New Details for Bradley-Alexander according to ESPN

Pretty happy about this, they have finally reached a deal and the rematch clause might give Ortiz a shot at the Maidana/Khan winner

whatever, I just want the initial fight to take place. worry about the rest later.

Bradley-Alexander is going to be a great fight. I have no problem with the immediate rematch because I know it'll be competitive regardless of the result. I see Khan moving in the direction of trying to fight JMM after Maidana, instead of Ortiz. Ortiz is already locked in as fighting on the Khan-Maidana undercard, so he must be expecting to get the winner, but if JMM is looking to move up if he beats Katsidis, then he will get the fight over Ortiz. When these guys meet up for full unification, they will damn well deserve it (unless Khan fights JMM instead of Ortiz). I'm sure JMM will be fighting Morales and not Khan.

Bradley-Alexander is going to be a great fight. I have no problem with the immediate rematch because I know it'll be competitive regardless of the result. I see Khan moving in the direction of trying to fight JMM after Maidana, instead of Ortiz. Ortiz is already locked in as fighting on the Khan-Maidana undercard, so he must be expecting to get the winner, but if JMM is looking to move up if he beats Katsidis, then he will get the fight over Ortiz. When these guys meet up for full unification, they will damn well deserve it (unless Khan fights JMM instead of Ortiz).

We're not getting a guaranteed second fight, it's just an option if the first fight deserves a rematch, which it won't because Bradley will smoke Alexander.:boxing: The article says it's an automatic rematch, win or lose. That means that if either fighter wants a rematch, the other fighter has to comply, whether he thinks the guy he beat deserves one or not. So it's pretty well guaranteed. It's true that not all fighters insist on enforcing their rematch clause, e.g Pavlik didn't want to fight Martinez a second time - so you're right that it's not completely guaranteed. But it's very likely that the loser will want a rematch, and if he does, the winner will have to go along with it. Whether you or anyone else thinks the loser deserves a rematch is completely irrelevant. In all the examples I gave in my previous post, the inferior fighter convincingly won their first fight, and you could argue on the basis of that that the superior fighter didn't deserve a rematch. But he got one, because that's what the contract said; and in those examples, the loser of the first fight completely turned the tables in the rematch.

We're not getting a guaranteed second fight, it's just an option if the first fight deserves a rematch, which it won't because Bradley will smoke Alexander.:boxing:

I just don't get the rematch deal. There should only be a rematch if it's a close fight. Pascal-Dawson wasn't particularly close, but I'm glad there's going to be a rematch, and Dawson will be the narrow favourite to win the rematch - although admittedly in that case, it's not an immediate rematch. Williams-Quintana I wasn't close, but Williams sparked Quiantana in one round in the rematch. Lewis-Rahnman I wasn't close, but Lewis completely turned the tables in the rematch and left no doubt that he was the better fighter. It's fairly normal for a world title holder to insist on a rematch clause, and I don't see anything wrong with that. In the old days it used to be normal for top fighters to fight each other many times, not just twice, which is as it should be, because any sportsman can have a bad night. Spain lost to Switzerland in the first round of the football World Cup, but Spain went on to win the tournament, and now Spain are ranked #1 in the world, and Switzerland are only ranked #21. Anyone can have a bad night. Even when he was at his best, Tiger Woods didn't win every golf tournament, and in tennis, Nadal loses fairly frequently. In boxing, almost uniquely among sports, boxers are expected to be at their best in every fight, but that's totally unrealistic. I don't see why any neutral fan should object to them having a rematch. In your case, I suspect your real objection is that you want the Bradley-Alexander winner to be available to fight the Khan-Maidana winner immediately. But that's just partisanship on your part.

this is cool havent seen countdown on hbo since the pacquiao-clottey fight

Why the complaints about a re-match? A more likely scenario without a re-match is we'd see both Bradley and Alexander fight somebody we don't care about in their next fight after this one instead of the re-match. I'll take it.

There should only be a rematch clause if the fight ends in a draw or a no contest. Whatever, I just hope it gets signed and they fight.

There should only be a rematch clause if the fight ends in a draw or a no contest. Whatever, I just hope it gets signed and they fight.

Countdown for a non PPV fight? I ****in love it.

Here's the link to the story: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=5591838 So if we're going to get 2 Bradley-Alexanders fights GUARANTEED, then this pushes any type of Bradley-Alexander winner vs Khan-Maidana winner to Winter of 2011 at the EARLIEST if ever. So now I'm thinking that Khan/Maidana WILL go after Ortiz next summer instead of the proposed winner of the Bradley/Alexander fight. So hopefully Ortiz gets another fight in early next year Jan-March and can make this happen. Thoughts? I wish they had a little more then a half hour countdown special. I like 24/7 and a series of episodes would really help introduce these fighters to the masses on HBO.