Should Fast Eddie Have Seen The Okey-Doke Coming?

[SthPaw]

AJ goes from having two massive options to one massive option.

AJ goes from having incredible leverage with both massive options to far less leverage with the one massive option.

Wilder and Fury likely fight a rematch next year, and possibly a trilogy fight if they split the first two fights. While AJ is stuck in mandatory purgatory.

AJ can only keep his momentum for so long if all of the most interesting heavyweight fights don't involve him.

This is what a lot of the AJ protectors and Hearn fans turn a blind eye too. Just because AJ has the belts and fills up the crowds doesn’t mean he’s on the straight and narrow path to guaranteed glory. The game moves on and if he fights another fight or two that isn’t as crowd pleasing, such as his last two, while other big names are willing to duke it out; watch the casuals get bored and then what? All their casual arguments: He’s still relevant, sure, he’d have most of the belts, sure, he’d have millions upon millions, sure...but what does it all really mean after your star has faded and jaded purely down to the fact you aren’t as respected as the others.

Eddie Hearns slippy salesman personality has become too much and AJ’s fake humble image has become stale...he’s not humble, his team has a muzzle on him coz they want to be careful, there’s a difference.

It will go stale for AJ and co. if this type of thing carries on another year or so.

[KTFOKING]

And AJ was a bigger name than Wilder is now. AJ wouldn't have gotten the Klitschko fight without a two fight deal and Wilder wouldn't have gotten the Fury fight without a two fight deal. Welcome to boxing.




Thank you for your uneducated inexperienced amateur opinion.

Wilder could have fought Breazeale in a fight that wouldn't excite the public or he could try to become lineal champion in the biggest fight of his career with the only downside being a rematch, which would still be bigger than anything else available.

So what exactly is the problem here?

He's not fighting AJ in April regardless. He's moved on. AJ is with DAZN now. DAZN can't pay what the fight is worth.

Holy cow, you try to attack all the time without even knowing what the hell the other person is saying.

Um, when exactly did I say he could fight Breazeale? When did I say Wilder should NOT fight Fury? Please point that out to me.

I said Wilder had more leverage than Fury and could have demanded a rematch clause if he lost, but didn't have to give one to Fury. That's EXACTLY what should have happened. This way he could have gone into negotiations with Joshua with the rematch still in his pocket and used that as leverage in the negotiations. Either you give me 45% split or else I fight Fury in a rematch and make 20+ million. Now, even if he wins and wants to at least entertain fighting Joshua in April, it won't matter if Fury exercises his rematch clause.

And Joshua is on DAZN for his fight vs Povetkin but didn't sign no deal with them. The fight with Joshua will be on PPV even in the afternoon in the states, not on DAZN. Hearn wanted the Wilder fight on DAZN and I pointed that out in a thread I made two months ago, but he knows if Wilder/Fury do solid PPV numbers, there isn't a chance in hell the Joshua fight takes place outside of SHO PPV.

Wilder unnecessarily lost a bit of leverage he could have had. Shame.

[N/A]

I said Wilder had more leverage than Fury and could have demanded a rematch clause if he lost, but didn't have to give one to Fury.

Yes, I understood exactly what you're saying. You're just wrong. Fury wouldn't have gone to Vegas without a rematch clause.

[KTFOKING]

Yes, I understood exactly what you're saying. You're just wrong. Fury wouldn't have gone to Vegas without a rematch clause.

Oh he wouldn't? You know that how? Why wouldn't he fight in Vegas? Dude went to Germany for Klitschko and has never been against fighting in the states. Wilder was the champion with more status compared to Fury who was just returning from his 2.5 year hiatus. Sorry, but Wilder absolutely had more leverage here and didn't have to give up the rematch clause.

But lets see what happens. There may not be a rematch clause from Fury's side, or possibly there could be an out allowing Wilder to fight someone else before rematching Fury. Haymon is a smart guy, lets sit back and see how it unfolds.

[N/A]

Oh he wouldn't? You know that how?

Because while you're an uneducated inexperienced amateur with zero insight, I've worked behind the scenes in combat sports for decades, including for Showtime Sports, and have spoken to people who were involved in the negotiations. Which is how I know about the mutual rematch clause, as well as the positions each side took in negotiations.

Why wouldn't he fight in Vegas? Dude went to Germany for Klitschko and has never been against fighting in the states.

He was a mandatory and had no choice but to go to Germany for Klitschko. Now he's the lineal champion and has far more leverage than a mandatory. There was no reason to rush into the Wilder fight unless he was being given a great deal. 50/50 and a rematch clause was a great deal, so he took it. Fury has plainly stated publicly he took the deal because Wilder chose to treat him as a fellow champion and not a voluntary. There's no way this fight would have happened next if Wilder insisted on it being in the US with no rematch clause for Fury.

Wilder was the champion with more status compared to Fury who was just returning from his 2.5 year hiatus. Sorry, but Wilder absolutely had more leverage here and didn't have to give up the rematch clause.

Having more leverage got the fight to Vegas, but you can only push so far. I understand that in your uneducated inexperienced amateur opinion based on zero insight that you believe Fury would have signed without a rematch clause. If that was true, Wilder wouldn't have offered one. His manager is the most successful manager in heavyweight history. His adviser is the most successful adviser in boxing history. It's possible they know better than you.

But lets see what happens. There may not be a rematch clause from Fury's side

Wrong. I'm telling you as fact that both sides have the option for a rematch if they want it. If Wilder wins the first fight, he'd have the lion's share in the second fight, and it would be by far a bigger payday than anything else that would be available other than AJ and he's not going to fight AJ on a flat fee. So he literally had nothing to lose by giving Fury a rematch as it would be the most lucrative realistic fight anyway.

[Enzo Mc is SHIT]

None of this matters to Eddie and Joshua. It's embarrassing in the boxing world but the AJ/Matchroom audience is casuals who will fill Wembley next month and again in April to see Joshua fight lesser opponents who will accept less money.

[KTFOKING]

Because while you're an uneducated inexperienced amateur with zero insight, I've worked behind the scenes in combat sports for decades, including for Showtime Sports, and have spoken to people who were involved in the negotiations. Which is how I know about the mutual rematch clause, as well as the positions each side took in negotiations.




He was a mandatory and had no choice but to go to Germany for Klitschko. Now he's the lineal champion and has far more leverage than a mandatory. There was no reason to rush into the Wilder fight unless he was being given a great deal. 50/50 and a rematch clause was a great deal, so he took it. Fury has plainly stated publicly he took the deal because Wilder chose to treat him as a fellow champion and not a voluntary. There's no way this fight would have happened next if Wilder insisted on it being in the US with no rematch clause for Fury.




Having more leverage got the fight to Vegas, but you can only push so far. I understand that in your uneducated inexperienced amateur opinion based on zero insight that you believe Fury would have signed without a rematch clause. If that was true, Wilder wouldn't have offered one. His manager is the most successful manager in heavyweight history. His adviser is the most successful adviser in boxing history. It's possible they know better than you.




Wrong. I'm telling you as fact that both sides have the option for a rematch if they want it. If Wilder wins the first fight, he'd have the lion's share in the second fight, and it would be by far a bigger payday than anything else that would be available other than AJ and he's not going to fight AJ on a flat fee. So he literally had nothing to lose by giving Fury a rematch as it would be the most lucrative realistic fight anyway.

"Uneducated inexperienced amateur" ha! How many more times are you going to keep saying that?

You worked behind the scenes and have talked to people involved in negotiations? Cool, like I said we will let it play out. You could be right, or not. Sorry, not going to just take your word as if it is the end all be all here. If you are proven right, then you will gain more credibility.

Again, you have no idea if the fight would have happened or not have happened if Fury took the fight in the US without a rematch clause. The man got a freaking 50/50 split with potentially being able to make 15+ million. That's more than enough reasons to make the fight happen.

He took it because Wilder treated him fairly? Great!!!! I'm sure Wilder did treat him great by just looking at the even split. But at the current state of when this deal was being negotiated, Fury had only one tune up fight and was nowhere close to taking on a big name. Fury must feel like Wilder is tailor made for him with his style and he will be able to out box him. That to go along with the split would be enticing enough.

AND HE WOULDN'T BE FIGHTING AJ ON A FLAT FEE IF HE BEATS FURY. Coming from a "insider," surprised you would say something so ******. Hearn himself admits if Wilder beats Fury and does good numbers he will have way more leverage the flat fee offer wouldn't fly anymore. That's the whole damn point. LEVERAGE. Wilder would be able to go into negotiations with AJ with the Fury rematch as his Ace card. Could end up with damn near a 55/45 split with it. But that goes out the window if Fury exercises the rematch clause.

[N/A]

"Uneducated inexperienced amateur" ha! How many more times are you going to keep saying that?

I will post it every time you post something that is 100% wrong.

Having absolutely no idea if it's true or not, you insist Wilder didn't have to give a rematch.

Knowing 100% for sure that you're wrong, I point out that Fury wouldn't have taken the fight otherwise.

One of us has knowledge, experience, education and insight. The other has none of that. One of us has a way of knowing what Fury's demands were. The other has no way of knowing.

[KTFOKING]

I will post it every time you post something that is 100% wrong.

Having absolutely no idea if it's true or not, you insist Wilder didn't have to give a rematch.

Knowing 100% for sure that you're wrong, I point out that Fury wouldn't have taken the fight otherwise.

One of us has knowledge, experience, education and insight. The other has none of that. One of us has a way of knowing what Fury's demands were. The other has no way of knowing.

You have so much insight yet you said one of the dumbest things you could say by stating Wilder wouldn't take a flat fee vs Joshua for the potential April showdown. Great insight there!

Again, you may be right but you aren't getting that credit until it plays out just that way.

[N/A]

You have so much insight yet you said one of the dumbest things you could say by stating Wilder wouldn't take a flat fee vs Joshua for the potential April showdown. Great insight there!

Again, you may be right but you aren't getting that credit until it plays out just that way.

I don't care about credit. I just care about getting paypal'd every month.

As long as I post accurate info, it doesn't matter to me who believes me. You're free to wait and see how it plays out. I was the first one on the site pushing for Wilder/Fury to be next while the UK fans insisted Breazeale was already signed. We see how that played out.

I was the one insisting over and over that Breazeale was fighting a final eliminator while the UK fans insisted he wasn't. We see how that played out. I was the one pointing out repeatedly that Whyte wasn't the mandatory, that Hearn was lying, and that Whyte would have to fight a final eliminator to get a title shot. Six months later we saw that I was right.