Worst Boxing Org/Sanctioning Body of 2015?

[LoadedWraps]

oh yay, the cheerleader is back! hope your pom poms didn't get dusty.

one problem though bruh, what i'm saying is indisputable fact. you can't force a rematch on a mandatory challenger. it's against the rules and it's against the law. the WBA & WBO in a million years would have never forced tyson fury to agree to a rematch clause.

so you're applauding someone that is 100% wrong.

what does that say about you?

Is it wrong, or is it illegal?

Yes, the IBF should have breached the contract or voided it, it could have been stated in the terms. Things change in the boxing landscape that need to be accomodated for sometimes.

[original zero]

can't force a rematch on a mandatory. it's illegal.

[LoadedWraps]

can't force a rematch on a mandatory. it's illegal.

http://www.foxsports.com/boxing/story/ibf-strips-heavyweight-title-belt-from-tyson-fury-120915

The IBF stated that if Wlad/Fury disagreed to the mandatory defense, that the title wouldn't have been on the line, in the event that a fight contract was presented to the IBF with the rematch clause.

[original zero]

what does that have to do with anything?

[original zero]

http://www.foxsports.com/boxing/stor...on-fury-120915

The IBF stated that if Wlad/Fury disagreed to the mandatory defense, that the title wouldn't have been on the line, in the event that a fight contract was presented to the IBF with the rematch clause.

Thank you for proving my position. Hopefully you now see that you were mistaken.

The IBF title was only at stake in the Wlad-Fury fight because Wlad & Fury told the IBF that the winner would fight Glazkov NEXT.

They then hid their rematch clause from the IBF to trick the IBF into sanctioning their first fight even though the mandatory was overdue.

Which meant the IBF had no choice but to strip the winner if they refused to face Glazkov next.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

You're welcome.

[LoadedWraps]

You still haven't proven how the IBF couldn't breach/redo the contract or eat the fines, which they should have, instead of stripping the guy who won the belt legitly a week later, you point was all about after the fact, I apologize though, I realize now you can't handle losing more than one debate at once.

[original zero]

You still haven't proven how the IBF couldn't breach/redo the contract or eat the fines, which they should have, instead of stripping the guy who won the belt legitly a week later, you point was all about after the fact, I apologize though, I realize now you can't handle losing more than one debate at once.

The WBC lost a $31 million judgement for blatantly violating a fighter's position in a similar circumstance. So the IBF should have risked bankruptcy to blatantly violate their rules and Glazkov's rights? Why? To benefit Fury, who had just purposely tricked them into sanctioning his fight? And had blatantly lied to them when he said he'd fight Glazkov next?

And even if they did want to throw tens of millions of dollars into the toilet, Main Events most likely would have been able to get a court injunction to stop the Klitschko/Fury rematch.

Your position literally doesn't make any sense.

Losing more than one debate at once? I guess your idea of losing a debate is posting indisputable fact while the other party repeatedly posts false information . . .

Look at how your position has shifted as this thread has gone on... while my position has remained crystal clear at all times.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

And you say, "well, they could have blatantly broken the law and broken their rules and broken their contracts and paid tens of millions of dollars and gone out of business instead!"

Ya, that'd have been a great choice . . . Brilliant . . .