Comments Thread For: Parker Admits Zhang Has Rematch Option Ahead of Their March 8 Heavyweight Clash

[greeneye99]

Parker is not beating him. Joe is going to sleep. A rematch would be pointless, just like it is with Crawford and Spence.

Woah!
Don't count Joseph Parker out Yet
He's got a good chance for a decision win over Zhang in my opinion

[JakeTheBoxer]

I think Zhang must stop him inside 7 rounds or he loses. The big Chinese will likely gas out in the second half.

[thack]

****ing rematch clauses for top contenders is ridiculous ...

[Tag, You're Hit]

How would you stop a rematch from happening between non-belt holders lol?

Look I hate these agreed to rematches myself, but I don't see how other parties get involved with boxers & their teams agreed to sh^t in private contracts.

I would be cool with belt holders never being allowed to make rematch clauses ahead of a fight & that could be enforced to some degree by stripping the belt holder of said belt if they go ahead with a rematch. Problem there is the money for the rematch might be more valuable than the belt. And sh^t sometimes a rematch DOES make sense organically after the first fight so everyone would be cool with a rematch in those cases. So its gonna be hard to combat rematch clauses is what I'm getting at if its doable at all.

Maybe there could be penalties in the form of reduced ranking with whatever belt org? This one, specifically, is for a "type" of belt, so they could legit step in for this. I know they didn't with JJ doing the same thing, but going forward they should. And, like you said, rematches can still happen when they make sense.

[MulaKO]

Can’t blame Big **** wanting a rematch for a fight he’s willingly taking
This is how great trilogy’s are made or come about
Just to look atit from another point of view

[Eff Pandas]

Maybe there could be penalties in the form of reduced ranking with whatever belt org? This one, specifically, is for a "type" of belt, so they could legit step in for this. I know they didn't with JJ doing the same thing, but going forward they should. And, like you said, rematches can still happen when they make sense.

Yea I suppose you could have a rematch committee of sorts cuz there isn't really a one size fits all solution to a rematch making sense or not. Its all a kind of case by case thing.

Like if a champ takes a bs title defense & the decision controversially goes the champs way a rematch may or may not make sense if a mando guy was waiting for the champ exists vs if the champ has ran through the ddivision already & there isn't a mando or viable top contender to fight. In the former case skipping a rematch til after the mando guy probably makes more sense, but if its the latter case fook it give the guy his rematch immediately.

I think it'd be harder to do at the contender level tho unless the higher ranked guy is all but booked for a belt fight before he loses. Than they should just make it a semifinal type situation where a rematch couldn't be agreed to.

But if there isn't a belt fight all but booked idk if anyone should gaf if guys agreed to fight 4x in a row necessarily. It'd be weird & most would be bored at some point unless these were some Gatti kinda fights & its likely bad business, but if that's what they wanna do fook it let them do it.

[El_Mero]

Rematches should only be triggered on 3 things imo. And injury stops a competitive fight, a flat out robbery or a draw. Damn near anything else is a "fcuk that" to me....

[hennanra1000]

Rematch clauses combined with 8-12 month gaps between those rematches along with corrupt sanctioning bodies like WBC that dont apply rules consistently is killing boxing.

Not sure how long the Saudi money will last, if and when it dries up the sport is in trouble as we go back to all promoters squabbling and money / ego blocking that fights that matter.

[jackblack008]

Will the real Parker stand up?

One who got beat to pulp by Joyce or the one who performed flawlessly against Wilder

[Tag, You're Hit]

Yea I suppose you could have a rematch committee of sorts cuz there isn't really a one size fits all solution to a rematch making sense or not. Its all a kind of case by case thing.

Like if a champ takes a bs title defense & the decision controversially goes the champs way a rematch may or may not make sense if a mando guy was waiting for the champ exists vs if the champ has ran through the ddivision already & there isn't a mando or viable top contender to fight. In the former case skipping a rematch til after the mando guy probably makes more sense, but if its the latter case fook it give the guy his rematch immediately.

I think it'd be harder to do at the contender level tho unless the higher ranked guy is all but booked for a belt fight before he loses. Than they should just make it a semifinal type situation where a rematch couldn't be agreed to.

But if there isn't a belt fight all but booked idk if anyone should gaf if guys agreed to fight 4x in a row necessarily. It'd be weird & most would be bored at some point unless these were some Gatti kinda fights & its likely bad business, but if that's what they wanna do fook it let them do it.

The overall problem always comes down to boxing not delivering the fights fans want nearly as often as we should get them. Rematches can be great/warranted if the original fight was close/competitive/could-have-gone-either-way (Pacquiao vs Marquez, Floyd Jr vs Castillo/Maidana) or controversial (Lewis vs Holyfield 1/ GGG vs Canelo 1). But having clauses in contracts CONSTANTLY these days is over the top. And, as has been said before, even if in a contract at the highest level (Crawford vs Spence), if the fight is a one sided beat-down that clause should be null and void.

Everybody loves tournaments like the World Boxing Super Series. Imagine how lame they would be with rematch clauses.