Originally posted by Shadoww702
View Post
Ive already said that the IBF rankings were weak for the HW division, certainly at that time, but in the long run of things and taking all the weight divisons into consideration, alongside the complacency of other orgs to enforce mandatories in certain situations and time-frames.. i prefer the IBF's way of doing things.
The Fury - Klitscko fight was because Fury was a mandatory for the WBO. The IBF had the right after the fury klitschko fight to call their mando irrespective of who won because by their rules ( the same in writing to the other orgs ) a mandatory defense was required. They chose to enforce it.. other orgs dont.
In this situation because of a rematch being a better fight then the winner of the first going against Martin i see your point, but on the wider scale? No..
You're basically stating the IBF are ****, but the WBO are brilliant for their enforcement on Billy joe Saunders and his hostage situation with the belt in MW, and the WBA heavyweight mandatory situation is OK.
It isnt one rule for one fight, then discount all the other orgs being **** because it doesnt suit your argument at the time.
Comment