Are rematch clauses a con? Cowardly? Should they work both ways?

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

The fighters are just pawns in a promoter's quest to gain and maintain world championships. Pretty much every voluntary defense is going to have a rematch clause because the promoter wants to minimize the risk of losing control of a world title.

[W1LL]

Also tbh Ruiz hasn't really been asking for a rematch either, does he actually even want one? So there's that.

[Earl-Hickey]

Yeah he half heartedly postures about it in the ring after then never said much else about it.

Let's be clear, at this time Ruiz doesn't really want a rematch, that much is obvious. Tbh I doubt he really even truly wants to be in the sport anymore.

Your feelings on Joshua are clear but base your arguments in something that is worth discussing.

[deathofaclown]

Every case is different but like Joshua versus Ruiz for example, With Joshua being clearly the A side, they are always going to get the rematch with everything in their own advantage, but that’s the privilege you get when you have worked or done something right to be the clear A side.

But it’s boxing politics. It’s a business first and sport second.

Like Canelo hasn’t been keen on giving GGG a rematch even though most felt he lost the fights, but he would’ve been straight into a rematch had the judges not given him the the decision.


On the flipside, I quite admire Floyd Mayweather. He gave Maidana and Castillo rematches when he didn’t have to and he could’ve took the win and run with it.

I would personally like to get rid of rematch clauses because it stops people using it to their advantage for boxing politics , and if the first fight was that great anyway, the public demand and money will be there for a rematch naturally. Or if the fight is deemed to be a controversial decision, then let the sanctioning bodies order a rematch, if it’s for a title

[KillaMane26]

Is it revenge though, or insecurity? How can a man say "No doubt in my mind, I am supremely confident, I am going to crush/outbox/humble/KTFO my opponent", then in the next breath, "Rematch clause just incase doe!"

But is it the fighter or his team? The fighter is most likely full of pride and his team has to look out for his future and protect their investment.

[STREET CLEANER]

From a business standpoint it makes sense for the losing fighter since the financial would be set up. The financial security for the opposing fighter are good enough that they sign for it.

In the case of Wilder he had no where to go. The clause guaranteed him a high profile fight.

Jrock did not go with the rematch clause with Rosario.

[Vlad_]

A champion deserves a chance to get his belts back if he loses.

Close fights also warrant a rematch.

[Marchegiano]

1./ Are rematch clauses a con? Cowardly? How can someone be supremely confident, if they need a rematch clause?

2./ Should rematch clauses work both ways? How is it fair for them to only work one way?

3./ Should the rematch clause be scrapped all together?

-----

Some examples to this nonsense:

AJ got leathered by fatty Ruiz. AJ then forced the rematch through a clause, and won the rematch very unconvincingly, after fatty Ruiz had been living like he'd won the lottery for 6 months. AJ ran for the hills, not wanting to see fatty in the opposing corner ever again. I'm not the only one who'd like to have seen AJ-Ruiz III, with Ruiz actually motivated, but there's zero chance. You often see this nonsense happen, no doubt they will do the same between Whyte and Povetkin. If there's a rematch clause in fight I, should there be an automatic rule, Fighter A can have his rematch (fight II), but only if Fighter B gets a rematch clause in the rematch (potential fight III). That would be fair.

Another example, at the opposite end of the scale, is Fury and Wilder. Fury beat Wilder clear in fight I but got robbed of the victory. I am surprised team Wilder even took fight II, but they did, and justice was served in emphatic fashion. Fury crushed Wilder, making it 2 wins out of 2 for him. Now, we have a rematch clause which Wilder is apparently going to take, making for a fight III that nobody cares to see. Wilder was outclassed for the majority of the first two fights, he is clearly levels below the Gypsy King, and his only chance is a lottery punch. But alas, rematch clauses doe.

I would like to hear people's opinions on the rematch clause.

I don't want to accuse anyone specifically, but, boxing invented that WWE **** and I am always skeptical of my era because of it.

I am not arrogant enough to believe my eyes don't betray anymore than my grandfather's or his grandfather's. Not arrogant or naive enough to believe we now live in an era of clean, fair, true fights exclusively either.

So, I'm sure there are fixes that get by me. There's pretty obvious ones but those are hardly meaningful fixes.

I'm also sure trying to catch the fixers is beyond the fan perspective so any fan who tries to catch every fix is just a fool on a fool's errand.

That said, rematch clauses seem fishy as **** to me. Because if I was going to write a script trying to get the most out of my characters I'd do it exactly like that. 1 losses to 2 then 2 to 1 then 1 finally gets him in the end.

Um

Red Ranger bodied Green early, got bodied in the middle of the arc, then went and bodied that fool at the end. That's uh, power rangers bull****. That's a basic ass arc loads of basic ass hero stories use, and, it works well in boxing too. All you gotta do is believe those fights were authentic.

Fury got a Draw, then a KTFO, if he loses I might brag but there is a side of me that reckons this here is some bull Tyson and Deontay came up with to make that Joshua money.

If they both come out of it making more money then they did when they went in who really loses?

If they both can go from here to Joshua and they both have a good reason for Joshua to break bread on an even level then who the **** lost here but Joshua?

Plenty of ifs, and I really don't think these two are fakers, I'm just saying there is plenty to be suspect of and rematch clauses always make me suspect.


Gonna fight a walk like Rahman? Maybe lay down for him since he doesn't bring much draw then the rematch will make bank. Probably not, but, maybe.

[boliodogs]

Champion boxers are never cowardly. Those two things don't go together. If a man was cowardly how in hell could he become a champion boxer? Some boxers are braver than others but NONE of them are cowardly or they would not fight for a living. They are all warriors much braver than most people.

[champion4ever]

Every voluntary defense deserves a rematch clause. It should be the way of the world. Mandatory challenges are different.