Main Events forcibly strips Fury of IBF title

[AllBoxingAD]

Thank you for this it just shows that duva is a cnnt and a conniving snake. All you nerds that defend her because you have haymon are pathetic

Duva isnt a real promoter. Her fighter has a chance to become a real Champ and make a name for himself but she is turning it down for what?

So he can fight a no name for a vacant title?

He will be more of a joke with his paper title then as a contender to the real champs.

[aldo5408]

Duva isnt a real promoter. Her fighter has a chance to become a real Champ and make a name for himself but she is turning it down for what?

So he can fight a no name for a vacant title?

He will be more of a joke with his paper title then as a contender to the real champs.

He's already a joke period Glazkov lost to uss Cunningham but duva the conniving cnnt robbed him

[Ray*]

Yes he was. He was the WBO mandatory.......

He isn't the Mandatory for the IBF belt doe...

[Elroy1]

Fury gets stripped of his IBF title for NO CREDIBLE REASON!

Yet Wilder can keep bumming his way along, holding onto his WBC?

Unbelievable!

[techliam]

Yes he was. He was the WBO mandatory.......

Both the WBO and WBA mandatory

However, Fury would have to accept a 20% cut of the purse to pursue the fight that way. He was much better accepting the Klitschko contract

The IBF can postpone the mandatory, however its unlikely they will.

This is why we need unified mandatories in the sport again. Fury vs Glazkov should have created a WBA/WBO/IBF mandatory challenger, where an immediate rematch with Wlad was possible. The politics of the sport is pathetic

[techliam]

Fury gets stripped of his IBF title for NO CREDIBLE REASON!

Yet Wilder can keep bumming his way along, holding onto his WBC?

Unbelievable!

Highlights the differences between the WBC and IBF

The IBF enforce their rules religiously
The WBC have a rule which stipulates all rules are null and void if the president says so.

[AllBoxingAD]

Fury gets stripped of his IBF title for NO CREDIBLE REASON!

Yet Wilder can keep bumming his way along, holding onto his WBC?

Unbelievable!

Huh?

Why would Wilder lose the WBC?

[Chrismart]

I read this piece today on BoxingNews :

The Tyson Fury problem: blame the rematch clause, not the IBF

IT must have all seemed so simple at the time. Sat at the negotiating table opposite the team representing Wladimir Klitschko, WBA and WBO mandatory challenger Tyson Fury had two distinct options: allow the imminent opening of purse bids for his world heavyweight title shot and retain a chance of the fight taking place in the UK, while accepting just 20 per cent of the winning offer; or agree a private deal with K2 that would guarantee significantly more money. He of course chose option two and, as he revealed to Boxing News shortly afterwards, this included a rematch clause which obligated him to face Klitschko once again should the big underdog pull off an unlikely upset. In Fury’s confident mind, this clause was likely a technicality, a trifling irrelevance. He would venture to Germany, shock the world by deposing a champion who had reigned for over a decade then, should the frazzled Ukranian remain willing, defeat him again, more emphatically second time around.

Having completed stage one, the plan is unchanged. The key question is whether Fury or his team were aware when they signed to face Klitschko just how pressing the latter’s IBF mandatory obligations were, and that Tyson would inherit these should he triumph. Back then, Vyacheslav Glazkov, the IBF mandatory contender, was a peripheral figure to Fury – if he was considered at all.

Now Glazkov is all- important, as the IBF have stated Fury must meet him next or forfeit their belt. The sanctioning body have widely and unsurprisingly been depicted as villains of the piece, but they are merely enforcing their own rules which, however flawed or selectively applied in the past, are set out quite clearly on their website. A challenger who dethrones the champion in an “optional” defence – Fury’s bid was mandated by two organisations, neither of which was the IBF – must take on their predecessor’s duties regarding mandatories. The last IBF mandatory defence was Klitschko’s crushing win over Kubrat Pulev in November 2014. There is supposed to be one every 12 months, but the IBF presumably allowed Klitschko grace to satisfy his WBA and WBO obligations against Fury as those bodies were ahead in the rotation. They were not going to postpone Glazkov’s shot indefinitely, however.

Fury and his team may have been aware of this impending shower on their parade or at least should have been. But without the rematch clause, one that didn’t need to be signed to secure the Klitschko fight, Fury would be able to keep all his newly won belts. Still, he’ll earn a career-best payday for the Klitschko return so I think he’ll be suitably compensated for any sense of loss.

[JakeTheBoxer]

I just don`t care...Fury beat the main guy, he is The champ now.

[Fury4daWIN]

Is Fury's standing in the sport going to drop considerably if he loses the IBF belt this way? I don't think so. On the contrary, the IBF is going to face a perceived diminishing of their value by not being associated with the champ. I'm not blaming either party here. It is what it is. But this is a case where the IBF should have perhaps granted some leeway in order to remain, at least in part, in the driving seat. Now they're faced with a potential belt holder in Glazkov who's totally unmarketable to Western audiences and a pretty weak fighter to boot, not to mention the recipient of a number of gift decisions. However noble the IBF's decision may be they're going to come out of this the bad guys.