By Michael Marley

In one sense, I applaud President Don Jose Sulaiman of the World Boxing Council for mandating that light heavyweight champ Jean Pascal give 45-year-old Bernard Hopkins an immediate rematch.

(On Jan. 15, Mr. BHop turns age 46.)

Discussion and debate continues to live on the internet and in conversations between those in the boxing industry and regular fight fans as to who really "won" the 12-round bout which came out a dissatisfactory majority draw in Quebec City on Dec. 18.

From what I see and hear, the majority opinion is that Hopkins got the short end of the stick and deserved to get the verdict and the green and gold belt.

On the other hand, the WBC action is a bit of selective enforcement of the no direct rematch rule that it, and the other alphabet groups, have but rarely apply.

Big Gary Shaw is talking softly publicly but threatening a big lawsuit privately if his ex-WBC champion Chad Dawson doesn't get the next crack at Montreal resident Pascal per their original fight contract. Pascal upset Dawson in Montreal to take the title.

It's well known among fight insiders that some handlers, in particular Al Haymon, always insert a direct rematch clause in a deal when he has a world champ defending in a non-mandatory bout situation.

But shouldn't the marketplace have a voice? The public is not exactly buzzing over a Dawson-Pascal rematch.

At the end of the day, look for a settlement in which Dawson takes some cash and a tune-up type bout, if he wants same, on the undercard to Hopkins-Pascal II which surely won't take place in Quebec.

HBO can grease the wheels for a settlement by reaffirming it will televise Hopkins-Pascal II and then screen the winner against Dawson. I wonder if Showtime, which did Hopkins-Pascal the first time, will be in the mix but they have their super middleweight and bantamweight tournaments filling up much of their boxing airtime.

Hopkins record stands at 51-5-2 with with 32 KOs.

Long after the Dawson flap is over, boxing will still have a headache with these insane rematch clauses.

This issue goes back to the 1950s and 1960s when you saw several three fight series staged between guys like Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson and Emile Griffith and Nino Benvenuti.

You had two fighters, in some cases, puttting a stranglehold on a world title for as long as two years while all the other contenders sat and twiddled their thumbs.

That's a monopoly practice, that's a gangster m.o., is it not?

In that era, champs would protect themselves by demanding and getting not only a direct rematch if they lost their crown but then a second chance to redeem themselves and regain their title.

Of course, that was also a saner world where we had eight weight classes, 112 pounds to heavyweight and only eight world champions.

Direct rematches should be forbidden but without enforcement of the Alphabet Group rules nobody will pay attention to the rules.