Dillian Whyte should not just accept 20%. F the WBC

[M312]

WBC, WBA, IBF has already schooled you on the rules and regs. There’s no point me parroting the same reasons. You either don’t have the intelligence to understand them or your bias won’t allow you to accept them.

August/September last year Jamel Herring was ordered to only 33% against Stevenson. I don’t remember you having the same energy as you do for your boy Whyte.

33% is over 30%. And you question my intelligence. Come on, you are smarter than that.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

33% is over 30%. And you question my intelligence. Come on, you are smarter than that.

He was the f***ing CHAMPION!!!!

Whyte is a challenger who has never even fought fly a World title.

You sound like a casual man, you really didn’t even who Jamel Herring was did you?

[M312]

He was the f***ing CHAMPION!!!!

Whyte is a challenger who has never even fought fly a World title.

You sound like a casual man, you really didn’t even who Jamel Herring was did you?

Hah, I just read 33% and assumed you were dumb. Tbh, I didn't care enough about Jamal to even click on his threads/read articles - But this is some real BS. F that crap too! Although, I'll check WBO rules and see if they just made it up for this fight.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Hah, I just read 33% and assumed you were dumb. Tbh, I didn't care enough about Jamal to even click on his threads/read articles - But this is some real BS. F that crap too! Although, I'll check WBO rules and see if they just made it up for this fight.

This literally proves my point…

[M312]

This literally proves my point…

Honestly, I don't care who's being screwed. Boxing needs to be fixed.

[just the facts]

'The modification of the split of the remainder shall be limited to 60-40% and 55-45%, except in the most exceptional circumstances, in which the split may be modified to 50-50% at the WBC's sole discretion. [from 70/30]'

It’s been explained to you repeatedly that there’s also another WBC rule stating that they can do whatever they want. As I posted, the rule might be crap but it’s there.

I’m done. Choose to ignore it and keep ranting if you choose.

[M312]

It’s been explained to you repeatedly that there’s also another WBC rule stating that they can do whatever they want. As I posted, the rule might be crap but it’s there.

I’m done. Choose to ignore it and keep ranting if you choose.

You say it as if that's ok. It's not.

You don't have to accept the nonsense.

I don't know Dillians real motivation, but if he appeals and wins it's only good for boxing.

[Toffee]

There is absolutely no circumstance, even if the mandatory challenger was Canelo or Mike Tyson, where you can give the mandatory more than 50%. That is what rule 2.16 is addressing. Rule 2.16 doesn't deal at all with what the split would be if you modify in favor of the champion.

Correct that it doesn't talk about modifying in favour of the champion beyond 70%. The rules have a minimum of 30% for the mandatory (which the interim champ is treated as for the purposes of purse splits). That's why there's no rule.

The rules cover the splits. The possible splits under their rules are covered in 2.16.

Then they have a rule (2.6) that says they can modify whatever they like with regard to purse splits. Then they have a rule (1.1) that says they can do whatever they want in any area.

Could a champion get more than 70%? Or a challenger get more than 50%? Yes in theory they could if the WBC ruled that way. Under 1.1 or 2.6. Anything goes.

You're relying on a rule that says they can do anything they want. And pretending that it's for a specific, considered circumstance. It's not. It's a general catch all rule.

[just the facts]

You say it as if that's ok. It's not.

You don't have to accept the nonsense.

I don't know Dillians real motivation, but if he appeals and wins it's only good for boxing.

Your tune has changed. First it was the WBC violated their own rules (you’re wrong). Now it’s you say their rules are nonsense (you’re right).

[M312]

Your tune has changed. First it was the WBC violated their own rules (you’re wrong). Now it’s you say their rules are nonsense (you’re right).

I haven't changed my tune. There's a rule in place for splits that has been ignored in favour of a rule that is basically 'we can ignore any of our rules'. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how lawful these rules that say we can ignore rule X to do whatever we want are. That's why I'd be happy for Dillian to complete the abritration. If he loses, so be it. If he wins... Just helps make boxing a better place. We should all support the fight against it - you agree it's nonsense too