anyone else really respecting IBF?

What have HBO got to do with it? They only jist barely follow Wlads career but they are paying guys step aside money? Nah HBO had nothing to do with it. There is an "agreement" between the sanctioning bodies regarding defense order when 2 mandos are due, and in this case the WBO mando Fury was to go first, followed by the IBF mando.....

Fury was #1 by the WBO , but the IBF already order Glazkov/Klitschko, HBO did not care for that fight so they gave Glazkov stepaside money.. TV networks are getting in the way of fights What have HBO got to do with it? They only jist barely follow Wlads career but they are paying guys step aside money? Nah

Fury was the WBO mando You mean he wasn't the IBF mando? Fury was #1 by the WBO , but the IBF already order Glazkov/Klitschko, HBO did not care for that fight so they gave Glazkov stepaside money.. TV networks are getting in the way of fights

Fury is the champ dude ... IBF will now have a nobody as a champ but unless you are a hypocrite you will have to say the IBF's champ is more legit than fury lol -- either that or admit the IBF f*cked up Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. The IBF followed their rules, so I do not believe they "fvcked up" The Fury-Klitschko winner to me is the "real" champ, and hopefully the IBF title can be re-unified at some point. But ANY time you have multiple titles and multiple champs, there is a pecking order. Right now, the IBF champ will rate as the lowest of the 3 champs. My order would be Fury-Klitschko winner, Wilder, then the new IBF champ. With that being said, The IBF did the right thing, even if it cost them money in the short term. You either HAVE rules, or you dont. And once you start waiving them for this guy or that guy pretty soon they are meaningless......

so why not just admit that you dont want any rules, or if there are rules, then they should be waived if it negatively affects a fighter you like? Newsflash. There are NO "unique situations". Fury did not have to sell Klitschko a rematch clause. He chose to do so willingly, against IBF rules, to benefit nobody but himself. Which is fine, thats his business. But that certainly should not be rewarded with some BS special exception which only encourages more "unique situations" and "special exceptions" in the future, and pretty soon they are basically the WBA and will bend over in 5 seconds if a nickel is placed on the floor....... Fury is the champ dude ... IBF will now have a nobody as a champ but unless you are a hypocrite you will have to say the IBF's champ is more legit than fury lol -- either that or admit the IBF f*cked up

No, common sense would be for the IBF to say, ok this is a unique situation. Our long reigning champ is going for an immediate rematch, lets put off the mandatory for a few months to accommodate that. Instead the IBF is now a worthless belt that will be contested between two nobodies. so why not just admit that you dont want any rules, or if there are rules, then they should be waived if it negatively affects a fighter you like? Newsflash. There are NO "unique situations". Fury did not have to sell Klitschko a rematch clause. He chose to do so willingly, against IBF rules, to benefit nobody but himself. Which is fine, thats his business. But that certainly should not be rewarded with some BS special exception which only encourages more "unique situations" and "special exceptions" in the future, and pretty soon they are basically the WBA and will bend over in 5 seconds if a nickel is placed on the floor.......

No, common sense would be for the IBF to say, ok this is a unique situation. Our long reigning champ is going for an immediate rematch, lets put off the mandatory for a few months to accommodate that. Instead the IBF is now a worthless belt that will be contested between two nobodies. pretty damned hard to argue with this. Good post!

I would respect it... If the guys they make the mandatory challengers were not all useless and terrible

thats simply retarded. To think that the IBF would make more money on a 3% sanction fee on Glasgov-Martin than they would on Fury-Klitschko is just moronic. No, what I mean is, the IBF would make more money by sanctioning a fight for a new champion, a new contender and then being involved in a unification bout. Rather than simply sanctioning Fury v the next guy. They get 3 fights in the span of a year or so, rather than waiting months for the heavyweight champion to defend, whenever he defends next.

common sense DID apply on both sides. Fury decided the money he got from klitschko for the rematch clause was more important to him than keeping the ibf belt, and the ibf felt that their rules were not going to be spat upon just so Fury could make a few extra bucks...... No, common sense would be for the IBF to say, ok this is a unique situation. Our long reigning champ is going for an immediate rematch, lets put off the mandatory for a few months to accommodate that. Instead the IBF is now a worthless belt that will be contested between two nobodies.

Why should I give a crap about Glazcov? He hasnt done anything to earn a title shot, he is just barely a top 10 fighter. The IBF had no reason to rank him highly or install him as mandatory. He's a nobody on the level we are talking about. That's exactly what I mean, why should he do the same for boxing fans or rematch clauses.

But what is the quality of the mandatories? It's mostly guys that pay their way into the rankings, we all know that. I would have preferred Fury keeping the belt and the IBF allowing him an extension for the big Wlad fight but I guess they want some extra money and they'll get that by having a separate title and possible unifications with the WBC. thats simply retarded. To think that the IBF would make more money on a 3% sanction fee on Glasgov-Martin than they would on Fury-Klitschko is just moronic.

they really force their mandatories regardless of the $ involved. fury had to vacate his title, many others are pressed to fight their mandatories too. good stuff. But what is the quality of the mandatories? It's mostly guys that pay their way into the rankings, we all know that. I would have preferred Fury keeping the belt and the IBF allowing him an extension for the big Wlad fight but I guess they want some extra money and they'll get that by having a separate title and possible unifications with the WBC.

Actually, IBF is probably the most organized out of the Belt Organization. They seems to stay on top of Mandatory's regardless who is champion and I'm also a big fan of their rehydration rule which only allow fighters to rehydrate 10 lbs Max the next day Yeah the Fury situation could've been handled better though ITs not just Fury though. At WW Brook pulled Chavez out from the top of the IBFrankings and took him as a voluntary, then Brook got injured (legit or not thats the official line) and before they could rearrange the Chavez fight the IBF had installed Bizier as mando and basically cancelled Brooks voluntary. Another example where common sense shows the IBF is in the wrong, but they instead followed the rules to the letter and we end up with a much worse fight. Not only that but Chavez ended up with no title shot when he should have been next in line.

Common sense should have prevailed in the the Fury situation. common sense DID apply on both sides. Fury decided the money he got from klitschko for the rematch clause was more important to him than keeping the ibf belt, and the ibf felt that their rules were not going to be spat upon just so Fury could make a few extra bucks......

they really force their mandatories regardless of the $ involved. fury had to vacate his title, many others are pressed to fight their mandatories too. good stuff. They enforce their rules but their rankings are horrible.

IBF rules clearly state that they do not recognize rematch clauses, and that only a unification bout can trump a mandatory defense that is due. One of the biggest problems the sport has is when sanctioning organizations just make sh*t up as they go along, usually doing only that which suits their bank account the best. Sure, the rankings situations with the IBF arent always ideal, but they can only issue mandatory designations to those fighters willing to fight an eliminator bout, as opposed to just saying "oh we can smell a nickel so (insert popular fighter name here) you are the mandatory"..... Common sense should have prevailed in the the Fury situation.

Actually, IBF is probably the most organized out of the Belt Organization. They seems to stay on top of Mandatory's regardless who is champion and I'm also a big fan of their rehydration rule which only allow fighters to rehydrate 10 lbs Max the next day Yeah the Fury situation could've been handled better though

No, the fury situation was the height of stupidity. We had a long reigning champ defeated by a mandatory with a rematch clause in place. Who the **** in their right mind then goes and strips the new champ for having said rematch? Combine that with the fact that their rankings are atrocious and no, I don't see why they should be getting any kudos. IBF rules clearly state that they do not recognize rematch clauses, and that only a unification bout can trump a mandatory defense that is due. One of the biggest problems the sport has is when sanctioning organizations just make sh*t up as they go along, usually doing only that which suits their bank account the best. Sure, the rankings situations with the IBF arent always ideal, but they can only issue mandatory designations to those fighters willing to fight an eliminator bout, as opposed to just saying "oh we can smell a nickel so (insert popular fighter name here) you are the mandatory".....

I agree about following their rules but also agree with others the Fury situation was a bad deal since Klitschko had a rematch clause in the contract. That should be taken under consideration as well as the opponent, it's Klitschko who hadn't lost in 11 years not some random fighter. Their rankings are also pretty whacky so we end up with pretty worthless mandatories like Karo Murat and Nadjib Mohammedi at 175 for example. It seems they are a little too quick to fill spots by having some really poor eliminator fights. It would be better to take a little more time and simply have empty slots if needed, instead of filling them in as quickly as possible. The blame can't just be layed at the IBF's feet. It was no secret that the IBF mandatory was due and that the IBF does'nt recognise rematch clauses. ****ty situation, but I prefer they follow their rules rather than act like the WBC/WBA, who do whatever they feel like doing when it is making them the most dollars. As for the rankings. Most if not all of the sanctioning bodie's ranking systems are pretty terrible. That said the blame is'nt all on them. A recent example is them trying to get an eliminator between Khan and Bradley, but Khan apparently wanted no parts of it. Whats the point of having the right guys ranked high if they won't fight each other? There is plenty of blame to go around. From the fighters to the promoters, managers, networks, and sanctioning bodies.