Comments Thread For: Whyte Will Fight WBC's Call That Breazeale is Wilder's Mandatory

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

But why would he go the WBC route when it only leads to second mandatory status? He'd have to wait for Wilder Breazeale and then another year before there's even a chance of it being enforced?

The IBF route looks a much quicker path to a title challenge and the purse would be far greater also. Given the way the WBC has behaved he'd be better off going the IBF route.

Fair point, and I completely understand that logic.
My issue with him going that route, is he constantly talks about desperately wanting to fight Wilder and wanting to prove he’s a top HW, fighting Ortiz would do both.
I always got the impression Whyte wanted to talk his way into a title shot and payday, and now when he has to actually EARN something the hard way, he’s looking for excuses.

[N/A]

Its not a lie its what WBC President told him.

I even saw the convo on twitter .


If the WBC would stop lying there would be no confusion .

Woah woah woah, even if we believe Eddie's story that he was told it was an eliminator and not a final eliminator, that would still mean Eddie is lying when he says Breazeale has never fought an eliminator. There's no way to defend Eddie here. He's caught in a blatant lie.

[uppercut510]

Its not a lie its what WBC President told him.

I even saw the convo on twitter .


If the WBC would stop lying there would be no confusion and everyone would have known it was a elimination fight for a title shot .

u see how you find any way to defend hearn???

[Holler]

Fair point, and I completely understand that logic.
My issue with him going that route, is he constantly talks about desperately wanting to fight Wilder and wanting to prove he’s a top HW, fighting Ortiz would do both.
I always got the impression Whyte wanted to talk his way into a title shot and payday, and now when he has to actually EARN something the hard way, he’s looking for excuses.

I think his case is that he's already earned his shot via the WBC and now a guy who is ranked below him has jumped his place in line.

I'd be happy to see him take on Ortiz, it sounds like a good fight. I wouldn't blame him if he went the IBF route however, because whatever the reasons behind the Breazeale fiasco it's difficult to argue that Whytes best interests are served by continuing down the WBC route.

[uppercut510]

Woah woah woah, even if we believe Eddie's story that he was told it was an eliminator and not a final eliminator, that would still mean Eddie is lying when he says Breazeale has never fought an eliminator. There's no way to defend Eddie here. He's caught in a blatant lie.

There is Eddie Hearn and then there is Jesus Christ, both of them are sinless....

[juggernaut666]

Woah woah woah, even if we believe Eddie's story that he was told it was an eliminator and not a final eliminator, that would still mean Eddie is lying when he says Breazeale has never fought an eliminator. There's no way to defend Eddie here. He's caught in a blatant lie.

Well thats FALSE .


Hearn can say that if thats what hes told .

The only one who switched stances here is the ACTUAL guy running things ,who is telling people different things..... LYING .........

The WBC President himself Mr. Sulaiman .



It doesn't matter what Hearn says after that bc its his JOB to work for his clients isnt it ?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I think his case is that he's already earned his shot via the WBC and now a guy who is ranked below him has jumped his place in line.

I'd be happy to see him take on Ortiz, it sounds like a good fight. I wouldn't blame him if he went the IBF route however, because whatever the reasons behind the Breazeale fiasco it's difficult to argue that Whytes best interests are served by continuing down the WBC route.

He has no case though, he hasn’t earned ****. He sc****d past Chisora beat a ambitionless Helenius and then beat an out of shape, inactive Browne. None of those fights were final eliminators, nor were they against top level HW’s. I don’t understand why Whyte feels so entitled, he should be grateful he’s getting an option of two final eliminator’s not whining cause he’s not been gifted the mandatory position.

I don’t have a problem with Pulev-Whyte either, it’s a solid fight and the winner deservedly earns the IBF mandatory. I just feel if Whyte chooses to fight Pulev over Ortiz it undermines a lot of statements he’s made about desperately wanting the Wilder fight and wanting to face the best available contenders.

[N/A]

Hearn can say that if thats what hes told .

But Hearn's claim is that he was told it was an eliminator and not a final eliminator. So even if we believe Hearn's side of the story, we know he's blatantly lying in this article when he says Breazeale never won an eliminator.

[juggernaut666]

u see how you find any way to defend hearn???

Im not defending Hearn you imbecile , im defending Breazeales right to be in a title fight due to legal stuff .


Hearn is wrong in this circumstances but its his job to fight for his fighters , its WBC Presidents fault for lying in the first place !

[N/A]

I think his case is that he's already earned his shot via the WBC and now a guy who is ranked below him has jumped his place in line.

But that's not true. Whyte has never fought in a final eliminator. So he never earned his shot. Being ranked #1 doesn't make you the mandatory. Winning a final eliminator makes you the mandatory. The WBC rules are very clear. It's just been Hearn misleading the public all this time, and possibly, misleading Whyte. I've pointed out over and over and over for six months that Whyte hasn't fought a final eliminator and was unlikely to be named mandatory without winning a final eliminator.