Worst Boxing Org/Sanctioning Body of 2015?

[original zero]

About Time -

Fury agreed to a voluntary defense against Klitschko even though he knew he'd have to give up the IBF belt to make that voluntary defense.

Once he signed that contract, he had no alternative course of action other than to give up the belt.

And the IBF had no alternative course of action but to take the belt.

But you are the one complaining about the IBF's "decision" even though they had no alternative and when you're asked for an alternative, you refuse to answer.

So why not be a man and just answer the question? Why not just admit that they had no choice? What are you so afraid of? We both know they had no choice. You don't have to like it, but the facts are the facts.

No, Manny Pacquiao is not my favorite fighter. He's probably my least favorite fighter.

[LoadedWraps]

The IBF rankings are horrible. With the red and gold crown...its by far the best looking belt. but how on earth is this organisation happy to mandate some of these fighters?

While Joshua ideally isn't ready to be world champ, the fact that some of his mandatory defences will be against some very poor opposition makes up for this. Enabling him to still learn on the job while having a world title around his waist.

Eddie Hearn seems to have spotted this.

Kell Brook has the IBF and his mandatries were JoJo Dan and Kevin Bizier (can't wait for Errol Spence to actually be in line next).

IBF Super Middleweight Champ James Degale is fighting a guy next who I have never heard of.

And looking at the IBF heavyweight rankings, its a who's-who of bums. Aside from Joseph Parker, who I think can be a genuine contender.

How can the bosses at IBF be happy to actually have these fighters representing their belts?

If I was head of IBF I would be corrupt as fxck if those people were in line for my belt next lol.

Being champ was meant to mean the best fighting the best. From the defences of Brook to Degale to Martin... The IBF are not holding themselves very high in this respect.

A laughing stock and original zero is in here defending them and it's pathetic.

[original zero]

A laughing stock and original zero is in here defending them and it's pathetic.

And yet you can't counter my argument. Criticize the IBF all you want. I consider every org a laughing stock. I want every org out of business.

But the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. Doesn't mean you have to like the IBF. Laugh at them all you want. Take pleasure in the fact that enforcing the rules cost them a lot of money.

But in this specific matter, they had no choice and you've had 20 pages to tell us an alternative that would have held up in court and you can't do it.

You squirm, you whine, you moan, you slither, but you can't tell us what the IBF could have done instead that would have held up in court.

Me saying that doesn't make me an IBF fan. It makes me honest. I can dislike something without having to lie about it. If you don't have that ability, you need to grow up.

[A-Wolf]

WBC. Close thread.

[aboutfkntime]

The IBF rankings are horrible. With the red and gold crown...its by far the best looking belt. but how on earth is this organisation happy to mandate some of these fighters?

While Joshua ideally isn't ready to be world champ, the fact that some of his mandatory defences will be against some very poor opposition makes up for this. Enabling him to still learn on the job while having a world title around his waist.

Eddie Hearn seems to have spotted this.

Kell Brook has the IBF and his mandatries were JoJo Dan and Kevin Bizier (can't wait for Errol Spence to actually be in line next).

IBF Super Middleweight Champ James Degale is fighting a guy next who I have never heard of.

And looking at the IBF heavyweight rankings, its a who's-who of bums. Aside from Joseph Parker, who I think can be a genuine contender.

How can the bosses at IBF be happy to actually have these fighters representing their belts?

If I was head of IBF I would be corrupt as fxck if those people were in line for my belt next lol.

Being champ was meant to mean the best fighting the best. From the defences of Brook to Degale to Martin... The IBF are not holding themselves very high in this respect.

common-fkn-sense really does > rules doe


The IBF will soon be regarded as distinctly second-rate.


They are second-rate now in my book, even the WBO have more credibility.


Not sure if they're the worst org in 2015, but they are the worst org period.

[aboutfkntime]

About Time -

Fury agreed to a voluntary defense against Klitschko even though he knew he'd have to give up the IBF belt to make that voluntary defense.

Once he signed that contract, he had no alternative course of action other than to give up the belt.

And the IBF had no alternative course of action but to take the belt.

But you are the one complaining about the IBF's "decision" even though they had no alternative and when you're asked for an alternative, you refuse to answer.

So why not be a man and just answer the question? Why not just admit that they had no choice? What are you so afraid of? We both know they had no choice. You don't have to like it, but the facts are the facts.

No, Manny Pacquiao is not my favorite fighter. He's probably my least favorite fighter.

rules doe, why won't you tell us an alternative course of action that would have enabled Fury to fight that bum Glazkov..... without being sued for breech of contract by K2 Promotions?

You do know that Klitschko was the IBF champ right, not Fury ?

Right ?

Genius, if Fury had not contractually agreed to a rematch, he wouldn't have got the fight, you do know that right?

OBVIOUSLY, the organisation who happened to be INCORRECT are the asshat's who needed to manage their affairs more professionally.

If they had correct business practices, they could have managed that situation a lot more professionally with some good old fashioned communication.

Their bum was mandated to KLITSCHKO, and when Fury beat Klitschko the boxing landscape completely changed.

Boxing organisations have a responsibility to be current, and to be accurate.

The fact that they stripped the best heavyweight on the planet, and lineal champ, for a guy who should not be ranked in the top 10..... is on them.

Keywords = obviously, incorrect.

You support ******ity, and I do not.

Gratz to you and Martin.

[aboutfkntime]

And yet you can't counter my argument. Criticize the IBF all you want. I consider every org a laughing stock. I want every org out of business.

But the IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury. Doesn't mean you have to like the IBF. Laugh at them all you want. Take pleasure in the fact that enforcing the rules cost them a lot of money.

But in this specific matter, they had no choice and you've had 20 pages to tell us an alternative that would have held up in court and you can't do it.

You squirm, you whine, you moan, you slither, but you can't tell us what the IBF could have done instead that would have held up in court.

Me saying that doesn't make me an IBF fan. It makes me honest. I can dislike something without having to lie about it. If you don't have that ability, you need to grow up.

And yet, here you are, happily supporting them

Like I said above..... you support ******ity, and I do not.

Not very smart man.

The common-sense approach would be......

1) the IBF were ridiculous for mandating Glazkov, second-rate

2) the IBF were even more ridiculous for demanding an immediate defense in light of the fact that Fury was contractually engaged to a MUCH better fighter than Glazkov...... because Klitschko just so happened to be their old champ

HOW THE FK COULD YOU MISS THAT POINT KID ?

Oh right, " rules doe " SMH

3) the IBF displayed arrogance, ineptitude, and ******ity, by stripping Fury for not IMMEDIATELY defending against their bum Glazkov..... resulting in them now sporting an untested prospect who is likely about to lose to another untested prospect.

Glazkov could have simply been next in line.

#secondrate
#rulesdoe
#Martindachampdoe

[original zero]

I just told you that Fury had no choice but to give up the title in the event that he won after he voluntarily agreed to a rematch clause. I've never denied that. So why are you asking me to tell you an alternative course of action when I've already told you there wasn't one? Clearly you are struggling with reading comprehension.

I have no problem admitting easily verifiable facts to you. The problem is that you continue to squirm and whine and moan while avoiding admitting an easily verifiable fact:

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

Either you admit that is true or you don't and if you don't, tell us another choice the IBF had that wouldn't have resulted in winding up in court. You can't.

But worse, now you are flat out lying about the rematch clause.

"Genius, if Fury had not contractually agreed to a rematch, he wouldn't have got the fight, you do know that right?"

That is 100% false. Fury was a *mandatory* challenger and was under *no obligation* to agree to a rematch clause. He did so 100% voluntarily and he did so even though he knew it meant giving up the IBF belt.

He made a business decision and I'm not criticizing him for it. But he did have a choice.

On the other hand, with the Glazkov mandatory already overdue, the IBF had no legal way to approve a Fury/Klitschko rematch. Their hands were tied. You don't have to like it. You are free to cry about it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that after 20 pages, the following remains indisputable:

THE IBF HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STRIP TYSON FURY.

[aboutfkntime]

I just told you that Fury had no choice but to give up the title in the event that he won after he voluntarily agreed to a rematch clause. I've never denied that. So why are you asking me to tell you an alternative course of action when I've already told you there wasn't one? Clearly you are struggling with reading comprehension.

I have no problem admitting easily verifiable facts to you. The problem is that you continue to squirm and whine and moan while avoiding admitting an easily verifiable fact:

The IBF had no choice but to strip Tyson Fury.

Either you admit that is true or you don't and if you don't, tell us another choice the IBF had that wouldn't have resulted in winding up in court. You can't.

But worse, now you are flat out lying about the rematch clause.

"Genius, if Fury had not contractually agreed to a rematch, he wouldn't have got the fight, you do know that right?"

That is 100% false. Fury was a *mandatory* challenger and was under *no obligation* to agree to a rematch clause. He did so 100% voluntarily and he did so even though he knew it meant giving up the IBF belt.

He made a business decision and I'm not criticizing him for it. But he did have a choice.

On the other hand, with the Glazkov mandatory already overdue, the IBF had no legal way to approve a Fury/Klitschko rematch. Their hands were tied. You don't have to like it. You are free to cry about it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that after 20 pages, the following remains indisputable:

THE IBF HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO STRIP TYSON FURY.

The common-sense approach has already been explained to you, and not just by me either.....

The common-sense approach would be......

1) the IBF were ridiculous for mandating Glazkov, second-rate

2) the IBF were even more ridiculous for demanding an immediate defense in light of the fact that Fury was contractually engaged to a MUCH better fighter than Glazkov...... because Klitschko just so happened to be their old champ

HOW THE FK COULD YOU MISS THAT POINT KID ?

Oh right, " rules doe " SMH

3) the IBF displayed arrogance, ineptitude, and ******ity, by stripping Fury for not IMMEDIATELY defending against their bum Glazkov..... resulting in them now sporting an untested prospect as champ, one who is likely about to lose to another untested prospect.

Glazkov could have simply been next in line.

#secondrate
#rulesdoe
#Martindachampdoe

#rulesdoe


Hey, rules doe..... the rules around here are, if a dozen people disagree with you..... you have to place your head in a blender for 5 minutes.

GO !!

[aboutfkntime]

I just told you that Fury had no choice but to give up the title in the event that he won after he voluntarily agreed to a rematch clause. I've never denied that. So why are you asking me to tell you an alternative course of action when I've already told you there wasn't one? .

Aaah right, so Fury did not have an alternative course of action ?

Aight then, STFU