Breazeale willing to fight Whyte

[joshj909]

http://www.skysports.com/amp/boxing/new ... ian-whyte?

Breazeale said he's willing to risk his mandatory shot against Whyte.

Fair play to him. Looks like he's aware that his title shot won't come for a while. It would be an entertaining scrap and other than risking mandatory position, it benefits everyone: Breazeale gets a payday, Whyte could get an earlier title shot, Hearn could boost Whyte's name to Americans before a title shot and have a chance at finally adding the WBC belt to matchroom for a Whyte/AJ rematch for undisputed champ (Hearn's dream scenario)

Thoughts? I'd take Whyte via late TKO

[DrDuke]

It can be a fun fight. A pretty even matchup. I'll probaby pick Breazeale to knock Whyte out.

[KiwiRider]

I can see it going the same way Brazeale Vs Ugonoh.
As in; Brazeale weathers the storm and then KO's Whyte late. Parker nearly did it, Brazeale will be more motivated and hits harder. If Brazeale is in good physical shape and uses his reach and range, I expect him to win.

[jamamb]

breazeale will also be a lot more open then parker though, he eats punches with his face. whyte has been a hard 12 a few times and isnt a pro novice like ugonoh, whod really fought no one and was taking a big step up and not used to a two way fight

this wouldnt be a bad fight, although i feel whytes already earned a shot. parker, browne, helenius, chisora is as good a run as any one has right now at hw w/o getting a shot

[candyslim]

Haymon is holding off before calling the WBC mandatory so Breazeale isn't getting a shot at Wilder any time soon. It makes good sense to fight Whyte who isn't getting a shot at Wilder at all, ever, if Deontay, Haymon and his poodle, Sulaiman have anything to do with it (and they have everything to do with it)

Jamamb is quite right about Whyte deserving his mandatory. Breazeale knows Whyte should be mandatory and was prepared to go along with the injustice because he was going to get an early shot at Wilder, I can't blame him for that. Wilder sees that getting Fury now while he's still vulnerable makes more sense than fighting Breazeale next.

Breazeale sees what's happening and realizes he can make a lot of money - maybe more than he'd get for fighting Wilder - by fighting Whyte in London, probably on PPV. It's risky because his mandatory will be on the line. He knows if he loses the WBC will probably make Ortiz the mandatory because he hasn't had a shot since March and now Haymon knows Deontay is capable of beating him.

Whyte will fight anyone and everyone if the money's right and I don't suppose he is naive enough to believe the WBC will make him mandatory if he wins, he isn't stupid.

It should be an excellent fight between two fighters who are favourites of mine. They aren't blessed with Mayweather-like skills but they are big, tough and more importantly (to me), they are aren't scared to fight tough opposition.

[Enlightened-One]

I don't see any reason why Dillian Whyte would be willing to consider facing Dominic Breazeale, since it doesn't necessarily guarantee him a shot at the WBC tile (as Mauricio Sulaimán seems to be doing his upmost to prevent it). Also, 'The Body Snatcher' is the favourite to be Anthony Joshua's next opponent in April.

Perhaps Breazeale would be motivated to face Whyte instead of Wilder, because his payday would be bigger, especially considering he'll have to wait quite a while for his guaranteed title shot?

If you recall, Eddie Hearn apparently submitted a revised offer to Deontay Wilder (very recently) for $7m or $8m to face Whyte, which is a huge payday for 'The Bronze Bomber', considering the American's average payday prior to the Ortiz bout was a paltry $1.28m.

So I reckon that Breazeale could earn far more facing Whyte than he would challenging for Wilder's WBC title, but such a bout doesn't make any sense for the Brit.

[digzee]

Haymon is holding off before calling the WBC mandatory so Breazeale isn't getting a shot at Wilder any time soon. It makes good sense to fight Whyte who isn't getting a shot at Wilder at all, ever, if Deontay, Haymon and his poodle, Sulaiman have anything to do with it (and they have everything to do with it)

Jamamb is quite right about Whyte deserving his mandatory. Breazeale knows Whyte should be mandatory and was prepared to go along with the injustice because he was going to get an early shot at Wilder, I can't blame him for that. Wilder sees that getting Fury now while he's still vulnerable makes more sense than fighting Breazeale next.

Breazeale sees what's happening and realizes he can make a lot of money - maybe more than he'd get for fighting Wilder - by fighting Whyte in London, probably on PPV. It's risky because his mandatory will be on the line. He knows if he loses the WBC will probably make Ortiz the mandatory because he hasn't had a shot since March and now Haymon knows Deontay is capable of beating him.

Whyte will fight anyone and everyone if the money's right and I don't suppose he is naive enough to believe the WBC will make him mandatory if he wins, he isn't stupid.

It should be an excellent fight between two fighters who are favourites of mine. They aren't blessed with Mayweather-like skills but they are big, tough and more importantly (to me), they are aren't scared to fight tough opposition.

Good post. Both fighters have improved since losing to AJ and have some good wins. Whyte has to be top 5 now with Dom top 10, both have great momentum and if it ends up on PPV with a good undercard I wont begrudge them getting a good payday.

Would pick Whyte to win on points if he boxes at his best and uses his jab.

[joshj909]

I don't see any reason why Dillian Whyte would be willing to consider facing Dominic Breazeale, since it doesn't necessarily guarantee him a shot at the WBC tile (as Mauricio Sulaimán seems to be doing his upmost to prevent it). Also, 'The Body Snatcher' is the favourite to be Anthony Joshua's next opponent in April.

There are a few reasons i think he should/would take it. First of all, it's a middle finger up to the WBC, Haymon and Wilder if he wins. Secondly, if he beats Wilder for a few million, the payday and belts on the line against AJ would be huge (would be a easily-negotiated unification rather than a % paid for a defence), added to the purse from the Wilder fight. Thirdly, i imagine he'll get a rematch against Joshua whether he won or lost against Wilder, he would only need a couple of mid-level wins and he'd get a voluntary, in my opinion that would be a very Hearn thing to do. And finally, he lost against Joshua, he knows he was and potentially is still, worse than him. Against Wilder, he probably fancies his chances and could become a world champion whereas against Joshua he just gets re-affirmed as not good enough.

Whether beating Breazeale gets him a shot at the WBC belt next year obviously isn't guaranteed but the #1 contender beating the mandatory and not getting the title-shot seems so ridiculous. Though, i could see them telling him to fight Ortiz again while Wilder defends against Martin/Kownacki.

Also... if Fury wins half of this doesn't matter. I think Fury would defend against Whyte for the £££.

[Enlightened-One]

I don't see any reason why Dillian Whyte would be willing to consider facing Dominic Breazeale, since it doesn't necessarily guarantee him a shot at the WBC tile (as Mauricio Sulaimán seems to be doing his upmost to prevent it). Also, 'The Body Snatcher' is the favourite to be Anthony Joshua's next opponent in April.

There are a few reasons i think he should/would take it. First of all, it's a middle finger up to the WBC, Haymon and Wilder if he wins. Secondly, if he beats Wilder for a few million, the payday and belts on the line against AJ would be huge (would be a easily-negotiated unification rather than a % paid for a defence), added to the purse from the Wilder fight. Thirdly, i imagine he'll get a rematch against Joshua whether he won or lost against Wilder, he would only need a couple of mid-level wins and he'd get a voluntary, in my opinion that would be a very Hearn thing to do. And finally, he lost against Joshua, he knows he was and potentially is still, worse than him. Against Wilder, he probably fancies his chances and could become a world champion whereas against Joshua he just gets re-affirmed as not good enough.

Whether beating Breazeale gets him a shot at the WBC belt next year obviously isn't guaranteed but the #1 contender beating the mandatory and not getting the title-shot seems so ridiculous. Though, i could see them telling him to fight Ortiz again while Wilder defends against Martin/Kownacki.

Also... if Fury wins half of this doesn't matter. I think Fury would defend against Whyte for the £££.

I don’t disagree with your sentiments, but I sincerely doubt that the WBC would play ball and here’s why…

The WBC have recently stated that Dillian Whyte is not a mandatory challenger for Wilder’s title and they won’t necessarily grant him mandatory status if he defeats Dominic Breazeale. It seems that the WBC won’t force ‘The Bronze Bomber’ to face the Brit.

So far, seven of Deontay Wilder’s eight WBC world title bouts were against heavyweights that were either advised or managed by Al Haymon.

Dillian Whyte has previously competed in a WBC eliminator against Dereck Chisora, captured and successfully defended the WBC silver title twice and has also been their highest-ranked title challenger for roughly one year.

Despite these credentials, the WBC insisted that for Whyte to gain the secondary mandatory challenger status (second in the queue behind Breazeale - a man with a worse WBC ranking than himself), Dillian has to engage in another eliminator against an Al Haymon fighter that has already tasted defeat to Wilder (Luis Ortiz).

If you remember last year, the WBC passed over Whyte, when they ordered a bout between Dominic Breazeale and Eric Molina (both with Al Haymon) to determine Deontay Wilder’s mandatory challenger.

When the WBC initially ordered the bout between Breazeale and Molina, both the press and Eddie Hearn challenged their assertion that it was a “final” eliminator and the WBC issued a press release saying that it was “an unfortunate error”, as it was just an eliminator, but this didn't prevent them from elevating the winner of that fight to becoming Deontay Wilder's mandatory challenger.

At the time, Breazeale was ranked sixth by the WBC with Molina down in 12th, but Whyte was rated above both men (in third – behind two other Al Haymon fighters).

The two Al Haymon fighters that were previously rated above Whyte, when the Breazeale-Molina eliminator was announced (Stiverne & Ortiz), have both subsequently received their world title shots.

So why does the WBC insist on ordering world title bouts between their champion (an Al Haymon fighter) and their challengers (who are fellow Al Haymon stablemates), whilst refraining from granting a title opportunity to Dillian Whyte?

[joshj909]

I don't see any reason why Dillian Whyte would be willing to consider facing Dominic Breazeale, since it doesn't necessarily guarantee him a shot at the WBC tile (as Mauricio Sulaimán seems to be doing his upmost to prevent it). Also, 'The Body Snatcher' is the favourite to be Anthony Joshua's next opponent in April.

There are a few reasons i think he should/would take it. First of all, it's a middle finger up to the WBC, Haymon and Wilder if he wins. Secondly, if he beats Wilder for a few million, the payday and belts on the line against AJ would be huge (would be a easily-negotiated unification rather than a % paid for a defence), added to the purse from the Wilder fight. Thirdly, i imagine he'll get a rematch against Joshua whether he won or lost against Wilder, he would only need a couple of mid-level wins and he'd get a voluntary, in my opinion that would be a very Hearn thing to do. And finally, he lost against Joshua, he knows he was and potentially is still, worse than him. Against Wilder, he probably fancies his chances and could become a world champion whereas against Joshua he just gets re-affirmed as not good enough.

Whether beating Breazeale gets him a shot at the WBC belt next year obviously isn't guaranteed but the #1 contender beating the mandatory and not getting the title-shot seems so ridiculous. Though, i could see them telling him to fight Ortiz again while Wilder defends against Martin/Kownacki.

Also... if Fury wins half of this doesn't matter. I think Fury would defend against Whyte for the £££.

I don’t disagree with your sentiments, but I sincerely doubt that the WBC would play ball and here’s why…

The WBC have recently stated that Dillian Whyte is not a mandatory challenger for Wilder’s title and they won’t necessarily grant him mandatory status if he defeats Dominic Breazeale. It seems that the WBC won’t force ‘The Bronze Bomber’ to face the Brit.

So far, seven of Deontay Wilder’s eight WBC world title bouts were against heavyweights that were either advised or managed by Al Haymon.

Dillian Whyte has previously competed in a WBC eliminator against Dereck Chisora, captured and successfully defended the WBC silver title twice and has also been their highest-ranked title challenger for roughly one year.

Despite these credentials, the WBC insisted that for Whyte to gain the secondary mandatory challenger status (second in the queue behind Breazeale - a man with a worse WBC ranking than himself), Dillian has to engage in another eliminator against an Al Haymon fighter that has already tasted defeat to Wilder (Luis Ortiz).

If you remember last year, the WBC passed over Whyte, when they ordered a bout between Dominic Breazeale and Eric Molina (both with Al Haymon) to determine Deontay Wilder’s mandatory challenger.

When the WBC initially ordered the bout between Breazeale and Molina, both the press and Eddie Hearn challenged their assertion that it was a “final” eliminator and the WBC issued a press release saying that it was “an unfortunate error”, as it was just an eliminator, but this didn't prevent them from elevating the winner of that fight to becoming Deontay Wilder's mandatory challenger.

At the time, Breazeale was ranked sixth by the WBC with Molina down in 12th, but Whyte was rated above both men (in third – behind two other Al Haymon fighters).

The two Al Haymon fighters that were previously rated above Whyte, when the Breazeale-Molina eliminator was announced (Stiverne & Ortiz), have both subsequently received their world title shots.

So why does the WBC insist on ordering world title bouts between their champion (an Al Haymon fighter) and their challengers (who are fellow Al Haymon stablemates), whilst refraining from granting a title opportunity to Dillian Whyte?

True. Looks like Fury could be our last hope at freeing the WBC belt from Haymon then.

[Enlightened-One]

I don’t disagree with your sentiments, but I sincerely doubt that the WBC would play ball and here’s why…

The WBC have recently stated that Dillian Whyte is not a mandatory challenger for Wilder’s title and they won’t necessarily grant him mandatory status if he defeats Dominic Breazeale. It seems that the WBC won’t force ‘The Bronze Bomber’ to face the Brit.

So far, seven of Deontay Wilder’s eight WBC world title bouts were against heavyweights that were either advised or managed by Al Haymon.

Dillian Whyte has previously competed in a WBC eliminator against Dereck Chisora, captured and successfully defended the WBC silver title twice and has also been their highest-ranked title challenger for roughly one year.

Despite these credentials, the WBC insisted that for Whyte to gain the secondary mandatory challenger status (second in the queue behind Breazeale - a man with a worse WBC ranking than himself), Dillian has to engage in another eliminator against an Al Haymon fighter that has already tasted defeat to Wilder (Luis Ortiz).

If you remember last year, the WBC passed over Whyte, when they ordered a bout between Dominic Breazeale and Eric Molina (both with Al Haymon) to determine Deontay Wilder’s mandatory challenger.

When the WBC initially ordered the bout between Breazeale and Molina, both the press and Eddie Hearn challenged their assertion that it was a “final” eliminator and the WBC issued a press release saying that it was “an unfortunate error”, as it was just an eliminator, but this didn't prevent them from elevating the winner of that fight to becoming Deontay Wilder's mandatory challenger.

At the time, Breazeale was ranked sixth by the WBC with Molina down in 12th, but Whyte was rated above both men (in third – behind two other Al Haymon fighters).

The two Al Haymon fighters that were previously rated above Whyte, when the Breazeale-Molina eliminator was announced (Stiverne & Ortiz), have both subsequently received their world title shots.

So why does the WBC insist on ordering world title bouts between their champion (an Al Haymon fighter) and their challengers (who are fellow Al Haymon stablemates), whilst refraining from granting a title opportunity to Dillian Whyte?

True. Looks like Fury could be our last hope at freeing the WBC belt from Haymon then.

If you take a look at the eleven heaviest weight divisions in boxing, Al Haymon (the primary content provider for Showtime) has/will manage or advise seven WBC champions (in the context of the winner of the 147lbs Garcia-Porter bout being for the vacant title and also aligned to the same PBC chief).

If you also check the resumes of all of these champions, every single one of them have either recently fought a fellow Al Haymon stablemate or their future mandatory/voluntary challengers are signed with the PBC.

If you take a look at the other four weight divisions above 126lbs where the WBC champions aren’t with Al Haymon, the WBC also highly-rates fighters that are aligned with the PBC, such as: Jermall Charlo (mandatory challenger at 160lbs); Krzystof Glowack (4th at cruiserweight); and Adrien Broner (2nd at 140lbs).

It seems that Al Haymon and the WBC are making an exception, by allowing Deontay Wilder to defend his title against Tyson Fury, simply because the fight will inevitably headline be a hugely lucrative PPV event.

[joshj909]

It seems that Al Haymon and the WBC making an exception, by allowing Deontay Wilder to defend his title against Tyson Fury, simply because the fight will inevitably headline be a hugely lucrative PPV event.

And unfortunately it looks like Warren and Haymon might be getting a bit too cosy. IF Fury wins, his defences could also be PBC guys. The ranked PBC boxers are: Wilder, Ortiz, Breazeale, Martin, Kownacki, Rivas and i imagine Joyce will be in there soon. Plenty to choose from. Just got to hope that Fury decides to change it up because he doesn't seem to like being told what to do.

[candyslim]

Would pick Whyte to win on points if he boxes at his best and uses his jab.

I would too digzee although I'm conscious of how close Whyte came to getting stopped by Parker. Breazeale is very big and powerful and I for one, wouldn't want to be facing him in round ten on jelly-legs and blowing out of my arse.

I don't see any reason why Dillian Whyte would be willing to consider facing Dominic Breazeale, since it doesn't necessarily guarantee him a shot at the WBC tile (as Mauricio Sulaimán seems to be doing his upmost to prevent it). Also, 'The Body Snatcher' is the favourite to be Anthony Joshua's next opponent in April.

Perhaps Breazeale would be motivated to face Whyte instead of Wilder, because his payday would be bigger, especially considering he'll have to wait quite a while for his guaranteed title shot?

If you recall, Eddie Hearn apparently submitted a revised offer to Deontay Wilder (very recently) for $7m or $8m to face Whyte, which is a huge payday for 'The Bronze Bomber', considering the American's average payday prior to the Ortiz bout was a paltry $1.28m.

So I reckon that Breazeale could earn far more facing Whyte than he would challenging for Wilder's WBC title, but such a bout doesn't make any sense for the Brit.

Nothing Whyte does or could ever do will guarantee him a shot at the WBC title. I'm sure Haymon must have compromising photographs of Sulaiman doing what he didn't ought.

I think Wilder beats Whyte but it seems pretty clear to me that either Wilder or Haymon, maybe both, disagree with me. Deontay seems willing to look like a complete punk if it means he doesn't have to fight him. Why would a man used to earning US$ 2m per fight, turn down US$8m to fight Whyte?

Oh it's because Hearn is making unreasonable demands - really? Well tell us what they are then, so Hearn can be confronted by journos, and we can rid ourselves of any thoughts that Wilder is scared shitless of Dillian Whyte.

So why fight Breazeale? Yes it's a close tough fight but that never bothers Whyte. Logically, he shouldn't have fought Parker but he did. Barring disaster, he will always have the rematch with Joshua to fall back on, although ideally he wanted that fight to be for the undisputed title, with Dillian the WBC champion. That won't happen sadly. So forgetting AJ for the moment, what else is there for Whyte?

A Breazeale fight makes both a lot of money as a UK PPV. A win over Breazeale (I make Whyte a slight favourite) removes DB as the mandatory, and further reinforces what a thoroughly corrupt bunch of pudenda the WBC are when they still don't make Dillian the mandatory. Why TF is Ortiz still in the picture having got stopped by Wilder not even six months ago? I guess Haymon/Sulaiman now regard him as a 'safe opponent' for their boy.

The WBC don't appear to give a flying one how much their reputation stinks of rotting fish, however it's quite amusing to see Dillian keeping up the pressure on them. They would squirm with embarrassment if they had any idea of the concept of shame. Still, the world becomes increasingly less blind to what they are really about.

So yes, I think it's a very good fight for both fighters, and if Dillian were to lose it's not the end of the world for him. I think the fans recognize that he is a risk taker, and will forgive him the odd defeat provided it's not a crushing one. I think most would agree that he deserves another chance against Joshua, although I don't suppose too many would pick him to win even if he remains on a win-streak.

[joshj909]

The WBC don't appear to give a flying one how much their reputation stinks of rotting fish, however it's quite amusing to see Dillian keeping up the pressure on them.

I agree. Even the talk of Whyte taking on Breazeale probably rustled a few feathers. Hearn being Hearn should try to use Whyte, Chisora and the less likely Miller to try and take out a few WBC ranked PBC fighters so Wilder has less voluntary options. Maybe adding Chisora v Rivas to Whyte/Breazeale

[candyslim]

Good plan. I like it.

[adislav123]

No chance in hell that whyte looses to breazeale.

[Enlightened-One]

Hearn being Hearn should try to use Whyte, Chisora and the less likely Miller to try and take out a few WBC ranked PBC fighters so Wilder has less voluntary options. Maybe adding Chisora v Rivas to Whyte/Breazeale.

That won’t work, because when the WBC initially ordered the final eliminator between Breazeale and Molina, Breazeale was ranked sixth by the WBC with Molina down in 12th, but Whyte was rated above both men (in third – behind two other Al Haymon fighters that have since faced Wilder).

The WBC will just keep cherry-picking Al Haymon fighters, regardless of rank, to face Wilder and Eddie Hearn doesn't have fifteen heavyweights in his stable to occupy all of the qualified title challenger ranking positions.

[joshj909]

Hearn being Hearn should try to use Whyte, Chisora and the less likely Miller to try and take out a few WBC ranked PBC fighters so Wilder has less voluntary options. Maybe adding Chisora v Rivas to Whyte/Breazeale.

That won’t work, because when the WBC initially ordered the final eliminator between Breazeale and Molina, Breazeale was ranked sixth by the WBC with Molina down in 12th, but Whyte was rated above both men (in third – behind two other Al Haymon fighters that have since faced Wilder).

The WBC will just keep cherry-picking Al Haymon fighters, regardless of rank, to face Wilder and Eddie Hearn doesn't have fifteen heavyweights in his stable to occupy all of the qualified title challenger ranking positions.

My theory, which WBC would probably try to disprove, is that it's difficult to justify giving title shots to boxers coming off losses rather than to occupy all the spaces. Moving up the rankings would support chances at facing each other in an eliminator, but not apparantly in the WBC.

[digzee]

Yeh Whyte has got no hope in fighting Wilder whether he's mandatory or not. Its Stevenson/Alvarez all over again, Alvarez waited around forf 2 years being mandatory but thanks to uncle Al he never got his shot.

It makes me laugh how some think Haymon is some sort of saviour to boxing just because he's put some fights on free TV.

[Enlightened-One]

...Alvarez waited around forf 2 years being mandatory but thanks to uncle Al he never got his shot.

It makes me laugh how some think Haymon is some sort of saviour to boxing just because he's put some fights on free TV.

To be fair, Alvarez voluntarily chose to step aside twice without being paid to do so and he also refused to participate in a final eliminator.

Whilst some of Al Haymon's business practices are aggressively derided by the vast majority of fight fans, he can't be anywhere near as bad as he's alleged to be, since he was paying for the privilege to televise our beloved sport on several major US free-to-air networks.

How many other powerful figures involved in the sport of boxing were willing to do that?

I can understand some of the criticism he receives, but most of it is excessive and not based on fact.

It seems perfectly acceptable for fight fans to blame the PBC chief for a whole host of atrocious acts despite the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever to substantiate their derogatory claims, which is an ignorant Lemming-like lynch mob bandwagon thought process that I cannot endorse.

[candyslim]

No chance in hell that whyte looses to breazeale.

I think he'll win but you can't rule out the possibility of him running out of steam like he did against Parker. Whatever you say about Breazeale he does keep going.

Whilst some of Al Haymon's business practices are aggressively derided by the vast majority of fight fans, he can't be anywhere near as bad as he's alleged to be, since he was paying for the privilege to televise our beloved sport on several major US free-to-air networks.

How many other powerful figures involved in the sport of boxing were willing to do that?

That's very commendable no doubt, but I didn't reap any of the benefit of that (free to air on US TV) My contempt is fuelled by the despicable antics of the WBC and the master/slave relationship between him and its nominal president.

Someone should slip sand into his vaseline. That'll f-'em both up

[Enlightened-One]

That's very commendable no doubt, but I didn't reap any of the benefit of that (free to air on US TV) My contempt is fuelled by the despicable antics of the WBC and the master/slave relationship between him and its nominal president.

Someone should slip sand into his vaseline. That'll f-'em both up

I don’t disagree with your sentiments…

The problem I have is people formulating opinions without possessing any evidence.

All I can see is several strangely bizarre decisions that have been made by the utterly rancid WBC, which seem to strongly favour PBC fighters.

I don’t know if the WBC’s antics are driven by greed, since Haymon’s stable of fighters are extremely well-paid, which means better sanctioning fees or whether Mauricio Sulaiman has actually established some sort of dodgy behind-the-scenes informal business relationship with the PBC chief.

All I know is that there’s far more evidence to support the former hypothesis and absolutely nothing exists whatsoever to support the latter theory.

Regardless, the only conclusion that should be formulated relates to the fact that the WBC is responsible for their own actions, which means that fight fans should only vent their frustration at Mauricio Sulaiman’s organisation, since the blame falls squarely on their shoulders.

[joshj909]

I don’t know if the WBC’s antics are driven by greed, since Haymon’s stable of fighters are extremely well-paid, which means better sanctioning fees or whether Mauricio Sulaiman has actually established some sort of dodgy behind-the-scenes informal business relationship with the PBC chief.

They would've got more for Whyte or Chisora.

[Enlightened-One]

I don’t know if the WBC’s antics are driven by greed, since Haymon’s stable of fighters are extremely well-paid, which means better sanctioning fees or whether Mauricio Sulaiman has actually established some sort of dodgy behind-the-scenes informal business relationship with the PBC chief.

They would've got more for Whyte or Chisora.

In isolated one-off bouts, you’re absolutely correct. However, Al Haymon has more than 200+ fighters in his stable and they’re all overpaid.

So the WBC are probably making decisions based on the proverbial “big picture”, the scenario that reaps the biggest rewards, rather than looking at individual situations.

I feel that the WBC will generate bigger profits if they favour PBC fighters in general than they would if they favoured Dillian Whyte, as it’s all about what’s best for Mauricio Sulaiman’s organisation in the long-run.

[candyslim]

I don't pretend to know the whys nor the wherefores, but it is very clear to me that Sulaiman delivers whatever Haymon desires - well that is certainly how it looks from where I'm sat.