Hearn says rematch clause triggered

ewenhay · Post by **ewenhay** » 18 Jun 2019, 18:02

Rematch clauses should be outlawed in boxing. They're bordering on inhumane. No one in boxing should hold that level of control over another fighter's livelihood.

TheGman · Post by **TheGman** » 18 Jun 2019, 18:17

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 04:50 Why does a fighter need so many people in his team?

Nice flip flops

oogiebe · Post by **oogiebe** » 18 Jun 2019, 18:46

thechump wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 18:17 Nice flip flops

Wee Tommy · Post by **Wee Tommy** » 18 Jun 2019, 19:53

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑04 Jun 2019, 15:12 Wouldn’t surprise me at all if Ruiz lost the belts to some fringe contender. Then Joshua gets frozen out big-time.

Exactly

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 19 Jun 2019, 07:17

ewenhay wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 18:02 Rematch clauses should be outlawed in boxing. They're bordering on inhumane. No one in boxing should hold that level of control over another fighter's livelihood.

I tend to agree but professional boxing is a business rather than a sport. He who pays the piper and all that...

coneye · Post by **coneye** » 19 Jun 2019, 07:24

JimStone wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 07:17 I tend to agree but professional boxing is a business rather than a sport. He who pays the piper and all that...

There is a saying contracts were meant to be broken , but from a buisness sence , after demolishing AJ , it just would'nt make sence to try to get out of this one and face a law suit , and possible stripping of the belts , this is a huge fight and a lot of money , i have no doubt there will be changes , Ruiz will probably demand and get a bigger purse , , and Hearn will pay rather than see Ruiz getting stripped , belts going elsewhere and AJ getting froze out .

Silly to do anything other, because Fury , Wilder , are both harder fights , IF they wanted them .Parker has beat him and Ortiz would stand a good chance , then theres Usyk , , AJ rematch probably makes the easiest fight , except for Whyte , who i don't think will come close to beating Ruiz .

ewenhay · Post by **ewenhay** » 19 Jun 2019, 07:42

JimStone wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 07:17 I tend to agree but professional boxing is a business rather than a sport. He who pays the piper and all that...

Yeah I know, I was just having a rant!

keithmoonhangover · Post by **keithmoonhangover** » 19 Jun 2019, 07:52

The split for the rematch was agreed as part of the rematch clause. They just need to agree date and location. There are very large financial penalties and possible legal action if Ruiz chooses to fight someone else.

Onetimeonly · Post by **Onetimeonly** » 19 Jun 2019, 08:34

ewenhay wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 18:02 Rematch clauses should be outlawed in boxing. They're bordering on inhumane. No one in boxing should hold that level of control over another fighter's livelihood.

They are largely only for voluntary defenses. In the fucked up world of boxing that's one thing that doesn't need fixing.

leejonesjnr · Post by **leejonesjnr** » 19 Jun 2019, 08:35

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 08:34 They are largely only for voluntary defenses.

Exclusively

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 19 Jun 2019, 08:47

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 08:35 Exclusively

Was Klit v Fury a voluntary? I can't remember

leejonesjnr · Post by **leejonesjnr** » 19 Jun 2019, 08:54

Coco wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 08:47 Was Klit v Fury a voluntary? I can't remember

Hmmmm, dunno, I believe so, hence the rematch clause that was invoked but never happened.

Onetimeonly · Post by **Onetimeonly** » 19 Jun 2019, 09:16

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 08:35 Exclusively

You can't force a rematch clause on a mandatory but id be willing to bet they've been involved before.

keithmoonhangover · Post by **keithmoonhangover** » 19 Jun 2019, 09:37

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 09:16 You can't force a rematch clause on a mandatory.

Errr, you can. If it doesn't go to purse bids.

Onetimeonly · Post by **Onetimeonly** » 19 Jun 2019, 09:40

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 09:37 Errr, you can. If it doesn't go to purse bids.

No you can't. If they refused it would go to purse bids.

keithmoonhangover · Post by **keithmoonhangover** » 19 Jun 2019, 09:45

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 09:40 No you can't. If they refused it would go to purse bids.

A hell of a lot of them don't go to purse bids and they have rematch clauses.

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 19 Jun 2019, 09:54

i feel the purses would have been included in the clause/contract. Miller was saying that he was die 7.7 Mil (I presume dollars) for the fury fight and 15-20 Mil if he won and the rematch clause had been triggered. I expect Ruiz to be on similar coin.

going back to the AJ pic. the entourage is far too big, the egos have grown by the day and the team were guilty of underestimating Ruiz. the fact they turned up in NYC only a week before the fight suggests Ruiz was taken lightly. 3-4 weeks would have been more realistic.

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 19 Jun 2019, 09:55

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 09:45 A hell of a lot of them don't go to purse bids and they have rematch clauses.

rematch clauses are only normally in place for a voluntary defence, as this was. AJ chose Ruiz.

Onetimeonly · Post by **Onetimeonly** » 19 Jun 2019, 10:51

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 09:45 A hell of a lot of them don't go to purse bids and they have rematch clauses.

Because the mandatory accepted the clause.

keithmoonhangover · Post by **keithmoonhangover** » 19 Jun 2019, 11:55

rhino222 wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 09:55 rematch clauses are only normally in place for a voluntary defence, as this was. AJ chose Ruiz.

AJ-Takam has a rematch clause, as did AJ-Povetkin.

oogiebe · Post by **oogiebe** » 19 Jun 2019, 11:57

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 11:55 AJ-Takam has a rematch clause, as did AJ-Povetkin.

Sometimes (maybe most) rematch clauses are contingent on an upset happening.

keithmoonhangover · Post by **keithmoonhangover** » 19 Jun 2019, 11:57

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 10:51 Because the mandatory accepted the clause.

Patterson-Liston and many others prove you wrong.

Onetimeonly · Post by **Onetimeonly** » 19 Jun 2019, 12:12

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 11:57 Patterson-Liston and many others prove you wrong.

How so?

jamamb · Post by **jamamb** » 19 Jun 2019, 12:17

rematch clauses should be outlawed? i mean why, in a case like this ruiz got offered a great opportunity , and as part of that a clause was there that he could agree to or not, that would mean aj would also get a good chance if he lost--to avenge the loss

that seems more good then bad

Onetimeonly · Post by **Onetimeonly** » 19 Jun 2019, 16:48

Coco wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 08:47 Was Klit v Fury a voluntary? I can't remember

No, it was a mandatory. The Klitschko's were brutal with that shit. Vitali wanted Hayes first born son.

Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered

Re: Hearn says rematch clause triggered