Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Responsabilitiy Differences Between Local Commissions and Sanctioning Bodies
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Jack 1000
How Commissions And Sanctioning Bodies Differ

Credit: www.fightsaga.com

Below is a very brief overview on how commissions and sanctioning bodies differ in responsibility.

Governing Commissions

A boxing commission is an entity authorized under state law to regulate professional boxing matches. Although commissions' responsibilities can vary a bit depending on state, province and country, most have a core set of obligations and duties. For the most part, boxing commissions regulate all contests and exhibitions of unarmed combat within a specific state, province or jurisdiction. Their core responsibilities usually include:

● Licensing, supervising and suspending promoters, boxers, mixed martial artists, kick-boxers, seconds, ring officials, managers, and matchmakers
● Protecting the safety of the fighters; This is accomplished by the enforcement and review of pre-fight medical exams and evaluations and ensuring their respective safety standards are met during and immediately after the bout.
● Creating and implementing drug-testing policies
● Overseeing disciplinary cases and arbitrating disputes between fighters and managers
● Assigning judges and referees to work fights
● Ensuring that a boxer is not on suspension status in any other jurisdiction
● Making sure fighters are not unreasonably over-matched against their opponent. For example, most (if not all) commissions would disallow Vitali Klitschko (at 43-2, 40 KO) to fight someone who has had just five pro bouts, and
● Declaring official fight results such as wins, losses, draws and no contests that are to be recognized internationally.


Sanctioning Bodies

Sanctioning bodies, such as WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO, do not arrange, promote or organize championship contests. They merely certify rules governing the contests, license the use of their name and award the championship belt to the winner. In addition, they are responsible for:

● Creating and implementing fight rules specific to the sanctioning body. For example, some sanctioning bodies approve of standing (8) counts and the Three-Knockdown Rule while others don't (All rules must be approved by each jurisdiction's commission)
● Creating, awarding and stripping titles based on the rules they have set forth
● Creating weight divisions and developing rankings by division, and
● Protecting their brand and reputation

Jack
Cheesey1
The sanctioning bodies seem to be no more than just money making ventures and nothing that they do can't be done by the commissions. IMO, this isn't rocket science, there needs to be at the very least, uniformity, transparency and accountability. This can be achieved by a central commission that is properly staffed and has the power to enforce its rules. That's where legislation comes into the mix.
If people are serious, then the first step in creating legislation is lobbying (at least in American politics). Now in this case the first step in lobbying is to form the lobbying infrastructure. I would think that forming a boxers union would be helpful because that's how the boxers can afford the expensive game of lobbying. Then take it from there....
Cshel86
QUOTE (Cheesey1 @ Apr 28 2012, 09:20 PM) *
The sanctioning bodies seem to be no more than just money making ventures and nothing that they do can't be done by the commissions.

Yep, I agree...

The difference between the two...one of them has complete control of bouts (pre and post), but they sometimes dont authoritatively handle shit or they take too long to do it.

On the end, the other entity (sanctioning bodies) has increased over the years, and have done nothing more than chap our asses and get in the way of things, in order to get a quick buck.
daprofessor
so u want our corrupt government to get involved in getting rid of corruption in boxing? huh.gif
Cheesey1
QUOTE (daprofessor @ Apr 30 2012, 06:30 PM) *
so u want our corrupt government to get involved in getting rid of corruption in boxing? huh.gif

Ha! But to be serious, as I've always said, there needs to be single body like FIFA (not perfect but that structure can be used as a basis) and sub bodies, but there has to be a central body. Rules are useless if they aren't the same for everyone and if they can't be enforced. These rules need to be codified and made enforceable and for that you need some sort of official structure and I don't mean the Texas Boxing Commission, or WBC but a structure that has a legal foundation and for that I don't see how that can be done without some laws being put on the books. I'm all for pro-boxer rules being written and consequences being set.
Cheesey1
QUOTE (Cshel86 @ Apr 29 2012, 11:38 AM) *
Yep, I agree...

The difference between the two...one of them has complete control of bouts (pre and post), but they sometimes dont authoritatively handle shit or they take too long to do it.

On the end, the other entity (sanctioning bodies) has increased over the years, and have done nothing more than chap our asses and get in the way of things, in order to get a quick buck.

I understand the difference and the reason why I'm completely past how they describe themselves is because apart from the general corruption, the absolute lack of fear of any consequences is the reason why the WBC can say with a straight face that they forgot to test JCC Jr. after a boxing match. Some people won't stop until it's made clear that they can't get away with it anymore.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.