The **BOXING** thread Vol 2
Discussion
hornetrider said:
m4tti said:
Although watch him training there... 51 fekkin years old!!! Incredible
I'd take him.Out for a pint.
m4tti said:
hornetrider said:
m4tti said:
Although watch him training there... 51 fekkin years old!!! Incredible
I'd take him.Out for a pint.
Benn Junior vs Eubank Junior could well be a massive happening in 5 or 6 years, Benn Jr is some way behind Eubank but looks immensely talented and if an Olympic place isn't forthcoming I imagine he'll turn pro without a second thought - it would certainly catch the public's imagination.
Well, it looks like Tyson Fury has well and truly entered the public consciousness, he even got onto Jeremy Vine's phone in yesterday... It's a bit of a shame that with all the success and celebration in British boxing this year it should be Tyson Fury who is chosen to be the farce of it.
Fury stripped of his IBF belt, for not facing their mandatory challenger Vyacheslav Glazkov
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35047606
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35047606
^^^^^
This is why Joe Public have lost faith in the sport. The guy has just toppled the champ of circa 10 years and within two weeks one of the governing bodies of the sport has stripped him of a title.
The re-match was in the contract and was taken up by WK so thinking rationally why not postpone the mandatory defense until after the re-match. I'm sure some financial incentive could have been mediated fairly easily.
Cynically I don't think the IBF would have been so quick to strip WK if he missed one of his mandatory challengers.
Anyway onwards and upwards, I'm thoroughly looking forwards to AJ vs. Whyte this weekend. The possibility of Khan vs. Brook grows as well which is sensible for both parties seeing that neither of them have been able to secure a big name fight for early next year yet.
This is why Joe Public have lost faith in the sport. The guy has just toppled the champ of circa 10 years and within two weeks one of the governing bodies of the sport has stripped him of a title.
The re-match was in the contract and was taken up by WK so thinking rationally why not postpone the mandatory defense until after the re-match. I'm sure some financial incentive could have been mediated fairly easily.
Cynically I don't think the IBF would have been so quick to strip WK if he missed one of his mandatory challengers.
Anyway onwards and upwards, I'm thoroughly looking forwards to AJ vs. Whyte this weekend. The possibility of Khan vs. Brook grows as well which is sensible for both parties seeing that neither of them have been able to secure a big name fight for early next year yet.
The IBF (in my mind) are possibly the most reputable organisation in that they force their champs to take on mandatory challengers more often and more quickly. I suspect Fury will have been offered quite a reasonable time frame to take on Glaskov (maybe within 6 months or so - I'm guessing) and turned it down. I can see both sides of the argument, it must be pretty s
tty to spend a couple of years sitting as a mandatory challenger and being over looked for other more lucrative fights. So Fury has decided to vacate I prefer to think rather than the IBF "stripping" him.
tty to spend a couple of years sitting as a mandatory challenger and being over looked for other more lucrative fights. So Fury has decided to vacate I prefer to think rather than the IBF "stripping" him. FredClogs said:
The IBF (in my mind) are possibly the most reputable organisation in that they force their champs to take on mandatory challengers more often and more quickly. I suspect Fury will have been offered quite a reasonable time frame to take on Glaskov (maybe within 6 months or so - I'm guessing) and turned it down. I can see both sides of the argument, it must be pretty stty to spend a couple of years sitting as a mandatory challenger and being over looked for other more lucrative fights. So Fury has decided to vacate I prefer to think rather than the IBF "stripping" him.
To be honest, I'm struggling with this one. I can understand the IBF wishing Fury to fulfil his mandatory defence before taking a voluntary and as the IBF have determined that their #1 challenger is Glazkov, not Klitschko, the re-match would not fulfil that mandatory obligation. You can say it's a bit dogmatic of the IBF, but so be it if they are the rules.tty to spend a couple of years sitting as a mandatory challenger and being over looked for other more lucrative fights. So Fury has decided to vacate I prefer to think rather than the IBF "stripping" him. However, as I understand it, for a new Heavyweight champion, they have 12 months to fulfil that mandatory obligation. So, if the IBF don't want Fury making a voluntary defence of his title prior to fulfilling his mandatory, why can't they just simply not sanction the Klitschko re-match? As long as Fury's first defence of the IBF belt is against Glazkov and as long as it's within 12 months of him winning it, wouldn't that fulfil their requirements...?
I know it's different circumstances but when Lamont Peterson fought Lucas Matthysse, he was holding the IBF Light Welterweight belt he won off Amir Khan. However, as that was a non-title bout, Peterson remained champion despite the loss and went on to defend it a couple more times after that. As such, it's not unheard of for the IBF to allow a champion to fight in a non-sanctioned bout and still retain their belt...
Well the fact that WK has a rematch clause in all his fight contracts suggests that if he was to be beaten a rematch was inevitable. So surely the various governing bodies should have been aware of this and sounded out about potential deferment of mandatory matches when the contract negotiations were ongoing. A scenario such as IBF, WBO, WBA mandatories getting a go at the winner of the re-match could have been worked so the mandatories still get a title shot and then they just need to work out the ordering of the matches with the Champions schedule.
Don't get me wrong I understand the other side of the story too. I'd be most disappointed if I was sitting as number 1 contender and didn't get my shot at the title or was made to wait a long time for it.
In this case though I'd be really hacked off if I was in the Fury camp. Win the title, get two weeks of it and then have it stripped even though I've agreed a match with a guy who was the reigning champ and belt holder for years.
Don't get me wrong I understand the other side of the story too. I'd be most disappointed if I was sitting as number 1 contender and didn't get my shot at the title or was made to wait a long time for it.
In this case though I'd be really hacked off if I was in the Fury camp. Win the title, get two weeks of it and then have it stripped even though I've agreed a match with a guy who was the reigning champ and belt holder for years.
hornetrider said:
Quite frankly I find the whole situation ridiculous. Surely they must account for the re-match clauses in the event a reigning champion gets beaten.
Well, I've been mulling this over and I'm now starting to come to the conclusion that the fighters themselves are as much to blame for the situation as the IBF...Taking the above point first; as far as I know re-match clauses are negotiated between the two fighters and therefore aren't directly the concern of the sanctioning bodies. As such, in itself there is no particular reason why the IBF should have to change or suspend its rules due to a private arrangement made between Fury and Klitschko (and let's be frank here, when Wladimir Klitschko looks to have re-match clauses insterted into contracts it's because he's looking out for the interests of one person...Wladimir Klitschko).
This is exacerbated by two further points...
Firstly, as far as I can figure out, there was no particular imperative for Fury to agree to a re-match clause; he was the mandatory challenger, so it's not as if he was forced into that agreement to secure his title shot as would have been the case if it were a voluntary defence (where Wlad could say 'agree to my terms or take a hike'). Therefore, I can only assume there was some form of incentive for Fury to do so; in which case he was agreeing to it when looking out for his own best interests.
Secondly, Fury was the WBO's mandatory challenger, not the IBF's; indeed, I think the most recent IBF selected challenger was Kubrat Pulev over a year ago.
All in all, then, the IBF had already waited their turn in respect of the mandatory defence, rather than enforcing their standard 12-month timeframe, and were then expected to allow a further suspension of their rules to facilitate an arrangement negotiated between two fighters for the benefit of those two fighters themselves...and, we can probably assume, without prior reference to the IBF (otherwise we would probably have heard about the issue prior to the fight, or quite possibly there wouldn't have been an issue if the IBF had given their support to a re-match). So I can understand why the IBF might not be feeling under any great moral obligation at least to show further flexibility.
Therefore, it would seem to leave a pragmatic decision to be made by the IBF (assuming there isn't any overriding legal requirements); I.e. they are free to make a decision based what's in their best interests. On the one hand, they might have been in line for greater sanctioning fees if the WBC model of charging according to size of the fight applies here. On the other hand, tying in with FredClog's point above, it's in the IBF's interests to demonstrate that they give fair and reasonable access to their titles...this ensures promoters/managers continue to direct fighters down the IBF path, which in turn builds the IBF's profile and reputation, as well as generating sanction fees as up-and-coming fighters go after the lesser IBF titles to climb the organisation's rankings. So it looks like they're going with option b...and I daresay not having their title around the waist of someone whose personal views may not be particularly popular or be reported in the best light might just be an added bonus for them!
That said, it would still have been nice for the IBF to have acted to keep the belts together...but I can understand why they may have come to the decision they did.
Edited by Yiliterate on Wednesday 9th December 17:41
Ignore the above bit about sanctioning bodies not caring about re-match agreements. I've just been reading the IBF website and they do have specific clauses covering re-matches. The thing is, having done so, I'm really struggling to see how this came about in the first place!
The IBF states that contracts for championship fights aren't allowed to have re-match clauses that interfere with mandatory defences.
To my way of thinking, the only way round that would be a) if the re-match clause made no reference to involving the belts (or at least the IBF belt) or b) that the re-match clause wouldn't stand in the way of the mandatory defence. However, it can't be the first because the IBF heavyweight champion can't fight at heavyweight without it being a title fight - as per the Lamont Peterson example above, the only way they can get round that is by fighting at a weight above their title weight and obviously you can't do that as a heavyweight. But...I can't see it being the second either because the triggering of the clause quite clearly has interfered with the mandatory defence!!!
I'd presume that if the IBF has such a requirement, it would get sight of the contracts prior to sanctioning the fight...if that's the case, why has this only become an issue post-fight and since WK exercised the option, rather than at time of signing the contracts??? The only thing I can think of is the terms of the clause meant it might not necessarily be an issue re the mandatory defence (e.g. if it could be triggered at any stage within, say, the next 18 months, that would mean the mandatory could have taken place before being exercised) but that seems pretty flimsy to me! Maybe one best left to the lawyers then...!
The IBF states that contracts for championship fights aren't allowed to have re-match clauses that interfere with mandatory defences.
To my way of thinking, the only way round that would be a) if the re-match clause made no reference to involving the belts (or at least the IBF belt) or b) that the re-match clause wouldn't stand in the way of the mandatory defence. However, it can't be the first because the IBF heavyweight champion can't fight at heavyweight without it being a title fight - as per the Lamont Peterson example above, the only way they can get round that is by fighting at a weight above their title weight and obviously you can't do that as a heavyweight. But...I can't see it being the second either because the triggering of the clause quite clearly has interfered with the mandatory defence!!!
I'd presume that if the IBF has such a requirement, it would get sight of the contracts prior to sanctioning the fight...if that's the case, why has this only become an issue post-fight and since WK exercised the option, rather than at time of signing the contracts??? The only thing I can think of is the terms of the clause meant it might not necessarily be an issue re the mandatory defence (e.g. if it could be triggered at any stage within, say, the next 18 months, that would mean the mandatory could have taken place before being exercised) but that seems pretty flimsy to me! Maybe one best left to the lawyers then...!
Pieman68 said:
Not a massive boxing officianado by any means but from the point of view of a casual viewer, have to say that the referee in the Lenny Daws fight was awful. Dreadful all night and the actual DQ was a joke
Anybody watch it and see it differently and, if so, why?
He was shockingly bad. Doctor stopped the fight then DQ'd daws after!!Anybody watch it and see it differently and, if so, why?
Also standing count to 5!!
It was a very good fight up until then!!
Very tempted by Dillian Whyte at 15/2 to beat.
I can't see why he's that much of a long shot, he's faced pretty much the same quality of opponents as Joshua, is unbeaten, KO'ed his last 14 opponents, isn't much smaller that Joshua.
Neither of them has gone past 4 rounds or has there chin tested.
Although I can understand why Joshua is the favourtite there are so many unknowns that having Whyte as such a long shot is tempting me to put a whole £10 on an upset (Big time me!).
I can't see why he's that much of a long shot, he's faced pretty much the same quality of opponents as Joshua, is unbeaten, KO'ed his last 14 opponents, isn't much smaller that Joshua.
Neither of them has gone past 4 rounds or has there chin tested.
Although I can understand why Joshua is the favourtite there are so many unknowns that having Whyte as such a long shot is tempting me to put a whole £10 on an upset (Big time me!).
Edited by Fittster on Thursday 10th December 14:31
Tonberry said:
Some ridiculous odds on Whyte, you're right.
Especially if you fancy picking the round or going for a group. 28/1 rounds 4-6.
I bet on Fury to beat Klitschko (against advice from pretty much everyone) but I wouldn't bet on Whyte to beat Joshua. Especially if you fancy picking the round or going for a group. 28/1 rounds 4-6.
RE: People are going on about "chins" being tested.. Here's what I think - Modern heavyweight boxing isn't about testing peoples chins, the days of Ali vs Frazier where heavyweight boxers were 6ft and 14 stone and would bang for 12 rounds (or even 15) have gone, these days you can have a chin made of granite, the boys are so big and so strong and so well prep'd at the highest level if you get hit square you're staying hit with anything other than pawing jabs, you won't see a heavyweight boxer in the modern era taking punishment on the chin like they used to, at least not for long, the refs will step in.
So it comes down to who can move well on their feet, control the distance, keep a good defense when tired, switch to the body well and keep their head moving as well as control the emotions of the event. For me Joshua seems to have it all and he's ice cold in and out the ring... It's a non contest, put your money on Joshua, round 2.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff