The one sided nature of the rematch clause is one of the things Wilder thought was unfair about Hearn's offer, but Wilder accepted the offer anyway. Wilder thought the flat fee was unfair, but he accepted anyway. He caved on every deal point as long as the fight was NEXT. When Hearn didn't keep his word about the fight being next, that's when the fight fell apart and Wilder was no longer willing to take a ****ty deal.
Hearn is a liar who shouldn't be trusted. But when Finkel insists that Wilder agreed to no rematch, and Hearn publicly admits Finkel is telling the truth, why should we believe YOU that Wilder wasn't willing to fight without a rematch?
I thought Hearn was a liar who shouldn't be trusted? Now you want to take what he says when it suits your argument?

Comment