Comments Thread For: Hearn: We Won't Give In, WBC Must Guarantee Whyte His Shot!

[Ray*]

Not sure why you're so angry and insulting me. You asked when Whyte turned down a final eliminator and I told you. Until Breazeale got his title shot, of course any final eliminator was going to be for the shot after Breazeale's. All this time later and Whyte is seeking a final eliminator to get the shot after Breazeale anyway, so wouldn't he have been better off accepting the final eliminator last year?

Apologies for throwing insults are you personally, just tired of people not able to comprehend the little fine prints. Not you personally but those that kept throwing the same thing out, fact was Whyte never turn down a “Final eliminator” that was fake news. Thus why not a single person has been able to prove otherwise. He turned down an offer of a second mandatory from the WBC.

Since that time he has had offer from the WBC to fight Breazeale and Fury, both falling by the side through Breazeale (Who Wilder later pick after Fury rematch didn’t work out), and Fury who later turn down the offer that he accepted.

That’s exactly how Breazeale got his mandatory shot. This why Team Whyte are trying to get the WBC to mandate this Rivas fight to be a “Final eliminator” just like they did for Breazeale against Molina (Wasn’t a Final eliminator until they were pressured by Team Breazeale into it.)

[MulaKO]

Apologies for throwing insults are you personally, just tired of people not able to comprehend the little fine prints. Not you personally but those that kept throwing the same thing out, fact was Whyte never turn down a “Final eliminator” that was fake news. Thus why not a single person has been able to prove otherwise. He turned down an offer of a second mandatory from the WBC.

Since that time he has had offer from the WBC to fight Breazeale and Fury, both falling by the side through Breazeale (Who Wilder later pick after Fury rematch didn’t work out), and Fury who later turn down the offer that he accepted.


That’s exactly how Breazeale got his mandatory shot. This why Team Whyte are trying to get the WBC to mandate this Rivas fight to be a “Final eliminator” just like they did for Breazeale against Molina (Wasn’t a Final eliminator until they were pressured by Team Breazeale into it.)

Isn’t the fight a final eliminator
I could of sworn that’s what I read
And now didn’t they throw in the diamond belt

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

Apologies for throwing insults are you personally, just tired of people not able to comprehend the little fine prints. Not you personally but those that kept throwing the same thing out, fact was Whyte never turn down a “Final eliminator” that was fake news. Thus why not a single person has been able to prove otherwise. He turned down an offer of a second mandatory from the WBC.

I think maybe some terms are being confused here. A final eliminator is a fight where the winner is guaranteed a title shot. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed the next title shot. If there's already a mandatory waiting, they'd be the next mandatory after that. Just because the Whyte vs. Ortiz winner would have been the mandatory after Breazeale doesn't mean it's not a final eliminator.

If you agree with Whyte's decision to turn down a final eliminator for an organization that already had a mandatory waiting, that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that he did turn down a final eliminator. He had a reason, maybe it was a good reason, but he still turned it down. Just like he had a reason for turning down the IBF final eliminator. Maybe it was a good reason, but he still turned it down.

Let's face it, if you feel you're a star, being a mandatory kind of sucks. You get a very small percentage of the purse. I'm not going to knock Whyte if he wants to try to build his name value to the point where he can get a voluntary shot for a higher percentage.

My only issue is that he's refusing to do what you're supposed to do to become mandatory, while trying to convince fans that he's somehow been wronged by not being named mandatory.

[Ray*]

Isn’t the fight a final eliminator
I could of sworn that’s what I read
And now didn’t they throw in the diamond belt

Not sure which fight you are referring to, but if it’s the Whyte/Ortiz one then no, it wasn’t a final eliminator nor was it for the diamond belt. They ordered it as a Secondary mandatory, which meant the winner might not even get their chance at the belt for up to three years.

The Fury/Whyte fight was meant to be for the diamond belt after Fury agreed to taking the Whyte fight of the WBC put that belt on the line, he then later pull out of that agreement when the WBC accept that request.

[Ray*]

I think maybe some terms are being confused here. A final eliminator is a fight where the winner is guaranteed a title shot. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed the next title shot. If there's already a mandatory waiting, they'd be the next mandatory after that. Just because the Whyte vs. Ortiz winner would have been the mandatory after Breazeale doesn't mean it's not a final eliminator.

If you agree with Whyte's decision to turn down a final eliminator for an organization that already had a mandatory waiting, that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that he did turn down a final eliminator. He had a reason, maybe it was a good reason, but he still turned it down. Just like he had a reason for turning down the IBF final eliminator. Maybe it was a good reason, but he still turned it down.

Let's face it, if you feel you're a star, being a mandatory kind of sucks. You get a very small percentage of the purse. I'm not going to knock Whyte if he wants to try to build his name value to the point where he can get a voluntary shot for a higher percentage.

My only issue is that he's refusing to do what you're supposed to do to become mandatory, while trying to convince fans that he's somehow been wronged by not being named mandatory.

Again show us where Whyte turned down a “Final eliminator” from the WBC. A secondary mandatory iS NOT a final eliminator. It seems you guys are either supporting corruption by the WBC or playing some type of game because the person Whyte has to fight is called Wilder.

Either way all you guys statement is baffling. None of you can still produce a single article but you claimed Whyte turned down a “Final eliminator”

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

Again show us where Whyte turned down a “Final eliminator” from the WBC. A secondary mandatory iS NOT a final eliminator.

I just explained this to you. A final eliminator is a fight where the winner is guaranteed a title shot. It doesn't necessarily guarantee the next title shot. If an organization already has a mandatory contender waiting for their shot, they can still hold a final eliminator to determine who gets the shot after that.

For instance, when you win a vacant WBC world title, you're often ordered to make two consecutive mandatory defenses. The WBC will often name a mandatory contender, but also hold a final eliminator to determine the second mandatory.

So when you say it's not a final eliminator because the winner is becoming a second mandatory, you're incorrect. It's still a final eliminator. You appear to be confused about what final eliminator means. It simply means the winner is guaranteed a shot. If someone is already in line in front of them, they have to wait, but they're still guaranteed a shot.

Assuming Whyte would have beaten Ortiz last year, he'd now be the next mandatory, instead of still sitting here waiting to fight a final eliminator. He wouldn't need to ask for the Rivas fight to be a final eliminator because he would have already won one.

[Ray*]

I just explained this to you. A final eliminator is a fight where the winner is guaranteed a title shot.

So when you say it's not a final eliminator because the winner is becoming a second mandatory, you're incorrect. It's still a final eliminator. You appear to be confused about what final eliminator means.

.

A final eliminator is a final eliminator, not a secondary mandatory. You are definitely either confused or uneducated sorry.

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

A final eliminator is a final eliminator, not a secondary mandatory. You are definitely either confused or uneducated sorry.

Ray, with all due respect, neither you nor I get to decide what these terms mean. The sanctioning bodies invented the term "final eliminator" to mean a fight where the winner is guaranteed a world title shot. If the division already had a mandatory contender waiting for their shot, of course the winner of the final eliminator has to wait for the second shot.

If it's your opinion that sanctioning bodies shouldn't call it a "final eliminator" if the winner has to wait in line for the second shot, I understand that position. But what things should be and what things are can be different things. It's a matter of fact that a fight is still called a final eliminator even if the winner has to wait for a previous mandatory to get their shot first.

[Ray*]

Ray, with all due respect, neither you nor I get to decide what these terms mean. The sanctioning bodies invented the term "final eliminator" to mean a fight where the winner is guaranteed a world title shot. If the division already had a mandatory contender waiting for their shot, of course the winner of the final eliminator has to wait for the second shot.

If it's your opinion that sanctioning bodies shouldn't call it a "final eliminator" if the winner has to wait in line for the second shot, I understand that position. But what things should be and what things are can be different things. It's a matter of fact that a fight is still called a final eliminator even if the winner has to wait for a previous mandatory to get their shot first.

Darth...It's in the name "Secondary Mandatory"...........Thats what he was offered. I can show you a video of that street youtube guy asking the WBC a direct question on if Breazeale/Molina winner would be a straight mando for Wilder and he danced around it like you are doing now.

Secondary mandatory...

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

Darth...It's in the name "Secondary Mandatory"...........Thats what he was offered. I can show you a video of that street youtube guy asking the WBC a direct question on if Breazeale/Molina winner would be a straight mando for Wilder and he danced around it like you are doing now.

Secondary mandatory...

https://www.boxingscene.com/wbc-prez...inator--132606

"We will welcome that [Whyte-Ortiz] and do a final elimination for the second mandatory, while we address Breazeale," Sulaiman told Sky Sports.

"I truly believe Dillian Whyte is very much deserving of the No 1 position where he is ranked. Dominic Breazeale is a mandatory contender for specific circumstances, which happened last year, and that's the bottom line."



It's not an either/or situation. Whyte vs. Ortiz was ordered as a final eliminator, which means a fight where the winner is guaranteed a title shot. Since the division already had an existing mandatory, that means the winner of the final eliminator would be the second mandatory.

I'm not sure what's confusing you at this point. You seem to believe "final eliminator" means "winner gets next shot." That's not what it means. It means "winner gets a shot."