Comments Thread For: Hearn Admits Anthony Joshua Could Be Forced To Drop IBF Belt

[original zero]

... IBF has some bizarre rulings... They stripped Fury just because he had to comply with the rematch clause...

Wrong. They stripped Fury because Fury promised, before he faced Klitschko, that he would fight the IBF mandatory next if he won.

The IBF mandatory was overdue. Fury was the WBO mandatory. The IBF allowed the WBO mandatory to take priority over their own overdue mandatory in an effort to keep the titles unified.

Even though Fury was WBO mandatory and had a guaranteed no strings attached title shot, he secretly sold a rematch clause to Klitschko and hid the rematch clause from the IBF to trick them into sanctioning the fight.

When Fury refused to honor his agreement to the IBF, because he unnecessarily sold Klitschko a rematch clause, the IBF had no choice but to strip him.

[MDPopescu]

... at this stage, IBF doesn't even have a #1 contender in the HW division... Pulev is #2 only...

[MDPopescu]

Wrong. They stripped Fury because Fury promised, before he faced Klitschko, that he would fight the IBF mandatory next if he won.

The IBF mandatory was overdue. Fury was the WBO mandatory. The IBF allowed the WBO mandatory to take priority over their own overdue mandatory in an effort to keep the titles unified.

Even though Fury was WBO mandatory and had a guaranteed no strings attached title shot, he secretly sold a rematch clause to Klitschko and hid the rematch clause from the IBF to trick them into sanctioning the fight.

When Fury refused to honor his agreement to the IBF, because he unnecessarily sold Klitschko a rematch clause, the IBF had no choice but to strip him.

... Come on, man... Fury wouldn't have got that fight in the first place without signing a rematch clause... IBF would have had to check with their champ back then (i.e. Wlad) and not sanction that fight with a rematch clause in it... This would have been fair and according to rules, imo...

[original zero]

Okay post your info or give me a link to a spreadsheet with the details. I'm legit curious about this.

It's not my fault if you don't pay attention to the sport. If you want my spreadsheets of every purse bid from the last 30 years, you can hire me as a consultant for $100 an hour. Otherwise, start paying attention. I just gave you very recent examples. If you weren't aware that the WBC was the most valuable belt and the WBO is the least valuable belt, I'm not sure what sport you've been watching your whole life. Unless you just discovered boxing yesterday.

Well Manny and Canelo recently have held the WBO title and they might be the top 2 highest paid active boxers in the sport.

The WBO welterweight title has been Bob Arum's personal toy for 15 years. It's held by whoever the **** Arum wants it held by. But when Mayweather was WBC champion, which belt was making more money? When Mayweather and Manny fought, which organization's champion won? (Also worth mentioning, WBC is undefeated in heavyweight unification btw).

When Mayweather retired and vacated both belts, which vacant title had the most interest? 800,000 watched the WBO vacancy be filled. 3.5 million watched the WBC vacancy be filled.

As for Canelo, he was forced to fight for a WBOgus belt because he was scared of GGG and Haymon had all the real 154 titles locked up. This is what happens when you recognize more titles. It allows fighters like Canelo to find an easy belt to hide behind.

My legit question and my legit curiosity is about what do the hard facts say not what you think, feel or assume. I think, feel or assume many things, but I'll qualify them as such if I don't have facts to base those thoughts, feelings or assumptions on.

I gave you recent, exact, purse bid figures. Has nothing to do with my feelings or assumptions. Purse bids are public information. It's very easy to track what the championships are worth. If you're new to the sport or don't pay attention to the sport, that isn't my problem.

[original zero]

... Come on, man... Fury wouldn't have got that fight in the first place without signing a rematch clause... IBF would have had to check with their champ back then (i.e. Wlad) and not sanction that fight with a rematch clause in it... This would have been fair and according to rules, imo...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Fury was WBO & WBA mandatory. Klitschko had to either fight him or throw away two of his three world titles. Fury did not have to sign a rematch clause and the rematch clause wasn't even in the original contract. Fury sold Klitschko the rematch clause after the fight had already been signed, which is why they were able to hide it from the IBF.

Sanctioning organizations do not acknowledge rematch clauses. Rematch clauses do not take priority over mandatories. Otherwise fighters could just fight infinite rematches and hog the world championship for eternity.

In fact, it was a long standing tradition that direct rematches were strictly forbidden. You just lost. Why would you immediately fight for the world championship in your next fight?

Fighting a direct rematch used to automatically result in you being stripped.

[juggernaut666]

So which current heavyweight champion has better wins than Deontay has?

Stop stalling. Name a name and explain.

If you actually think Wilder has the best resume ,well sorry but you have no credibility on this forum about much beyond belt rules .

[MDPopescu]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Fury was WBO & WBA mandatory. Klitschko had to either fight him or throw away two of his three world titles. Fury did not have to sign a rematch clause and the rematch clause wasn't even in the original contract. Fury sold Klitschko the rematch clause after the fight had already been signed, which is why they were able to hide it from the IBF.

Sanctioning organizations do not acknowledge rematch clauses. Rematch clauses do not take priority over mandatories. Otherwise fighters could just fight infinite rematches and hog the world championship for eternity.

In fact, it was a long standing tradition that direct rematches were strictly forbidden. You just lost. Why would you immediately fight for the world championship in your next fight?

Fighting a direct rematch used to automatically result in you being stripped.

... OK, OK... But you're funny, man?... So, the Gypsy "sold" Wlad the rematch clause and Wlad didn't tell IMF about it!... But it was Wlad who was somehow legally liable towards IBF, not the fuckin' Gypsy, right? ... and now, as you can see, the shit is on Joshua (in case he wins)...

[young1]

Cool thread

[original zero]

If you actually think Wilder has the best resume ,well sorry but you have no credibility on this forum about much beyond belt rules .

You're still refusing to name a name. Post after post you're ducking and dodging. If Wilder's resume is so terrible, then please name a current heavyweight champion that has better scalps on his resume than Wilder does. You can't.

You're embarrassing yourself. It shouldn't take five posts to answer the question.

[original zero]

... OK, OK... But you're funny, man?... So, the Gypsy "sold" Wlad the rematch clause and Wlad didn't tell IMF about it!... But it was Wlad who was somehow legally liable towards IBF, not the fuckin' Gypsy, right? ... and now, as you can see, the shit is on Joshua (in case he wins)...

If Wladimir had won, he would have fought Glazkov next. So he wasn't the one breaking his promise to the IBF, Fury was.

As for Joshua, Hearn can claim all he wants that he has to drop a belt because you can't fight two mandatories at once, but that's bull****. Federal courts have already ruled that you can't be stripped for fighting a mandatory. The organizations have an agreed upon rotation.