Worst Boxing Org/Sanctioning Body of 2015?

[LoadedWraps]

blah blah blah..... " rules doe "

Fury is the undisputed champ and it eats original zero alive.

[original zero]

About Time -

It doesn't matter what I value. This is not a discussion of my preference. This is a discussion of reality.

Glazkov's rights were clear cut and he enforced his rights. The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury.

We get it. You'd like to pretend that rules don't exist. You'd like to pretend that laws don't exist. You'd like to pretend that contracts don't exist.

You can pretend whatever you want. You can put on a dress and have a tea party with your dolls for all I care.

But my premise, for 15 pages, continues to stand:

THE IBF HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STRIP TYSON FURY.

You can't find a counter to my argument because there is no counter.

Had the IBF not stripped Fury, Main Events would have gotten an injunction and forced the IBF to strip him. The judge would not have found "rules doe" to be a valid defense. Then the IBF would have had to pay Main Events' attorney's fees and god knows what else.

It was an open and shut case. Glazkov won a final eliminator. He waited and waited and then demanded a purse bid.

The IBF's hands were tied.

You have no common sense and you have no boxing knowledge. That is why you're struggling with this.



Loaded Wraps -

Fury is not the undisputed champion. You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. "Undisputed champion" has a specific meaning. The champion of every recognized organization.

Tyson Fury is not the champion of the WBC and he is not the champion of the IBF. There is nothing "undisputed" about him.

Some consider him the lineal champion and you are free debate any mythical title you wish, but he is not undisputed. So either you don't know the meaning of words or this is fanboy fantasy fan-fiction on your part.

Not sure why you believe it would bother me if Tyson Fury were the undisputed champion. I have no stake in any of this. You're a fan of Tyson Fury. That's lovely. Personally, I'm a fan of fact, logic and reason.

I am not a boxing fan. I couldn't care less who beat who or who likes who. Enjoy whoever you enjoy.

If the facts don't paint your hero in the light you prefer, too bad.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

It doesn't matter what I value. This is not a discussion of my preference. This is a discussion of reality.

Glazkov's rights were clear cut and he enforced his rights. The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury.

We get it. You'd like to pretend that rules don't exist. You'd like to pretend that laws don't exist. You'd like to pretend that contracts don't exist.

You can pretend whatever you want. You can put on a dress and have a tea party with your dolls for all I care.

But my premise, for 15 pages, continues to stand:

THE IBF HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STRIP TYSON FURY.

You can't find a counter to my argument because there is no counter.

Had the IBF not stripped Fury, Main Events would have gotten an injunction and forced the IBF to strip him. The judge would not have found "rules doe" to be a valid defense. Then the IBF would have had to pay Main Events' attorney's fees and god knows what else.

It was an open and shut case. Glazkov won a final eliminator. He waited and waited and then demanded a purse bid.

The IBF's hands were tied.

You have no common sense and you have no boxing knowledge. That is why you're struggling with this.



Loaded Wraps -

Fury is not the undisputed champion. You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. "Undisputed champion" has a specific meaning. The champion of every recognized organization.

Tyson Fury is not the champion of the WBC and he is not the champion of the IBF. There is nothing "undisputed" about him.

Some consider him the lineal champion and you are free debate any mythical title you wish, but he is not undisputed. So either you don't know the meaning of words or this is fanboy fantasy fan-fiction on your part.

Not sure why you believe it would bother me if Tyson Fury were the undisputed champion. I have no stake in any of this. You're a fan of Tyson Fury. That's lovely. Personally, I'm a fan of fact, logic and reason.

I am not a boxing fan. I couldn't care less who beat who or who likes who. Enjoy whoever you enjoy.

If the facts don't paint your hero in the light you prefer, too bad.

LMAO

We figured that out, genius.

And I don't think the IBF are either

Enjoy Golovkin/Wade.

#cluelessfakefan

[aboutfkntime]

#cluelessfakefan

You tried to make out like you have been following boxing for 30 years.

Well kid, I actually have been, unlike you.

Wanna know what I learned very early in my 30+ year involvement with boxing?

Lemme clue you in......

I can distinctly remember having NUMEROUS discussions with mates/trainers regarding the boxing landscape at the time..... back then, EVERYBODY thought that the 4 major sanctioning bodies were absurd, unjustified, and nothing but a bunch of vultures who had ALL proven that they will not put the sport of boxing ahead of their own profit margins.

The ABC organisations burned their credibility DECADES ago, only the new fresh-faced teenage fans seem to be unaware of that.

And we all distinctly remember the IBF being convicted for racketeering and corruption about 20 years ago, I guess you forgot about that genius? The IBF had to be overhauled, Peoples has only been in charge for about a decade.

No genuine boxing fan, would support those f@ggots over a fighter.

Congratulations for supporting a bunch of corrupt leeches over a fighter who earned his belt the hard way.

You can leave now, in disgrace.

[original zero]

I've been closely following boxing for 25+ years.

So I am very aware of the numerous times that the sanctioning bodies have ended up in court when they tried to ignore the rights of a mandatory heavyweight challenger. It never works out well for the sanctioning body.

So the IBF's hands were tied. No matter how much you cry and moan, you continue to fail to offer an alternative course of action for the IBF that wouldn't have resulted in ending up in court and losing.

There was no wiggle room. They had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

Doesn't mean you have to like it. But it does mean that you can't lie and say the IBF had a choice in the matter. They didn't.

I agree that the orgs are absurd and I hope and pray PBC takes over someday and runs every org out of business.

I'm well aware of the IBF's past legal issues and studied those cases closely at the time. I seem to be the only poster here that knows the IBF rulebook inside and out. You may not care about rules, but courts care and the courts would not have allowed Fury-Klitschko II to proceed with the IBF belt at stake.

I'm not supporting anybody over anybody. I'm just stating facts. No amount of swearing, name calling or ****phobic slurs is going to change that.

Because of the IBF overhaul, their rules are now strictly enforced because if they play favorites, the federal government will shut them down.

What's funny is that as much as you complain about the orgs for being corrupt, in this instance, because it would benefit a fighter you like, you're complaining because the IBF wasn't corrupt. You're complaining because the IBF didn't play favorites. You're complaining because the IBF didn't sanction the fight that would put the most money in their pockets.

You're a complete hypocrite. You advocated one thing, and then demand the exact opposite when it has an effect on a fighter you have a crush on.

If these orgs mean so little, you should be elated that Fury no longer has a 2nd rate belt and should be demanding that he relinquish his other belts.

But you're so emotionally attached to the situation your brain can't comprehend the concept of recognizing fact over personal preference.

My personal preference would have been for the titles to remain unified. However, as a reasonable adult, I recognize that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. The mandatory was overdue. The mandatory was demanding a purse bid. There was nothing the IBF could do.

Yes yes, "rules doe," but US courts recognize rules doe, so the IBF's hands were tied.

[LoadedWraps]

I've been closely following boxing for 25+ years.

So I am very aware of the numerous times that the sanctioning bodies have ended up in court when they tried to ignore the rights of a mandatory heavyweight challenger. It never works out well for the sanctioning body.

So the IBF's hands were tied. No matter how much you cry and moan, you continue to fail to offer an alternative course of action for the IBF that wouldn't have resulted in ending up in court and losing.

There was no wiggle room. They had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

Doesn't mean you have to like it. But it does mean that you can't lie and say the IBF had a choice in the matter. They didn't.

I agree that the orgs are absurd and I hope and pray PBC takes over someday and runs every org out of business.

I'm well aware of the IBF's past legal issues and studied those cases closely at the time. I seem to be the only poster here that knows the IBF rulebook inside and out. You may not care about rules, but courts care and the courts would not have allowed Fury-Klitschko II to proceed with the IBF belt at stake.

I'm not supporting anybody over anybody. I'm just stating facts. No amount of swearing, name calling or ****phobic slurs is going to change that.

Because of the IBF overhaul, their rules are now strictly enforced because if they play favorites, the federal government will shut them down.

What's funny is that as much as you complain about the orgs for being corrupt, in this instance, because it would benefit a fighter you like, you're complaining because the IBF wasn't corrupt. You're complaining because the IBF didn't play favorites. You're complaining because the IBF didn't sanction the fight that would put the most money in their pockets.

You're a complete hypocrite. You advocated one thing, and then demand the exact opposite when it has an effect on a fighter you have a crush on.

If these orgs mean so little, you should be elated that Fury no longer has a 2nd rate belt and should be demanding that he relinquish his other belts.

But you're so emotionally attached to the situation your brain can't comprehend the concept of recognizing fact over personal preference.

My personal preference would have been for the titles to remain unified. However, as a reasonable adult, I recognize that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. The mandatory was overdue. The mandatory was demanding a purse bid. There was nothing the IBF could do.

Yes yes, "rules doe," but US courts recognize rules doe, so the IBF's hands were tied.

There could have been a stipulation added that granted Fury the reserved right to challenge Martin at any date of his choice within that year or within a reasonable abount of time post rematch, considering he neither lost the title in a fight nor willingly vacated.

[original zero]

What you're suggesting, which is that the IBF should have given a distinction equivalent to the WBC's champion emeritus policy, is not allowed under IBF rules and even if it was, Fury was not retiring.

Look, you are free to believe the rules SHOULD be whatever you want them to be. You are free to like or dislike any rule. You are free to like or dislike the IBF and value or not value the IBF title.

But the IBF can't just make up the rules as they go along. Glazkov had enforceable rights. You can say all of the things you wish would have been possible and I agree with most of them and wish they were possible too, but none of that changes my position:

The IBF had no choic but to strip Tyson Fury.

Would they have had choices if their rules were different and not so clear cut? Sure. And if a horse had a horn it'd be a unicorn.

But that doesn't change the fact that when Fury refused to honor the mandatory and Glazkov demanded a purse bid, the IBF's hands were tied. So it's not fair to criticize them for stripping Fury as they had no choice.

If you'd like to criticize the IBF's strict rules, by all means go ahead. If you want them to change their rules, by all means, write them a letter.

But if you're wondering why they stripped Fury even though they would have made a LOT of money from the Klitschko rematch, I've spent considerable time and effort explaining the situation to you. You may not like the situation and I may not like it either.

But the only person in the situation that actually had a choice was Tyson Fury. There was no reason for him to sell Klitschko a rematch clause unless he thought he was going to lose the first fight. Tyson Fury was stripped because of Tyson Fury's actions. Nobody else's.

And like most top fighters, Tyson Fury probably didn't even want the IBF belt as top fighters know the other orgs will bend the rules for them and the IBF won't. So most top fighters do not want the IBF belt.

The only exceptions seem to be Russian fighters who are determined to unify the belts (Klitschko, Kovalev, Golovkin, etc).

Those guys are willing to take less money in some fights to keep the belts together. Fury could have done the same thing but chose not to. US & UK fighters tend to go for the most money in every fight whereas Russian fighters seem to care more about long term legacy and ruling a division with an iron fist.

[aboutfkntime]

I've been closely following boxing for 25+ years.

So I am very aware of the numerous times that the sanctioning bodies have ended up in court when they tried to ignore the rights of a mandatory heavyweight challenger. It never works out well for the sanctioning body.

Hold on..... !!

I made no reference to (justified, or unjustified) mandatory litigation.

I referred to the number of times the " non-profit " sanctioning organisations have been convicted of BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, and RACKETEERING

The keyword in the paragraph above was actually my use of the term "non-profit"

And it just occurred to me, did you ever get around to answering my earlier questions.....?

* why on earth would the sport of boxing need 4 "non-profit" sanctioning organisations?
* how could there possibly be 4 champions in every division?

As I said earlier, pretty much everyone that I have been involved with learned a long time ago not to take any of those ABC organisations too seriously..... and yet, you support them fk'ing over a fighter who earned his stripes and paid his dues.

So the IBF's hands were tied. No matter how much you cry and moan, you continue to fail to offer an alternative course of action for the IBF that wouldn't have resulted in ending up in court and losing.

There was no wiggle room. They had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

Doesn't mean you have to like it. But it does mean that you can't lie and say the IBF had a choice in the matter. They didn't.

I agree that the orgs are absurd and I hope and pray PBC takes over someday and runs every org out of business.

Then why the fk would you support them, and their fcuk-wittery ?

They exist because YOU accept, therefore condone, therefore support, them.

Even worse, you support them in favor of a fighter who paid his dues.

You are all over the place, I smell troll.

I'm well aware of the IBF's past legal issues and studied those cases closely at the time. I seem to be the only poster here that knows the IBF rulebook inside and out. You may not care about rules, but courts care and the courts would not have allowed Fury-Klitschko II to proceed with the IBF belt at stake.

I'm not supporting anybody over anybody. I'm just stating facts. No amount of swearing, name calling or ****phobic slurs is going to change that.

Then you are being ridiculous.

1) the IBF have proven that they cannot be trusted
2) Fury has proven that he can beat the best heavyweight on the planet

Guess who you decided to support ?

Disgraceful !

Because of the IBF overhaul, their rules are now strictly enforced because if they play favorites, the federal government will shut them down.

In this thread, YOU have confirmed the following about the IBF.....

1) they admit that their champions are NOT the best fighter in the div
2) that their current HW champion is not the best fighter in the div
3) that they are completely unnecessary
4) that they are closely watched by the federal government, because of concerns over racketeering and corruption

Do you actually have anything positive to say about them, other than you approve of them stripping Fury?

What's funny is that as much as you complain about the orgs for being corrupt, in this instance, because it would benefit a fighter you like, you're complaining because the IBF wasn't corrupt. You're complaining because the IBF didn't play favorites. You're complaining because the IBF didn't sanction the fight that would put the most money in their pockets.

You're a complete hypocrite. You advocated one thing, and then demand the exact opposite when it has an effect on a fighter you have a crush on.

If these orgs mean so little, you should be elated that Fury no longer has a 2nd rate belt and should be demanding that he relinquish his other belts.

But you're so emotionally attached to the situation your brain can't comprehend the concept of recognizing fact over personal preference.

I have been very consistent.....

I do not favor ANY of the asshat ABC organisations, nor do I favor any fighter..... I favor common-sense.

All I have said is this..... the IBF proved that they are a second-rate organisation with a second-rate champion, when they stripped the-man-who-beat-the-man Fury in favor of a guy who is not much more than an untested prospect.

And I stand by that comment.

You however, have not been consistent, I will get to that in a minute.....

My personal preference would have been for the titles to remain unified. However, as a reasonable adult, I recognize that the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. The mandatory was overdue. The mandatory was demanding a purse bid. There was nothing the IBF could do.

Yes yes, "rules doe," but US courts recognize rules doe, so the IBF's hands were tied.

Oh for fk's sake, SMH

So let me get this right.....

1) you admit that the IBF do not have the best champions
2) you admit that Charles Martin is not the best HW on the planet
3) you admit that the IBF are unnecessary
4) you admit that the IBF are absurd
5) you admit that they are untrustworthy
6) AND..... you admit that your personal preference is that the titles remain unified (most likely because that would OBVIOUSLY be best for boxing)..... and yet, you support those corrupt leeches solely for the following reason.....

..... because, " rules doe " !!

" rules "..... that are not supported by any individual/entity accociated with the sport of boxing, other than the IBF themselves.

Right ?

That kinda thinking is unjustifiable from an adult human being.

Your position is absurd imho.

We will agree to disagree.

This will be my bottom-line regarding the Fury situation.....

* I value common-sense..... and you do not.

* You value " rules doe ", even if they are silly..... and I do not.

* the IBF proved that they are a second-rate organisation with a second-rate champion, when they stripped the-man-who-beat-the-man Fury in favor of a guy who is not much more than an untested prospect.

[original zero]

Of course you made no reference to litigation because we both know the history of litigation destroys your entire argument.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. Your 16 pages of whining, crying and moaning doesn't change that. The IBF had a legal obligation to Glazkov and there was no basis for them to allow another voluntary defense.

I know you hate facts and rules, but judges love them and it would have been an open and shut case. So the IBF had no choice.

You go on and on about how the orgs don't matter, yet you're incredibly butthurt that Fury lost one of his alphabelts.

Nowhere have I said that I like or want 4 orgs. Blame the promoters, networks and fighters. They chose this system, not me.

I personally consider the entire sport to be a joke, including the orgs, but that doesn't change the fact that Fury left the IBF with no choice but to strip him. My personal opinion of Fury or the IBF does not change that.

Nowhere have I said I support, accept, or condone. I'm just a reasonable adult that lives on planet Earth and I know the IBF had no choice whether I like it or whether you like it. Their hands were tied. All of your fanboy rantings don't change that.

I am not supporting Fury and I am not supporting the IBF. I am supporting facts. The fact is that there was no way to keep the belt on Fury. It was a clear cut, cut and dry situation. No amount of moaning on your part will change that.

Why would I approve or disapprove of the IBF stripping Fury when Fury left them with absolutely no choice? I'm not happy he got stripped, but I'm also not happy that he refused to face his mandatory when he knew it was overdue, promised he would, and then hid his rematch clause and tricked the IBF.

Nobody is telling you to consider the IBF a first rate org or to consider their champ a first rate champ.

I know it's very confusing for you that an intelligent adult can manage to separate fact from personal preference. That doesn't make my position absurd, it makes my position logical.

I've looked at the rules. I've looked at the contracts. I've looked at the previous case law. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the IBF had no choice.

But I guess you can just write "doe" at the end of that and pretend the facts don't exist.

If a judge sentences a kid to 20 years in jail on a drug charge because there is a mandatory minimum sentence, I don't have to like it, but I'm not going to criticize the judge when he had no choice.

I can't just write "rules doe" and pretend the judge had an alternative.

You've been living in fantasy land for 16 pages. You must be quite the winner in real life.

[removed]

Is original zero that guy who claimed that he was a multimillionaire & a savant, and kept offering $50,000 bets for an IQ test competition?

Saint Laurant i think he was called.