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

[alexjust]

Arum built his company from scratch. Hearn inherited his company. Arum has had a 50 year run on top. Let's see how Hearn is doing decades from now. DAZN is destined for failure longterm and Hearn has fully hitched his wagon to DAZN, leaving Sky open for others when Sky is the one that will be around forever. Very risky.

Hearn turned silver into gold even though he hasn't built it from scratch. DAZN future is uncertain to me and I won't speculate either way. Even if it goes under, he'll find an alternative. Sky, for example. It's not personal, just business.

[Monty Fisto]

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'.

I quite agree that Joshua vs Usyk is a decent rematch. It's one I look forward to seeing.

There's an argument to be made, I suppose, that the rematch clause may not have done Joshua any favours in the first fight psychologically. It is basically there as a safety net -- if it all goes wrong, you get a mulligan. You'd have to think that does have an effect on a fighters approach.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I quite agree that Joshua vs Usyk is a decent rematch. It's one I look forward to seeing.

There's an argument to be made, I suppose, that the rematch clause may not have done Joshua any favours in the first fight psychologically. It is basically there as a safety net -- if it all goes wrong, you get a mulligan. You'd have to think that does have an effect on a fighters approach.

Joshua's approach to the sport, has been all wrong for him since Ruiz II 'His loss to Usyk, has confirmed this to him'.

It is not just the loss, it is how he lost 'Joshua lost to Usyk, knowing that he did not fight his best fight or leave it all in the ring'.

That is not the same fighter who got up off the canvas, to then fight back and eventually knock out Wladimir Kiltschko etc.

[Monty Fisto]

Joshua's approach to the sport, has been all wrong for him since Ruiz II 'His loss to Usyk, has confirmed this to him'.

It is not just the loss, it is how he lost 'Joshua lost to Usyk, knowing that he did not fight his best fight or leave it all in the ring'.

That is not the same fighter who got up off the canvas, to then fight back and eventually knock out Wladimir Kiltschko etc.

Yes, good points.

[Yaconcha]

I’m not even a Fury fan but when he unifies you’ll have to let me know how that crow tastes.

you don’t offer justification against what I said. Have another look son, it’s all there for you go and check.
Ya mum reminds me a of an old crow, be assured it don’t taste nice at all son.

[Marchegiano]

“All I want is Tyson to get one fight out — he’s only had one fight in 22 months — in March, then get rid of the obligation with Dillian Whyte based upon the terms of what’s been decided, then I want to see him come out that fight and fight for the four belts. I don’t want nothing else in the way. That’s a good job for boxing and our client, I believe.”