Why does Tarver deserve a rematch?

**MANGLER** · 05-09-2009, 02:16 PM

He had a rematch clause. Dawson had to do it or be stripped.

**larry x** · 05-09-2009, 02:17 PM

champions have rematch clauses in their contracts..if dawson didnt fight him again he wouldve been stripped..rematch clause remember that

**DarchinyFAN** · 05-09-2009, 02:17 PM

He doesnt deserve one.... He happened to have a clause that granted him one though. I don't think anyone invisioned Dawson blowing out Tarver as bad as he did the first time.

**larry x** · 05-09-2009, 02:18 PM

id think after 2 years on this forum you'd know what a rematch clause is

**TheSurgeonMDMPH** · 05-09-2009, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by dalliance13

I don't understand... How can this be justified???

Because Dawson signed a piece of legal paper known as a contract that stipulated that in the event of a Tarver loss, a rematch would be in order. Law trumps fan demand any day!

Plus, there were no other big money fights that would allow for Tarver to be bought off for a fight.

**The_Visitation** · 05-09-2009, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by dalliance13

I don't understand... How can this be justified???

It was in the contract, as it often is. That's all the justification needed.

Could have been worse. Tarver might have had a brother Chad would have to fight as well if he won the rematch.. ehem...

**Pullcounter** · 05-09-2009, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by mangler

He had a rematch clause. Dawson had to do it or be stripped.

/thread damn some of uu guys are dense

**dalliance13** · 05-09-2009, 02:26 PM

thanks... guess Tarver just wants the cash then? or perhaps he likes public humiliation.

**Chr0nic** · 05-09-2009, 02:27 PM

dawson should've just dropped the title and gone to 168
tarver aint worth a rematch after the lesson dawson gave him

Why does Tarver deserve a rematch?