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

[Redgloveman]

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.



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

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I totally get where you're coming from.

If the fighters are well-advised and sensible though I still believe a rematch clause in a big fight is a good protection to have (and I understand why Mayweather, for example, would always insist on them). I agree with you in that I don't like them - but if I was a fighter I would insist on having one wherever possible.

That's because losses are (wrongly in my opinion) considered more damaging than ever these days to a fighter's career trajectory and fighters are becoming increasingly aware that their careers are short and unforgiving (not to mention potentially hazardous to their longterm health). It could take a fighter years and many gruelling bouts to return to their peak earning power after a loss. A chance to redeem themselves in rematches is hugely important in terms of money and - if the fighters have reached such a height that money isn't an issue - legacy.

Lewis v Rahman is the best example I can think of. Lewis had to go to court to force the rematch. Imagine what his legacy would be like if he never got the chance to knock Rahman out, which is what would have happened if he didn't have the rematch clause.

[Kcvtr81]

Don't sleep on Jeff horn that boy is tough and we've seen bud put on Bambi legs before by a shot from Gamboa