Comments Thread For: Arum: Crawford-Horn Has No Rematch Clause, Winner is 147 Star

[Redgloveman]

Doubtful. More likely, neither guy really wants to fight the other again, because they both know it's a career shortening fight either way.

A rematch clause is essentially an insurance policy. You don't take out insurance expecting the worst to happen, you take it in case that thing happens. For example, what if Terrance Crawford gets disqualified? Horn is not obliged to fight him again. What if Crawford gets stopped due to a cut or suffers a freak injury in the ring (see Haye v Bellew for a recent example of this happening) Horn could just say "I won, you lost" and refuse to fight again. It could take years for Crawford to get another shot.

Further to this, a rematch clause does not apply unless it is activated. It gives a fighter a RIGHT to a rematch, not an obligation. So all in all, there's no reason why a fighter or their advisers would prefer NOT to have a rematch clause; if they didn't want to fight again they wouldn't have to, but they would have the option to if it was desired. The only reason you would not include a rematch clause is where the bargaining strength of the parties is roughly equivalent or where a rematch clause would stop a fight from being made.

[rickJen]

Wow. Bobfather the king of trilogies, quadrologies...
No rematch clause, eh?
Kills me.

[Joime]

christ chino is one bad assss ma fuuuucka, miss that dude

Hahaha, you got to follow him on IG, man. Chinomaidana1. Dude is always in LV, drinking, shooting ducks and eating lobster. Living the life. I miss him too though, but I’m really happy for him. He deserves his millions.

[RyanjLarose]

Hahaha, you got to follow him on IG, man. Chinomaidana1. Dude is always in LV, drinking, shooting ducks and eating lobster. Living the life.

i am going to do that right now lol good looking out

[Combat Talk Radio]

A rematch clause is essentially an insurance policy. You don't take out insurance expecting the worst to happen, you take it in case that thing happens. For example, what if Terrance Crawford gets disqualified? Horn is not obliged to fight him again. What if Crawford gets stopped due to a cut or suffers a freak injury in the ring (see Haye v Bellew for a recent example of this happening) Horn could just say "I won, you lost" and refuse to fight again. It could take years for Crawford to get another shot.

I understand that, but consider the flip and how it affects the Court of Public Opinion.

Manny had a rematch clause. Horn called for Manny to take it. Manny ducked it. Horn got to call Manny a ducker and a coward, because that's what he is, meanwhile his fans make excuses for his cowardice in ducking.

With no rematch clause, Horn can say, "I won, you lost" and it's in the books. Crawford can't be considered a ducker, because even if he wanted a rematch he can't get it immediately, he goes back in line to earn it by beating other fighters. The way it should be.

See, I don't care if a fight gets stopped on cuts or whatever. Who cares. I care whose hand gets raised at the end of the night. I don't like a draw, I don't like a NC, none of that crap. I want a winner - however that winner - and I don't want the "I get a rematch just because we agreed to it". You lost. Go to the back of the line, beat quality fighters and earn a later rematch.

Now, the stakes are even higher. Now, if Crawford does beat this man with ease like everyone thinks, great. Horn goes to obscurity and has to earn his way back up, like Shannon Briggs did after losing to Vitali, or fades away and classifies himself as obsolete like Buster Douglas did after losing to Holyfield.

That's how we know who's really in the game - how they deal with adversity instead of being handed guaranteed rematches. I don't want another Pacquiao/Marquez or Pacquiao/Bradley or Pacquiao/Morales or Pacquiao/Barrera situation. There are too many other matchups for endless rematching.

So all in all, there's no reason why a fighter or their advisers would prefer NOT to have a rematch clause; if they didn't want to fight again they wouldn't have to, but they would have the option to if it was desired.

Same applies without the clause, except that the loser now has to earn it. Which I prefer.

[PoserExposer]

One is a star, he other one is substitute teacher.

[chaosisme]

One is a star, he other one is substitute teacher.

Sure, people who follow boxing know who Crawford is. Walk down the street and ask 100 random people who he is and I bet most people will have no clue. I'm not knocking the guy either, it can be said about pretty much any boxer who isn't Mayweather. The average person doesn't even know who Canelo is (in my experiences), nevermind Terrence Crawford.

[bluebeam]

A rematch clause is essentially an insurance policy. You don't take out insurance expecting the worst to happen, you take it in case that thing happens. For example, what if Terrance Crawford gets disqualified? Horn is not obliged to fight him again. What if Crawford gets stopped due to a cut or suffers a freak injury in the ring (see Haye v Bellew for a recent example of this happening) Horn could just say "I won, you lost" and refuse to fight again. It could take years for Crawford to get another shot.

Further to this, a rematch clause does not apply unless it is activated. It gives a fighter a RIGHT to a rematch, not an obligation. So all in all, there's no reason why a fighter or their advisers would prefer NOT to have a rematch clause; if they didn't want to fight again they wouldn't have to, but they would have the option to if it was desired. The only reason you would not include a rematch clause is where the bargaining strength of the parties is roughly equivalent or where a rematch clause would stop a fight from being made.

you got it mixed up

Horn is the champion, not crawford.


the rematch clause would have meant that horn got an automatic rematch if he loss to crawford.

[Redgloveman]

you got it mixed up

Horn is the champion, not crawford.


the rematch clause would have meant that horn got an automatic rematch if he loss to crawford.

A rematch clause doesn't necessarily benefit the champion. Either fighter can have a rematch clause depending on how the contract is drafted

[Biolink]

None necessary. Bud all day