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

[Toffee]

Maybe Arum doesn't want to pay Whyte to accept a rematch clause because Fury may walk from Top Rank after the defence? The next fight is the last of the deal isn't it?

I could see Fury going fight by fight.

[WBC WBA IBF]

Arum derailed Loma's career by not inserting the rematch clause. He's running the same risk here. Hearn is right - it's irresponsible.

Rematch clauses are designed to protect the promoter, not the fighter.

Arum wanted Teofimo to win. Why the hell would he put a rematch clause in an in house fight?

[Monty Fisto]

I'm with Frank on this one.

[Monty Fisto]

So all of a sudden, people are not a fan of rematches. Without rematches, some of the greatest rivalries in the history of the sport would not of happened.

Joshua vs Usyk has not reached its conclusion, those are the facts.

I can always remember David Price stating to Kash Ali 'If you had been through what I have been through in my career, you would not be sitting here'.

I have always wondered how Fury would react to a loss, would he go for the rematch? Or go the way of Prince Naseem Hamed? And slowly just phase out of the game.

I don't think Fury is afraid of losing a fight, but how he will react to such a situation is unclear.

i don't think people are against rematches per se. I think people are against rematches as a matter of course, dictated by a contract rather than guided by the specifics of the situation. When Fury fought Wilder the first time a rematch made sense, because we had no clear winner. When they fought the second time, we got the clear winner and a third fight was a litle pointless. But there was a clause in the contract for a fight few truly wanted.

When Gatti lost narrowly in a brutal encounter with Ward, Ward decided to do right and give a rematch. When Gatti won the rematch, they decided to do the trilogy fight. This is the stuff of legend. But it was all decided based on the manner of the outcomes, not pre-decided by contractual dlktat.

(hilariously, the forum is automatically censoring the proper spelling of dlktat)

[WBC WBA IBF]

For the non-trolls, I'm happy to explain what's going on:

Hearn doesn't believe Whyte will win, so he wants to use a rematch clause as a way to get more money for the Whyte side. It's a mandatory fight and you can't force a rematch clause on the challenge, so it gives some leverage to the challenger to get more money if they voluntarily agree to add a rematch clauses. Hearn is being smart here and doing nothing wrong.

Arum is confident Fury will win, but no matter how confident you are, typically you still try to get a rematch clause whenever possible if it's not an in house fight. Typically in this type of situation, you would pay the challenger 1-1.5 million extra to add a rematch clause. However, this is the last fight on Fury's contract, so Arum isn't going to want to spend money on a rematch clause for a fight he might not even get to promote.

So what would typically be Hearn's biggest leverage in this type of situation isn't working because Arum knows he might be losing Fury after this fight anyway. Hence the stalemate.

[PRINCEKOOL]

i don't think people are against rematches per se. I think people are against rematches as a matter of course, dictated by a contract rather than guided by the specifics of the situation. When Fury fought Wilder the first time a rematch made sense, because we had no clear winner. When they fought the second time, we got the clear winner and a third fight was a litle pointless. But there was a clause in the contract for a fight few truly wanted.

When Gatti lost narrowly in a brutal encounter with Ward, Ward decided to do right and give a rematch. When Gatti won the rematch, they decided to do the trilogy fight. This is the stuff of legend. But it was all decided based on the manner of the outcomes, not pre-decided by contractual dlktat.

(hilariously, the forum is automatically censoring the proper spelling of dlktat)

Nice post.

Yes I understand what you are saying.

Anthony Joshua vs Oleksandr Usyk II, is a warranted rematch in my opinion.

Joshua was not blasted out, and he is a two time Heavyweight Champion. You don't just beat a long time Champion on points, then run off with the belts 'Not that I am suggesting Uysk is that type of fighter'.

A war is a collection of battles, the war between Usyk and Joshua has only just begun 'It has not reached it conclusive end'.

I think the reason why Wilder vs Fury III happened, was not only due to contractual obligations 'But wow Deontay Wilder still had not accepted abdication of the Heavyweight Title'.

It was Wilder's competitiveness that fueled the third fight, he is a great competitor. Tyson Fury vs Deontay Wilder reached a conclusive ending, because Wilder truly left it all in the ring etc

Sometimes I think Fans of boxing, don't quite put themselves in the fighters shoes. They project themselves onto the fighters or the game. This is not a computer game where you beat one fighter, and move onto the next opponent 'Just like that'.

[WBC WBA IBF]

You don't just beat a long time Champion on points, then run off with the belts

Usyk was Joshua's second defense. How is that a long time champion?

[PRINCEKOOL]

Usyk was Joshua's second defense. How is that a long time champion?

Anthony Joshua is a two time heavyweight Champion, with 5 successful title defenses '6 successful title fights in total' with 2 loses.

He has been a champion, or in and around the titles pretty much for half a decade now.

You don't just beat a fighter like that on points, then run away with the belts 'A fighter of such caliber, is warranted a rematch'.

[WBC WBA IBF]

Anthony Joshua is a two time heavyweight Champion, with 5 successful title defenses '6 successful title fights in total' with 2 loses.

He has been a champion, or in and around the titles pretty much for half a decade now.

You don't just beat a fighter like that on points, then run away with the belts 'A fighter of such caliber, is warranted a rematch'.

So win or lose he should just be entitled to a title fight in every fight he has?

[PRINCEKOOL]

So win or lose he should just be entitled to a title fight in every fight he has?

If he loses the rematch with Usyk, Joshua will have to fight his way back into title contention.