Comments Thread For: Whyte Livid With WBC - Breazeale-Molina Winner in Line For Wilder

[trouser python]

You posted the same question over and over, why wouldn't our answer be the same?




Taking away his eliminator would have been a lawsuit waiting to happen, but Hearn was fired up enough that keeping it as a FINAL eliminator may have resulted in a different lawsuit. That is why running a sanctioning body is so complicated. Conflicting interests around every corner and you have to navigate it the best you can.

Haymon & King wanted the winner of their fight to be the mandatory, Hearn wanted Whyte named mandatory. All three hold major sway with the WBC. It's up to the WBC to mediate and hope to avoid a lawsuit. Clearly there's been some sort of compromise that Whyte will not be named mandatory and the fight was downgraded to a regular eliminator and not a final one.

In theory, Whyte and Breazeale must fight now as both have won eliminators, but Breazeale will likely get a voluntary shot, so it may not matter.

We're not really sure what your point is though. People complained about Breazeale/Molina being an eliminator, we simply explained why it was an eliminator. It was going to be a final eliminator, but the WBC changed their mind. So what is the problem exactly?

This is what you wrote:

Dillian Whyte won an eliminator less than a year ago, but not a final eliminator.

Stiverne was already mandatory and agreed to face Breazeale in a final eliminator. When King Kong's drug test messed up the card, Breazeale's final eliminator can't just be taken away from him. Lawsuit waiting to happen. So the WBC's only choice was to have Breazeale fight the next available leading contender, which ended up being Molina.

Whyte fought on 10/28, so obviously he was unavailable for the 11/4 final eliminator. That's why he was skipped over.

Whyte will get a final eliminator next year and if he wins, he'll be the mandatory for 2019, which means it could take until 2020 to force the fight.

Welcome to boxing.

See Highlighted text. So now you are telling me this was not the WBC's only option and that they can just take Breazeale's final eliminator away from him???? LOL you are all over the place.

Also let me get this straight you are saying taking away Breazeale's eliminator would have still been a lawsuit waiting to happen but not if they take away his final eliminator like they have done???? You make no sense and it was because you were wrong and are now trying to cover your tracks.

Just answer this question is Breazeale going to sue the WBC? Or does he have the right to sue the WBC?

[club fighter]

Well if he didn't look so mediocre in his last bout things might be different.

Instead he's cursed to end up like Chisora, the UKs punching bag.

[N/A]

So now you are telling me this was not the WBC's only option and that they can just take Breazeale's final eliminator away from him???? LOL you are all over the place.

The WBC has more wiggle room after they make the order and then Hearn objects. We're not all over the place, you just don't understand how sanctioning body politics work. When Stiverne moves to the main event, Breazeale is allowed to fight the highest available contender and the fight stays as a final eliminator, once that happens, other promoters are allowed to object. The objection is what allows the WBC to reconsider.

But people were complaining about it being a final eliminator to begin with and didn't understand how that was possible. They were making false accusations of corruption. So we simply explained why it was a final eliminator and the reason is that it was already declared a final eliminator when it was supposed to be Stiverne and they can't just take it away when Stiverne moves to the main event. So that's why Breazeale/Molina was (temporarily) set as a final eliminator. Then there is an opportunity for other promoters to object, which is what Hearn did.

Knowing how to work the sanctioning bodies is all about timing, doing things in the correct order, filing the correct motions during the appropriate window, etc.

All we did is explain why it was a final eliminator to begin with. Everything is subject to change if you follow the proper protocol, which is what the WBC did, what Haymon did, what King did and what Hearn did. They all know what they're doing.

[trouser python]

The WBC has more wiggle room after they make the order and then Hearn objects. We're not all over the place, you just don't understand how sanctioning body politics work. When Stiverne moves to the main event, Breazeale is allowed to fight the highest available contender and the fight stays as a final eliminator, once that happens, other promoters are allowed to object. The objection is what allows the WBC to reconsider.

But people were complaining about it being a final eliminator to begin with and didn't understand how that was possible. They were making false accusations of corruption. So we simply explained why it was a final eliminator and the reason is that it was already declared a final eliminator when it was supposed to be Stiverne and they can't just take it away when Stiverne moves to the main event. So that's why Breazeale/Molina was (temporarily) set as a final eliminator. Then there is an opportunity for other promoters to object, which is what Hearn did.

Knowing how to work the sanctioning bodies is all about timing, doing things in the correct order, filing the correct motions during the appropriate window, etc.

All we did is explain why it was a final eliminator to begin with. Everything is subject to change if you follow the proper protocol, which is what the WBC did, what Haymon did, what King did and what Hearn did. They all know what they're doing.

LOOOOOL This is the most pathetic response possible. Why did you cut off the bottom of my prior post and only selectively reply???? What's all this talk about "wiggle room" when you originally said the ONLY option the WBC had was to make it a final eliminator??? What don't you understand about the definition of ONLY. Why didn't you address the part where I asked if Breazeale has the right to or will now likely sue the WBC???? Why didnt you directly address the part in one of my other posts where I asked if you thought it would be ****** for Breazeale not to sue the WBC, as you implied in your earlier comments that a lawsuit would be a foregone conclusion if the final eliminator was taken away???

The reason I am continuing with this is because not only were you WRONG in saying that the WBC only had ONE option and saying that it was a lawsuit waiting to happen (I highly doubt Breazeale sues the WBC), you also called another user on here fvucking ****** when it turns out you were the one that was talking out of your ass.

There is 3 of you there with with access to resources 99% of the other posters on this site don't have, and somehow you still manage to spew fanboy garbage that is not even correct. You would feel like a fool right now if it wasn't for your overly inflated ego obscuring your vision.

[James09]

Whyte has done nothing to get a title shot. His name is being used to protect AJ.

[N/A]

Why did you cut off the bottom of my prior post and only selectively reply????

Trying to focus on your "new" content since repeating answers to repeated questions bothers you.

What's all this talk about "wiggle room" when you originally said the ONLY option the WBC had was to make it a final eliminator???

Until there is the formal objection, the WBC has no way to downgrade the eliminator. Things have to be done in a certain order. So when people were crucifying the WBC for making it a final eliminator, we simply explained that there was no mechanism at the time to change it when Stiverne was replaced. Once the formal objection is made, then there are mechanisms in place to alter things. But things had to be done in the order they were done in.

What don't you understand about the definition of ONLY.

Replacing Stiverne and leading it as a final eliminator was their only option at the time. Then a formal objection is made, which opens up other options. This happens all the time. If you're not aware of the inner workings of the sanctioning bodies, then do your homework before you post such silly temper tantrums.

Why didn't you address the part where I asked if Breazeale has the right to or will now likely sue the WBC????

He was given the #2 ranking by beating Molina and is likely getting the next title shot. He's probably pleased. Anybody can sue for anything, but he's been treated very well by the WBC. Had they not approved the eliminator or had they taken away the "final" distinction without a formal objection, he might feel differently. The WBC's job is to juggle all of these conflicting interests and get everybody to live with the result. They seem to have navigated through another land mine.

The reason I am continuing with this is because not only were you WRONG in saying that the WBC only had ONE option and saying that it was a lawsuit waiting to happen

The problem is that you're so emotional, that you add words and connotation in your head that were never there instead of actually digesting what we're writing. The WBC only had one option when Stiverne dropped out of the final eliminator, offer the fight to the highest available contender. So those criticizing the WBC for Breazeale/Moline being a final eliminator were being unfair because it was ALREADY a final eliminator, all they did was replace the unavailable fighter. They made the only ruling they could make at the time.

Other parties are then allowed to challenge and the WBC at that time is allowed to consider their grievance. That is the order things must be done in. It's like picking what is for dinner when chicken is the only option and you pick chicken. Then later, steak becomes an option and you pick steak. Then some lunatic on a message board shows up and says BUT BUT BUT I THOUGHT CHICKEN WAS THE ONLY OPTION!!! Well, it was, and then later, more options appeared.

There is 3 of you there with with access to resources 99% of the other posters on this site don't have

Which is why we spend so much time explaining some of these complicated and tedious processes that go on behind the scenes in sanctioning body politics because we realize there aren't many here with the time, personal relationships, or experience to explain some of this madness.

and somehow you still manage to spew fanboy garbage that is not even correct. You would feel like a fool right now if it wasn't for your overly inflated ego obscuring your vision.

You acknowledge that we have access to information you don't, and yet you are still convinced you know more about the thing you admittedly know nothing about than the people you admittedly realize can get the truth from the horse's mouth.

So who is really having their vision obscured by ego?

All we did was explain why the fight was a final eliminator. Were we wrong about it being scheduled as a final eliminator at the time? No. Were we wrong about the reason? No. When things changed the next day, did we admit things had changed? Yes. Were we worried about our "ego" when we gladly admitted things changed and we were wrong about it being a final eliminator? No. Rafael had spoken to Sulaiman about the change before we spoke to Sulaiman, so we found out about the change right here on this board when somebody mentioned what Rafael reported.

Then you come along a week later with this "shocking" news that it didn't end up being a final eliminator because the WBC changed their ruling. Which we had already discussed and acknowledged. So do you realize how silly you come across here? It's not like we were wrong about it ever being a final eliminator. The info was what it was at the time, there was an uproar, and things changed. Happens in ABC business all the time.