis for doing

and id argue that most of the time they do, but how often to the bend to the will of promoters? how many dodgy decisions are made under this board? sure they're not the worst by a long shot but they are not untouchable

 

Why?

Had the board done their job & banned/suspended Chisora for x amount of time (which they clearly shouldve done imo) then the whole Luxembourg situation wouldnt have happened.

 

Well it IS me posting, and I'm not big for sitting on the fence.

I fail to see where FW was in the moral wrong here. The Board made a complete mess of Chisora's hearing, left a loophole and seemed angry when Frank and Dereck took advantage of it - mostly because they invited them to.

The moral right was, for once, on Frank's side, especially when to BBBoC started with its bully boy tactics. That was morally wrong to threaten other fighters for not complying with its nonsense.

They do, but I still think they're hopelessly out dated and drowning in processes that were only required pre-internet. They've not modernised themselves or the sport and, considering the appalling decisions and refereeing in many top fights, need to take clear action.

 

Full reply tomorrow. What if ESB ran the boxing board with democratic votes on any major issue? Could we do any better than the current board?

 

If people pass all their medical tests, they should be aloud to fight.

I actually think the BBBoc is very competent to be honest.

But they do feel threatened by alittle bit of competition. Haye vs Chisora was competition, and they do all that was in their power to tarnish that business adventure, but the fight and Boxnation prevailed.

 

I'm a qualified solicitor and I agree with you.

Even though technically legal action could have been taken place against the board even if they suspended him for x amount of time but another EU board licenced him.

Still in my opinion the Board brought this on themselves and I think it's a shame as they do a decent job under very tough circumstances hopefully this whole shambles will encourage reform but in a positive way not in a move to the unlicenced way (which is where allegedly one promoter started out).