WBA secretary-general Won Kim of South Korea said BoxRec Asia officials were looking forward to receiving invitations and some paid hospitality, including a trip to Asia to compete for WBA titles, including minor gold belts.
When that didn’t happen, King said, BoxRec hid matches featuring the WBA title from non-subscribers of the site. That prompted the WBA to look for alternative record-keeping sites to publish its results, he said, and led to the resurgence of FightFax.com.
During this process, Kim learned from a promoter in the Philippines that people who subscribe to BoxRec can view WBA results on BoxRec.
“He sent me the screenshot. He’s a [subscribed] member so he can see [WBA] Thanks to his annual membership [dues],” he said. “That means – they did it on purpose – [BoxRec] Just trying to hide our titles. This is wrong. ”
To Kim, it looks like what BoxRec is doing is using absentee WBA results to generate cash for more people to subscribe.
“I don’t know … all of us in the WBA are asking why,” he said. “OK, [BoxRec] Want to recharge? Recharge everyone. “
The controversy has sparked theories about the WBA’s motive for the removal, with some speculating that Saudi Arabian boxing financier Turki Alalshikh, who was sponsoring the WBA during his Riyadh season, was interested in keeping the record in one location .
This would be in line with Arasheh’s push to create an undisputed title shot and his purchase of The Ring magazine, which offers a unique belt to each lineal champion in each weight class.
For years, fans and others have been confused and frustrated by the proliferation of belts, which have produced as many as four champions per weight class.
In an interview with BoxingScene at the WBC convention, California-based Fight Fax CEO Han Hoang Mai said Fight Fax was not working with Alalshikh, a point reiterated by WBA Asia’s Kim.
“[Alalshikh] There was no involvement,” he said.
Kim speculates that BoxRec’s Asia editor influenced the move.
“I’m not sure if this is a demand from BoxRec or a demand from their editors because the BoxRec editors asked for it. BoxRec is based in the UK and I’ve never met those people. I’ve only met the BoxRec editors [in Asia],” King said.
“Typically, Asian promoters must invite BoxRec editors [to their fights]there are so many complaints now [about WBA fights being excluded to non-subscribers]. …I believe this is [the] Editing question, not BoxRec question. “
One question faced by BoxRec head John Sheppard was how FightFax.com apparently scraped fighter photos and numerous results from BoxRec to refresh its new site.
“I’m very annoyed that they are piracy of our data. We are considering criminal and civil proceedings against them,” Shepard told BoxingScene at the recent World Boxing Council Congress in Hamburg, Germany.
BoxRec says it all started after noticing that Fight Fax had taken data and photos, and that the WBA was canceled due to the sanctioning body’s involvement in Fight Fax.
King said he learned through the legal case involving the WBA Asia website that “sports data is for the public… No one can own it. Anyone can use it to copy. Just like anyone can use us online Same with WBA Asia. We had to argue our case. Sports data is for the public.”
King cautioned that the sanctioning body had no choice but to work with another record holder to keep boxing fans and the commission properly informed.
FightFax.com lists all the titles held by those who have won or competed for belts in all four sanctioning bodies.
“My opinion [is] Record keeping should be kept by the governing body, not a third party,” King said. “BoxRec, Fight Fax, they do a great job. but [BoxRec’s] Selective behavior is bad for the sport. We should keep WBA results on the WBA website. This is best for communication. “
