IBF deadline dictated new date for Fury - Usyk

[dan-b]

Alex Krassyuk reveals at 2:00 that the IBF agreed to a 90-day extension which is what's dictated the 18th May date. Fury's potential recovery has pointedly not been the driving factor. Also revealed: the Saudis did not want to jeopardise the bout with a Usyk - Hrgovic interim bout.

[dan-b]

Bump. How confident are people this date is realistic given that it was effectively set by the IBF?

[MulaKO]

Blah blah blah
But then blah blah blah
And if blah blah blah
Lmfao
This guy looks so fed up and who can blame him
At this point wtv happens happens
Maybe then blah blah blah

[dan-b]

Blah blah blah
But then blah blah blah
And if blah blah blah
Lmfao
This guy looks so fed up and who can blame him
At this point wtv happens happens
Maybe then blah blah blah

Given the IBF title will likely only be held by the winner briefly, does it really matter?

That's a genuine question, I have mixed feelings about the sanctioning bodies and can appreciate both Willow The Wisp and MoonCheese's divergent opinions on this topic.

[MulaKO]

Given the IBF title will likely only be held by the winner briefly, does it really matter?

That's a genuine question, I have mixed feelings about the sanctioning bodies and can appreciate both Willow The Wisp and MoonCheese's divergent opinions on this topic.

One is a nuthugger and the other is an extremist lol
The Saudis just want it to be unified imo
That’s what it seems their goal is , to actually have the bragging rights of saying they got the heavyweight championship of the world and not just that but unified
Hey , the way they laying coin , who can blame them
It’s just more flexing if you recall what I had said
Mind you this is fine but later on , when the demands become over the top ……..

[Marchegiano]

Given the IBF title will likely only be held by the winner briefly, does it really matter?

That's a genuine question, I have mixed feelings about the sanctioning bodies and can appreciate both Willow The Wisp and MoonCheese's divergent opinions on this topic.

Quick answer is no.

**** the IBF and the WBO. The undisputed champion is decided between the WBA and WBC.

To be clear, this is my opinion not the fact of the matter. Of course the fact is to be called undisputed in boxing today you need four belts. The media, this forum, etc. no one is ever going to agree with me, so if you meant for me to speak to the facts my bad. I thought I had been invited to write an opinion piece










Sanctioned HW bouts have existed for close to 140 years.

It is the WBC and the WBC alone who represents sanctioned boxing over the past 140 years.

The WBA has sanctioned boxing for about a 100 years.

The IBF and WBO have sanctioned HW bouts for about 40 years.



Pretending like the IBF and WBO are as valuable in boxing as the WBA and WBC is like pretending Bridgerweight is as valuable a division as Heavyweight. IMO.



I think maybe rather than explaining, just dropping some information cold and without commentary is more powerful. I'll explain after:

The first champion per body in the HW division:

WBC - Sam Langford

WBA - Jack Dempsey

IBF - Larry Holmes

WBO - Francesco Damiani



To be clear about this, Sam is not considered a "true" champion despite being the NSC champion ... among other titles we do not recognize as true or major titles from back then, but, that does not make Sam not a true sanctioned champion. He is. In his time the bodies where just starting and did not control boxing yet. IMO that does not detract from the fact that Tyson Fury's belt represents x5 Colored champion (please note to any uninformed reader I do not use the term colored by choice but rather to be exact)

Okay, with that explained, I think we can all agree at least one of these four champions does not belong in the goat conversation at all. I don't feel the need to explain why I don't think Damiani's belt is as important as Holmes's, Dempsey's, and Langford's belts.

That leaves the IBF. I know Larry is really respected and he has some fans who consider him the GOAT HW but imo compared to Dempsey and Langford Lar is short.

That said, we don't need Larry or my opinion of Holmes, Sam, and Jack to detract from the IBF's historical importance. I think a series of rhetoricals that can all be answered with 'not the IBF' does the trick:




Who invented weight divisions?

Who invented ranks?

Who invented mandatories?

Who invented the points system?

Who invented the knockdown rules?

When the idea for undisputed first came around what belt where there to be won?

When the colorline was made defunct what belts did Louis hold?

When Jack Johnson defended his title against Jim Johnson in the first ever black vs black hw title fight, what belt was it for?

Fascism invaded boxing in the 30s and gave us Max and Primo, but what belts did they gather?

Let me flip this line thought:

What has happened in the HW division that has held any historical significance since the IBF and WBO have mattered outside of the historically long gap between undisputed champions in the HW division?

Outside of the IBF and WBO making it more difficult to have a clear, single, champion what history in boxing do they represent?







The last time the undisputed HW champion made a defense was 1992.

32 years. ... The IBF has existed for 40 years.

The WBO has never existed in an undisputed title.

Conversely the WBC and WBA share champions from the 1920s to the 1960s

In the 60s both would have lesser champions as single strap holders but all the best would hold both titles.

The IBF started out on Holmes so that's a good champion but a single strapper his entire career, was not unified.

Then it went to Spinks who sat on it a couple years himself, not unified.

Mike Tyson grabbed it up on his epic undisputed run and so it has spent time as an undisputed belt but as soon as the dust had settled on Tyson the IBF would never again be a part of the undisputed title. 32 ****ing years since the last defense, 25 years since the last crowned undisputed, and in all that time all the IBF has to show for itself is Mike, Buster, Evander, Rid****, and Lennox. As soon as the dust had settled on Mike the IBF's mere existence makes it difficult to crown an undisputed and that is their historical significance.

The WBO isn't even considered a big four until the mid 2000s. Never been undisputed. Their first champion is **** and all they can really say for themselves is Wlad held their belt back when Wlad was avoiding talented names in the division who went after recognized belts.

Tyson holds Langford's belt

Usyk holds Dempsey's belt

Holmes's belt is threatening to jump ship ... brother, I do not half give a ****. Holmes ain't no ****in' Dempsey.

Damaini's belt is a joke.

One is a nuthugger and the other is an extremist lol
The Saudis just want it to be unified imo
That’s what it seems their goal is , to actually have the bragging rights of saying they got the heavyweight championship of the world and not just that but unified
Hey , the way they laying coin , who can blame them
It’s just more flexing if you recall what I had said
Mind you this is fine but later on , when the demands become over the top ……..

I don't know which I am meant to be, but I'm not gonna reciprocate. I think you're a pretty great poster.

[MulaKO]

Quick answer is no.

**** the IBF and the WBO. The undisputed champion is decided between the WBA and WBC.

To be clear, this is my opinion not the fact of the matter. Of course the fact is to be called undisputed in boxing today you need four belts. The media, this forum, etc. no one is ever going to agree with me, so if you meant for me to speak to the facts my bad. I thought I had been invited to write an opinion piece










Sanctioned HW bouts have existed for close to 140 years.

It is the WBC and the WBC alone who represents sanctioned boxing over the past 140 years.

The WBA has sanctioned boxing for about a 100 years.

The IBF and WBO have sanctioned HW bouts for about 40 years.



Pretending like the IBF and WBO are as valuable in boxing as the WBA and WBC is like pretending Bridgerweight is as valuable a division as Heavyweight. IMO.



I think maybe rather than explaining, just dropping some information cold and without commentary is more powerful. I'll explain after:

The first champion per body in the HW division:

WBC - Sam Langford

WBA - Jack Dempsey

IBF - Larry Holmes

WBO - Francesco Damiani



To be clear about this, Sam is not considered a "true" champion despite being the NSC champion ... among other titles we do not recognize as true or major titles from back then, but, that does not make Sam not a true sanctioned champion. He is. In his time the bodies where just starting and did not control boxing yet. IMO that does not detract from the fact that Tyson Fury's belt represents x5 Colored champion (please note to any uninformed reader I do not use the term colored by choice but rather to be exact)

Okay, with that explained, I think we can all agree at least one of these four champions does not belong in the goat conversation at all. I don't feel the need to explain why I don't think Damiani's belt is as important as Holmes's, Dempsey's, and Langford's belts.

That leaves the IBF. I know Larry is really respected and he has some fans who consider him the GOAT HW but imo compared to Dempsey and Langford Lar is short.

That said, we don't need Larry or my opinion of Holmes, Sam, and Jack to detract from the IBF's historical importance. I think a series of rhetoricals that can all be answered with 'not the IBF' does the trick:




Who invented weight divisions?

Who invented ranks?

Who invented mandatories?

Who invented the points system?

Who invented the knockdown rules?

When the idea for undisputed first came around what belt where there to be won?

When the colorline was made defunct what belts did Louis hold?

When Jack Johnson defended his title against Jim Johnson in the first ever black vs black hw title fight, what belt was it for?

Fascism invaded boxing in the 30s and gave us Max and Primo, but what belts did they gather?

Let me flip this line thought:

What has happened in the HW division that has held any historical significance since the IBF and WBO have mattered outside of the historically long gap between undisputed champions in the HW division?

Outside of the IBF and WBO making it more difficult to have a clear, single, champion what history in boxing do they represent?







The last time the undisputed HW champion made a defense was 1992.

32 years. ... The IBF has existed for 40 years.

The WBO has never existed in an undisputed title.

Conversely the WBC and WBA share champions from the 1920s to the 1960s

In the 60s both would have lesser champions as single strap holders but all the best would hold both titles.

The IBF started out on Holmes so that's a good champion but a single strapper his entire career, was not unified.

Then it went to Spinks who sat on it a couple years himself, not unified.

Mike Tyson grabbed it up on his epic undisputed run and so it has spent time as an undisputed belt but as soon as the dust had settled on Tyson the IBF would never again be a part of the undisputed title. 32 ****ing years since the last defense, 25 years since the last crowned undisputed, and in all that time all the IBF has to show for itself is Mike, Buster, Evander, Rid****, and Lennox. As soon as the dust had settled on Mike the IBF's mere existence makes it difficult to crown an undisputed and that is their historical significance.

The WBO isn't even considered a big four until the mid 2000s. Never been undisputed. Their first champion is **** and all they can really say for themselves is Wlad held their belt back when Wlad was avoiding talented names in the division who went after recognized belts.

Tyson holds Langford's belt

Usyk holds Dempsey's belt

Holmes's belt is threatening to jump ship ... brother, I do not half give a ****. Holmes ain't no ****in' Dempsey.

Damaini's belt is a joke.





















I don't know which I am meant to be, but I'm not gonna reciprocate. I think you're a pretty great poster.

Wasn’t saying anything bad
I actually enjoy your sarcasm and your knowledge although sometimes it’s a tad extreme but hey , who the fugh am I to judge

[JakeTheBoxer]

Honestly, I have lost my patience. I don`t even care about Fury - Usyk anymore.

[dan-b]

Quick answer is no.

**** the IBF and the WBO. The undisputed champion is decided between the WBA and WBC.

To be clear, this is my opinion not the fact of the matter. Of course the fact is to be called undisputed in boxing today you need four belts. The media, this forum, etc. no one is ever going to agree with me, so if you meant for me to speak to the facts my bad. I thought I had been invited to write an opinion piece

Sanctioned HW bouts have existed for close to 140 years.

It is the WBC and the WBC alone who represents sanctioned boxing over the past 140 years.

The WBA has sanctioned boxing for about a 100 years.

The IBF and WBO have sanctioned HW bouts for about 40 years.

Pretending like the IBF and WBO are as valuable in boxing as the WBA and WBC is like pretending Bridgerweight is as valuable a division as Heavyweight. IMO.

I think maybe rather than explaining, just dropping some information cold and without commentary is more powerful. I'll explain after:

The first champion per body in the HW division:

WBC - Sam Langford

WBA - Jack Dempsey

IBF - Larry Holmes

WBO - Francesco Damiani

To be clear about this, Sam is not considered a "true" champion despite being the NSC champion ... among other titles we do not recognize as true or major titles from back then, but, that does not make Sam not a true sanctioned champion. He is. In his time the bodies where just starting and did not control boxing yet. IMO that does not detract from the fact that Tyson Fury's belt represents x5 Colored champion (please note to any uninformed reader I do not use the term colored by choice but rather to be exact)

Okay, with that explained, I think we can all agree at least one of these four champions does not belong in the goat conversation at all. I don't feel the need to explain why I don't think Damiani's belt is as important as Holmes's, Dempsey's, and Langford's belts.

That leaves the IBF. I know Larry is really respected and he has some fans who consider him the GOAT HW but imo compared to Dempsey and Langford Lar is short.

That said, we don't need Larry or my opinion of Holmes, Sam, and Jack to detract from the IBF's historical importance. I think a series of rhetoricals that can all be answered with 'not the IBF' does the trick:

Who invented weight divisions?

Who invented ranks?

Who invented mandatories?

Who invented the points system?

Who invented the knockdown rules?

When the idea for undisputed first came around what belt where there to be won?

When the colorline was made defunct what belts did Louis hold?

When Jack Johnson defended his title against Jim Johnson in the first ever black vs black hw title fight, what belt was it for?

Fascism invaded boxing in the 30s and gave us Max and Primo, but what belts did they gather?

Let me flip this line thought:

What has happened in the HW division that has held any historical significance since the IBF and WBO have mattered outside of the historically long gap between undisputed champions in the HW division?

Outside of the IBF and WBO making it more difficult to have a clear, single, champion what history in boxing do they represent?

The last time the undisputed HW champion made a defense was 1992.

32 years. ... The IBF has existed for 40 years.

The WBO has never existed in an undisputed title.

Conversely the WBC and WBA share champions from the 1920s to the 1960s

In the 60s both would have lesser champions as single strap holders but all the best would hold both titles.

The IBF started out on Holmes so that's a good champion but a single strapper his entire career, was not unified.

Then it went to Spinks who sat on it a couple years himself, not unified.

Mike Tyson grabbed it up on his epic undisputed run and so it has spent time as an undisputed belt but as soon as the dust had settled on Tyson the IBF would never again be a part of the undisputed title. 32 ****ing years since the last defense, 25 years since the last crowned undisputed, and in all that time all the IBF has to show for itself is Mike, Buster, Evander, Rid****, and Lennox. As soon as the dust had settled on Mike the IBF's mere existence makes it difficult to crown an undisputed and that is their historical significance.

The WBO isn't even considered a big four until the mid 2000s. Never been undisputed. Their first champion is **** and all they can really say for themselves is Wlad held their belt back when Wlad was avoiding talented names in the division who went after recognized belts.

Tyson holds Langford's belt

Usyk holds Dempsey's belt

Holmes's belt is threatening to jump ship ... brother, I do not half give a ****. Holmes ain't no ****in' Dempsey.

Damaini's belt is a joke.

I enjoyed this post. Thank you.

Totally agree with you regarding the WBO. I was actively hostile to it well into the 2000s and was actually published in Ring magazine where I wrote a letter praising them for ignoring it. I used to upset people on another forum calling it the WBOgus. My reasons for wanting to ignore it were often misunderstood.

A few things spring to mind regarding the WBC and WBA. They're clearly not the same organisations they used to be. Each regularly create dispute within their own organisation by naming multiple champions. The WBA in particular have created two decades of mess for historians with their multi-title shenanigans.

Mike Tyson popularised the image of being a WBC/WBA/IBF champion. Lewis was driven by a desire to replicate it. I'm not sure it means the same thing anymore. "Undisputed" seems to be a final destination rather than a distinction to defend.

[Eff Pandas]

Fook these sketchy ass corrupt belts. Fury vs Usyk is 1 vs 2 if it's for 0 belts or all 4 belts. Fans need to quit acting like these belt groups aren't hurting the sport.