Worst Boxing Org/Sanctioning Body of 2015?

[aboutfkntime]

rules doe,


if the rules here on boxingscene stated that new posters who join during the month of January have to put their fingers in a blender for 1 minute.....


..... you would actually do it, wouldn't you ?

[original zero]

you said fury wouldn't have gotten a title shot without a rematch clause. we know, as a fact, that he was the WBA & WBO mandatory.

which means klitschko would have had to vacate those titles if he refused to face fury.

so are you claiming that if fury didn't voluntarily agree to a rematch, that klitschko would have ditched both belts rather than face fury?

yes or no?

[aboutfkntime]

you said fury wouldn't have gotten a title shot without a rematch clause. we know, as a fact, that he was the WBA & WBO mandatory.

which means klitschko would have had to vacate those titles if he refused to face fury.

so are you claiming that if fury didn't voluntarily agree to a rematch, that klitschko would have ditched both belts rather than face fury?

yes or no?

No, fk no...... because the WBA/WBO are less inept than the IBF.

Despite being just as unreliable/corrupt, they at least reserve the right to make a judgement call based on common-sense..... you know, common-sense, the trait that you are badly lacking.

The WBA/WBO would have deferred their mandatory for the following reasons..... reasons which have already been explained to you, on multiple occasions.

1) Because Fury beating Klitschko completely changed the boxing landscape at heavyweight

2) Because Klitschko was the long-standing champion, and clearly the man at heavyweight..... so he deserves his right to a rematch, and he certainly deserves more respect than you have given him kid

3) Because Fury/Klit II is the #1 fighting the #2, so stop being absurd

4) Because Fury/Klitschko II will erase any/all doubts enabling BOTH organisations to adjust their rankings accordingly, and to assist them with mandatory's/eliminators, looking toward the future

5) Because it is clearly in the best interests of the sport, and of the fans


For the last time..... I am done with you foolio, argue with yourself.

[original zero]

you can't have it both ways. if klitschko wasn't willing to ditch the belts, that means he would have faced fury without a rematch clause.

so when you said fury wouldn't have gotten the fight without a rematch clause, you were lying.

i make a very comfortable living in this business and some stranger on the internet calling me childish names is not going to affect my life.

facts are facts. the facts don't support your position. so you whine and moan and hurl insults. but none of that changes the fact that you're repeatedly getting trapped in lies.

no wonder you're do desperate to end the conversation.

for anybody that has suffered through this awful thread, the following remains indisputable:

IBF HAD NO LEGAL ALTERNATIVE AND WAS FORCED TO STRIP TYSON FURY

TYSON FURY HAD NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER KLITSCHKO A REMATCH

so eat those words until you choke.

[aboutfkntime]

you can't have it both ways. if klitschko wasn't willing to ditch the belts, that means he would have faced fury without a rematch clause.

Stop lying kid..... the WBA/WBO would have allowed the rematch.

i make a very comfortable living in this business and some stranger on the internet calling me childish names is not going to affect my life.

BULL****..... you are not an insider, I don't believe that for 1 second

so eat those words until you choke.

eat a **** until you choke

[LoadedWraps]

you don't think it's sad for you to be proven wrong so many times in the same thread, leaving you with no option but to try to play cheer leader for another dude that continues to be proven wrong over and over?

that's really what your life has come to? waving pom poms?

You haven't come up with a defense for why they couldn't add a stipulation to the contract that gave the new titlist more time yet.

You also haven't come up with a defense for why they didn't restructure, void, or intentionally breach the contract and produce a new one considering the landscape changed either.

Do keep up.

[original zero]

Aboutfkntime -

I am not lying about anything and everything I've said is easily verifiable fact. Tyson Fury was the WBA & WBO mandatory. He was guaranteed a title shot with or without a rematch clause. The rematch clause was VOLUNTARY.

You claimed he couldn't have gotten the fight without a rematch clause. That is 100% false. You can't force a rematch clause on a mandatory. So either you are intentionally lying or you don't know anything about the business of boxing.

The only way for your statement to be true is if Klitschko was willing to throw two world championships in the garbage to avoid facing Fury, which you claim he wouldn't have done.

So you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. You're in checkmate. Completely trapped. Which is why you try to keep the focus on personal attacks.

I couldn't care less what your opinion is of me. Facts are facts.

#1 - The IBF had no legal alternative to stripping Tyson Fury.

#2 - Tyson Fury was guaranteed a title shot WITHOUT a rematch clause and chose to VOLUNTARILY sell a clause to Klitschko.

Both of those points are indisputable fact and no amount of name calling on your part changes that.



Loaded Wraps -

Glazkov had enforceable legal rights that you couldn't get away with violating by arbitrarily giving the new champion more time or intentionally breaching the rules.

That is why we have courts. Main Events would have gone to court to enforce Glazkov's rights and the IBF would have been soundly defeated. There was no legal avenue to keep the title on Fury when he was refusing to face the overdue mandatory.

If you don't have any business or legal experience and don't understand the consequences of the position you're advocating, then you need to look no further than what has happened with the WBA title being held hostage by the Oquendo judgment.

You and your pal and write "rules doe" all you want, but judges and courts takes rules seriously. It's not my fault that the two of you don't know anything about boxing or business.

When the IBF sanctions an eliminator and promises a title shot within a certain time frame and within the rules of the organization, the IBF is committing fraud if they accept that sanctioning fee under false pretenses and do not enforce the mandatory in the agreed upon time frame.

It was an open and shut case. The IBF had no choice.

You don't think the IBF would have loved to collect 3% of the massive revenue Fury-Klitschko II will generate? Of course they would have, but they didn't have a choice.

And no amount of whining and no amount of emojis changes that.

We get it, you don't like facts. I'm telling you the facts. You don't like it. This falls under the category of: too bad.

[aboutfkntime]

Aboutfkntime -

I am not lying about anything and everything I've said is easily verifiable fact. Tyson Fury was the WBA & WBO mandatory. He was guaranteed a title shot with or without a rematch clause. The rematch clause was VOLUNTARY.

You claimed he couldn't have gotten the fight without a rematch clause. That is 100% false. You can't force a rematch clause on a mandatory. So either you are intentionally lying or you don't know anything about the business of boxing.

The only way for your statement to be true is if Klitschko was willing to throw two world championships in the garbage to avoid facing Fury, which you claim he wouldn't have done.

So you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. You're in checkmate. Completely trapped. Which is why you try to keep the focus on personal attacks.

I couldn't care less what your opinion is of me. Facts are facts.

#1 - The IBF had no legal alternative to stripping Tyson Fury.

#2 - Tyson Fury was guaranteed a title shot WITHOUT a rematch clause and chose to VOLUNTARILY sell a clause to Klitschko.

Both of those points are indisputable fact and no amount of name calling on your part changes that.



Loaded Wraps -

Glazkov had enforceable legal rights that you couldn't get away with violating by arbitrarily giving the new champion more time or intentionally breaching the rules.

That is why we have courts. Main Events would have gone to court to enforce Glazkov's rights and the IBF would have been soundly defeated. There was no legal avenue to keep the title on Fury when he was refusing to face the overdue mandatory.

If you don't have any business or legal experience and don't understand the consequences of the position you're advocating, then you need to look no further than what has happened with the WBA title being held hostage by the Oquendo judgment.

You and your pal and write "rules doe" all you want, but judges and courts takes rules seriously. It's not my fault that the two of you don't know anything about boxing or business.

When the IBF sanctions an eliminator and promises a title shot within a certain time frame and within the rules of the organization, the IBF is committing fraud if they accept that sanctioning fee under false pretenses and do not enforce the mandatory in the agreed upon time frame.

It was an open and shut case. The IBF had no choice.

You don't think the IBF would have loved to collect 3% of the massive revenue Fury-Klitschko II will generate? Of course they would have, but they didn't have a choice.

And no amount of whining and no amount of emojis changes that.

We get it, you don't like facts. I'm telling you the facts. You don't like it. This falls under the category of: too bad.

Stop lying kid..... the WBA/WBO would have allowed the rematch.

They have both ignored their mandatory plenty of times.

And you are not an insider, I don't believe that for 1 second

[original zero]

Stop lying kid..... the WBA/WBO would have allowed the rematch.

They have both ignored their mandatory plenty of times.

And you are not an insider, I don't believe that for 1 second

The WBA & WBO are allowing the rematch and nobody said they weren't (and they have no reason not to, their mandatory obligations were just fulfilled). You're arguing against things nobody said. So not only are you wrong time and time again, but you have to make things up to try to pretend that somebody else is wrong too. Nice try.

You plainly stated that Tyson Fury wouldn't have gotten a title shot without a rematch clause. However, he was the WBA & WBO mandatory and had a guaranteed title shot without a rematch clause.

So for your statement to be true, you would have to be claiming that Klitschko would have vacated the WBA & WBO titles to duck Fury, but you've denied that you're claiming that.

Which means that what you are claiming is 100% false. Fury had a guaranteed shot, as a mandatory, with no rematch clause. He *voluntarily* agreed to a rematch clause because he was offered a lot of money for one. Which is fine, but don't lie about what went down.

I don't care what you believe. That does not affect my life in any way. I've made my full time living in the combat sports industry for my entire adult life. I know the rules inside and out because it's my job to know. Studying IBF bylaws is not exactly my idea of a good time . . .

[aboutfkntime]

The WBA & WBO are allowing the rematch and nobody said they weren't (and they have no reason not to, their mandatory obligations were just fulfilled). You're arguing against things nobody said. So not only are you wrong time and time again, but you have to make things up to try to pretend that somebody else is wrong too. Nice try.

You plainly stated that Tyson Fury wouldn't have gotten a title shot without a rematch clause. However, he was the WBA & WBO mandatory and had a guaranteed title shot without a rematch clause.

So for your statement to be true, you would have to be claiming that Klitschko would have vacated the WBA & WBO titles to duck Fury, but you've denied that you're claiming that.

Which means that what you are claiming is 100% false. Fury had a guaranteed shot, as a mandatory, with no rematch clause. He *voluntarily* agreed to a rematch clause because he was offered a lot of money for one. Which is fine, but don't lie about what went down.

I don't care what you believe. That does not affect my life in any way. I've made my full time living in the combat sports industry for my entire adult life. I know the rules inside and out because it's my job to know. Studying IBF bylaws is not exactly my idea of a good time . . .

Stop lying kid..... the WBA/WBO would have allowed the rematch.

They have both ignored their mandatory position plenty of times.

And you are not a boxing insider, I don't believe that for 1 second

Stop lying kid !!