Comments Thread For: Warren Fires Back At Hearn Over Fury-Whyte Rematch Clause

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

Promoter Frank Warren does not want anything to get in the way of a unification bout for his client Tyson Fury, despite whatever rival impresario Eddie Hearn may have to say.
[Click Here To Read More]

[removed]

Frank talking sense here, Eddie Hearn and Rematchroom are ruining boxing with all these rematch clauses.

I hope that Frank's plan works out. Have a keep busy fight in March, then beat up Whyte and then fight the winner of Usyk-Joshua for all the marbles.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I think rematch clauses are just a sensible thing, promoters do for their champions 'Commonsense promoting'.

A war is a collection of battles, not just one battle then you are off. The battle between Usyk & Joshua, has not as of yet reached its ultimate conclusion etc.

[Gamboal00]

What is the old crook talking about saying 'Fury is undisputed heavyweight champion'? How, he only holds one of the belts. Usyk has three. What the f** k is Warren talking about?

[TMLT87]

All these rematches are definitely going overboard. Whyte/Fury should not need a rematch unless it was extremely close and/or controversial.

[REDEEMER]

Warrens not worried about any rematch clauses because he has no intentions of making this fight happening . It’s really just a waste of everyone’s time, all smoke and mirrors with a lot of jargon in the media along with Arum to stall for the undisputed fight . They aren’t going to throw Fury in a tough fight before that if they can get away with it .

[DaNeutral.]

Well I'm not a fan of rematches myself. But I'm not so sure Hearn was talking about a rematch clause in Whytes favour, only in Fury's and if Fury was to lose to Whyte he'd lose his belt and I feel Usyk, or Joshua are more interested in the belt and undisputed than they are Tyson Fury.

Hell if Whyte was to win and Usyk wins we could have Whyte v Usyk for undisputed and Joshua v Fury too.

But the chances are Fury wouldn't lose to Whyte, Usyk isn't going to lose to Joshua, a rematch clause wouldn't come in to play for Fury and the undisputed fight is clear to be made.

[DaNeutral.]

Rematches are bad when it comes to Eddie Hearn but when Loma and Arum didn't put one in for their Teo Lopez fight that was also bad.

Ppl need to wind in these inconsistencies in their thoughts on the subjects covered on this forum.

[Get em up]

Well I'm not a fan of rematches myself. But I'm not so sure Hearn was talking about a rematch clause in Whytes favour, only in Fury's and if Fury was to lose to Whyte he'd lose his belt and I feel Usyk, or Joshua are more interested in the belt and undisputed than they are Tyson Fury.

Hell if Whyte was to win and Usyk wins we could have Whyte v Usyk for undisputed and Joshua v Fury too.

But the chances are Fury wouldn't lose to Whyte, Usyk isn't going to lose to Joshua, a rematch clause wouldn't come in to play for Fury and the undisputed fight is clear to be made.

This is how I see it and I agree about the fight being made for the belt and so much just Fury. I posted yesterday if any combo of them fights and it's not for undisputed the fight loses some luster. I'd like to see all these big guys lock horns but to have " THE ONE " with all the titles would be AWESOME! Good post

[REDEEMER]

Rematches are bad when it comes to Eddie Hearn but when Loma and Arum didn't put one in for their Teo Lopez fight that was also bad.

Ppl need to wind in these inconsistencies in their thoughts on the subjects covered on this forum.

“Ppl need to wind in these inconsistencies in their thoughts on the subjects covered on this forum”

Yea like that will ever happen ?


You have Fury who’s rarely ever had a easy fight with guys taking it to him and you have Whyte who no one ever has had an easy fight with yet you have posters claiming Whyte will be no trouble at all when the fights themselves suggest otherwise even both have history where Fury never refutes to getting dropped in the past by him but it’s an automatic easy fight ?