Comments Thread For: Joshua Granted IBF Exception, Must Rematch Klitschko By Dec 2

[aboutfkntime]

notice once again that when about time is in checkmate, he just ignores all of your points. as if knocking the pieces off the board negates the loss. it's pathetic.

what " points ", rules doe ?

you don't make points, you make silly excuses

there was no justifiable reason to strip Fury, and then give Joshua a free pass

NONE !!

the exemption excuse is a joke, as was Duva's demand

are the IBF capable of making the best decision for boxing, or not?

you, telling me that the IBF had to receive an official request in order to make a simple decision, is just ******..... because they should have been competent enough to make a logical decision on their own, without any prompting

and you should be smart/mature enough to know/admit that

this is not about the IBF, it is about YOU

happily supporting the IBF when they stripped a genuine champion because ' rules doe '..... made you look like a ****head

happily flip-flopping, because ' rules doe '..... makes you look even more ******

you guys sound like 5yo's, doing what your mommy tells you because 'rules doe'..... show some common-sense and integrity toward the game..... nobody else stripped Fury, DID THEY GENIUS?

FACT: stripping Fury was NOT the best decision for boxing, regardless as to who requested it - or who did not request it....

have some common-sense

[aboutfkntime]

oh dear, I forgot to mention.....

..... it is hilarious that the rules of a THIRD-RATE sanctioning body are more important to you than securing a top fight

[original zero]

what " points "

You accused the IBF of breaking their rules. Your accusation was false. No amount of name calling or changing the subject changes the fact that you posted false information and refuse to own up to it.

there was no justifiable reason to strip Fury, and then give Joshua a free pass

The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. Your opinion or preference doesn't change the facts. The IBF mandatory was overdue, but the IBF allowed the WBO mandatory to take precedence, based on an old federal court ruling Pat English was able to secure for Evander Holyfield, forcing the organizations to agree on a rotation when mandatories conflicted.

However, Tyson Fury promised that if he won the IBF title, he would immediately face the IBF mandatory. After Fury won, he refused to honor the agreement because he had secretly sold a rematch clause to Klitschko even though he was a mandatory challenger and had no obligation to offer a rematch.

When Duva pushes the issue and demands a purse bid, the IBF's hands are tied.

I know you'll say "rules doe" or other uneducated gibberish, but the fact remains that if the IBF had broken their rules (like you falsely accuse them of), Duva would have gotten a federal injunction and the IBF would not have been allowed to sanction Fury even if they wanted to and also would have been liable for damages.

Fighters have rights. Mandatories have rights. If a sanctioning body isn't careful, they can wind up bankrupt very quickly for violating those rights. You don't like it. That's great. I don't like you. The world goes on.

[aboutfkntime]

You accused the IBF of breaking their rules. Your accusation was false. No amount of name calling or changing the subject changes the fact that you posted false information and refuse to own up to it.

The IBF had no choice but to strip Fury. Your opinion or preference doesn't change the facts. The IBF mandatory was overdue, but the IBF allowed the WBO mandatory to take precedence, based on an old federal court ruling Pat English was able to secure for Evander Holyfield, forcing the organizations to agree on a rotation when mandatories conflicted.

However, Tyson Fury promised that if he won the IBF title, he would immediately face the IBF mandatory. After Fury won, he refused to honor the agreement because he had secretly sold a rematch clause to Klitschko even though he was a mandatory challenger and had no obligation to offer a rematch.

When Duva pushes the issue and demands a purse bid, the IBF's hands are tied.

I know you'll say "rules doe" or other uneducated gibberish, but the fact remains that if the IBF had broken their rules (like you falsely accuse them of), Duva would have gotten a federal injunction and the IBF would not have been allowed to sanction Fury even if they wanted to and also would have been liable for damages.

Fighters have rights. Mandatories have rights. If a sanctioning body isn't careful, they can wind up bankrupt very quickly for violating those rights. You don't like it. That's great. I don't like you. The world goes on.

there was no justifiable reason to strip Fury, and then give Joshua a free pass

NONE !!

the exemption excuse is a joke, as was Duva's demand

are the IBF capable of making the best decision for boxing, or not?

you, telling me that the IBF had to receive an official request in order to make a simple decision, is just ******..... because they should have been competent enough to make a logical decision on their own, without any prompting

and you should be smart/mature enough to know/admit that

this is not about the IBF, it is about YOU

happily supporting the IBF when they stripped a genuine champion because ' rules doe '..... made you look like a ****head

happily flip-flopping, because ' rules doe '..... makes you look even more ******

you guys sound like 5yo's, doing what your mommy tells you because 'rules doe'..... show some common-sense and integrity toward the game..... nobody else stripped Fury, DID THEY GENIUS?

FACT: stripping Fury was NOT the best decision for boxing, regardless as to who requested it - or who did not request it....

have some common-sense

oh dear, I forgot to mention.....

..... it is hilarious that the rules of a THIRD-RATE sanctioning body are more important to you than securing a top fight

[original zero]

there was no justifiable reason to strip Fury, and then give Joshua a free pass

NONE !!

There was absolutely no option other than to strip Fury. Had the IBF ignored Duva's demand, she would have sued and filed for an injunction. It would have been an open and shut case. I'm sorry that you don't know how contracts work. I'm sorry that you don't know how laws work. I'm sorry that you don't know how English works.

If you wind up in front of a federal judge, you can't just say "rules doe." That isn't how life works.

Pulev's promoter actually wants Pulev to fight Joshua. Glazkov's promoter didn't want Glazkov to fight Fury. That is part of why Fury was stripped and Joshua wasn't.

Duva did everything possible legally to make sure the IBF had absolutely no choice but to strip Fury.

Sauerland didn't take that approach. Had he taken that approach, Joshua may have been stripped.

Joshua's promoter also did everything possible legally to make sure the IBF didn't strip him.

Fury's promoter didn't.


So when you combine Fury doing nothing to keep the title and Glazkov doing everything to get him stripped, you wind up with him being stripped.

When you combine Joshua doing everything to keep the title and Pulev not doing everything to get him stripped, you wind up with him keeping the title.


This is how life works. This is how contracts work. This is how the law works. This is how English works.


Grow up man. I feel bad for you. Try to act like a reasonable adult. If you're not an adult, just admit you're a kid spouting nonsense.

[Elroy The Great]

easy $$$$ for josh

[aboutfkntime]

There was absolutely no option other than to strip Fury. Had the IBF ignored Duva's demand, she would have sued and filed for an injunction. It would have been an open and shut case. I'm sorry that you don't know how contracts work. I'm sorry that you don't know how laws work. I'm sorry that you don't know how English works.

If you wind up in front of a federal judge, you can't just say "rules doe." That isn't how life works.

Pulev's promoter actually wants Pulev to fight Joshua. Glazkov's promoter didn't want Glazkov to fight Fury. That is part of why Fury was stripped and Joshua wasn't.

Duva did everything possible legally to make sure the IBF had absolutely no choice but to strip Fury.

Sauerland didn't take that approach. Had he taken that approach, Joshua may have been stripped.

Joshua's promoter also did everything possible legally to make sure the IBF didn't strip him.

Fury's promoter didn't.


So when you combine Fury doing nothing to keep the title and Glazkov doing everything to get him stripped, you wind up with him being stripped.

When you combine Joshua doing everything to keep the title and Pulev not doing everything to get him stripped, you wind up with him keeping the title.


This is how life works. This is how contracts work. This is how the law works. This is how English works.


Grow up man. I feel bad for you. Try to act like a reasonable adult. If you're not an adult, just admit you're a kid spouting nonsense.

wow, that was a good ol cry, you sanctimonious little ***wit

FACT: stripping Fury was NOT the best decision for boxing, regardless as to who requested it - or who did not request it....

have some common-sense

you are a total ***wit for happily applauding the IBF when they stripped Fury, but then approving the free pass they gave Joshua..... just because he had a note from his mom

grow up clown, you casual fan fools will never support the best decision for boxing, will you?

..... it is hilarious that the rules of a THIRD-RATE sanctioning body are more important to you than securing a top fight

[OnePunch]

wow, that was a good ol cry, you sanctimonious little ***wit

FACT: stripping Fury was NOT the best decision for boxing, regardless as to who requested it - or who did not request it....

have some common-sense

you are a total ***wit for happily applauding the IBF when they stripped Fury, but then approving the free pass they gave Joshua..... just because he had a note from his mom

grow up clown, you casual fan fools will never support the best decision for boxing, will you?

..... it is hilarious that the rules of a THIRD-RATE sanctioning body are more important to you than securing a top fight

that is YOUR opinion, and has nothing to do with contract law. Fighters pay sanctioning fees which entitles them to be treated according to the published rules and regulations of the sanctioning body. Remember when the WBC got sued and lost $30 million for doing something they felt was the "best decision for boxing"?

wise up man......

[original zero]

stripping Fury was NOT the best decision for boxing

Thank you for your opinion. The IBF probably agrees with you. However, legally, they had no choice. Children can say "rules doe," but adults have to worry about laws, contracts, legal precedents, liability, etc.

you are a total ***wit for happily applauding the IBF when they stripped Fury, but then approving the free pass they gave Joshua..... just because he had a note from his mom

I never applauded anything. Because of your low intelligence and because of your struggles with the nuances of the English language, you don't understand the meaning of many of the words you use.

Because I'm a reasonable adult, I understand that the IBF legally had no choice but to strip Fury. Doesn't mean I applaud it. I want the WBC, WBA & IBF heavyweight titles unified at all times (I couldn't care less about the WBO & IBO).

[aboutfkntime]

that is YOUR opinion, and has nothing to do with contract law. Fighters pay sanctioning fees which entitles them to be treated according to the published rules and regulations of the sanctioning body. Remember when the WBC got sued and lost $30 million for doing something they felt was the "best decision for boxing"?

wise up man......

Thank you for your opinion. The IBF probably agrees with you. However, legally, they had no choice. Children can say "rules doe," but adults have to worry about laws, contracts, legal precedents, liability, etc.

I never applauded anything. Because of your low intelligence and because of your struggles with the nuances of the English language, you don't understand the meaning of many of the words you use.

Because I'm a reasonable adult, I understand that the IBF legally had no choice but to strip Fury. Doesn't mean I applaud it. I want the WBC, WBA & IBF heavyweight titles unified at all times (I couldn't care less about the WBO & IBO).

FACT: the IBF gave Joshua an " exemption ", so they could have done the exact same thing for Fury..... and they could have made that decision themselves

FACT: the WBA did not strip Fury, the WBO did not strip Fury, and the IBO did not strip Fury..... did they, you class-clowns?

FACT: Fury/Klitschko II was the best fight to be made in the heavyweight division at that point in time. They were #1/#2, and Klitschko deserved the opportunity to win his titles back

if you guys are going to make silly excuses for fact #1 and #2, at least have the decency to ignore fact #3

just a reminder of your folly.....




#rulesdoe
#excusesdoe