BoxRec

How does Usyk figure into all of this?

I thought he was somebody's immediate mandatory

ryandmosley wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 15:02

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 14:49

ryandmosley wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 14:45

You're the "mandatory" challenger... but you have to win the rematch. There's nothing mandatory about that.

The immediate rematch clause has nothing whatsoever to do with the WBC.

It was put in place by Matchroom and/or Whyte.

Nearly all money-spinning A-side fighters impose immediate rematch clauses on their opponents.

Look sir, I am not here to engage in a debate with you regarding this absurdity of an immediate rematch after a guy clobbers somebody in the fourth round. I am well-aware of how contracts work, and the fact that the contract contained an immediate rematch clause. What I am saying is that the WBC’s declaration that he’s a mandatory while also taking no position on the immediate rematch (and allowing the parties to insert an immediate rematch clause into the contract for an eliminator fight they sanctioned in the first place) rings very, very hollow. They have full authority to say that Pov is mandatory no matter the outcome of the rematch yet his mando status is completely contingent on the rematch. So don’t come at me with this stuff that the WBC Is helpless at the mercy of this contract. Because they aren’t. They know good and well the dollar value of a Fury-Whyte fight in the UK versus a Fury-Povetkin fight literally anywhere. And in my opinion that is what is driving them into their neutral position. Will there be an immediate rematch clause in the contract for the immediate rematch? Is the mandatory status contingent on the immediate re-rematch.

Why respond with a wall of text? Use paragraphs.

And why lie and pretend I believe in things I never wrote?

It’s really simple...

Povetkin agreed to face Whyte, whilst accepting the immediate rematch clause.

The WBC also agreed to install the winner of Whyte-Povetkin as the mandatory challenger to Tyson Fury’s title.

As a direct consequence of Povetkin scoring the upset, the WBC stated that Fury has at least a year to participate in voluntary defences.

If Povetkin loses the Whyte rematch, he’ll also lose his mandatory challenger status.

A similar rule has existed for decades, whereby a WBC champion is stripped of his championship if he loses a non-title bout.

Simply put, don’t attack the messenger. The WBC’s rulebook and immediate rematch clauses existed before I was even born.

There is no victim here.

No one was wronged or lied to. There is no corruption affecting this situation.

And finally, if you’re going to criticise me, attack what I’ve actually written, don’t be dishonest by lying and misrepresenting my words.

Because after all, it’s not my fault you’ve only just started following the sport and becoming acquainted with practices that have existed for DECADES!

ryandmosley believes the WBC has the authority to ensure Povetkin retains his mandatory challenger status if he loses the Whyte rematch.

Even those that utterly despise me, surely can’t believe such nonsense to be true?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 19:32 Why respond with a wall of text? Use paragraphs.

And why lie and pretend I believe in things I never wrote?

It’s really simple...

Povetkin agreed to face Whyte, whilst accepting the immediate rematch clause.

The WBC also agreed to install the winner of Whyte-Povetkin as the mandatory challenger to Tyson Fury’s title.

As a direct consequence of Povetkin scoring the upset, the WBC stated that Fury has at least a year to participate in voluntary defences.

If Povetkin loses the Whyte rematch, he’ll also lose his mandatory challenger status.

A similar rule has existed for decades, whereby a WBC champion is stripped of his championship if he loses a non-title bout.

Simply put, don’t attack the messenger. The WBC’s rulebook and immediate rematch clauses existed before I was even born.

There is no victim here.

No one was wronged or lied to. There is no corruption affecting this situation.

And finally, if you’re going to criticise me, attack what I’ve actually written, don’t be dishonest by lying and misrepresenting my words.

Because after all, it’s not my fault you’ve only just started following the sport and becoming acquainted with practices that have existed for DECADES!

Okay, I’m gonna say three things (in paragraphs).

First, I am sorry that my tone was a lot over the top. I may have been (definitely was) pretty mad about something when I wrote that misdirected a lot of rage at you/WBC. I don’t think I put any words in your mouth. I was simply saying that I don’t think the WBC is defensible here and that you did. Not so much in those words though. But sorry anyway.

Second, for the record, I don’t claim to be a boxing expert, but I stared following the sport on January 24, 2009. So give other folks a little bit of credit, man; even if they may not have encyclopedic knowledge of the WBC rule book. Maybe don’t be so harsh to other fans. Or assume people haven’t followed it as long as you.

Finally, back to the merits of this thread, you have to at least somewhat see the ridiculousness of the WBC saying someone is a “mandatory” while also saying that if they lose this immediate rematch they are no longer “mandatory” but that the winner of the rematch will be. That literally undermines the definition of the word mandatory. Dillian Whyte would be getting the title shot based purely on recency at that point; even though he is even in two fights with Povetkin. And even though there’s virtually no public interest in a rematch of this fight in the first place. The blame doesn’t lay completely at the fault of the WBC, I concede, but they are responsible for setting their mandatory. They have a lot more power here than you’re crediting them.

PS: Why so specific on the date I became a real fan? January 24, 2009 was the night Sugar Shane knocked Margarito’s block off. Fell in love with the sport then. Never stopped loving it. I don’t come here for arguments. I came here to join a community of real boxing fans. I’ll try to tone it down a bit. And use paragraphs. Box on.

The sooner AJ/Pulev is announced the faster it can be done with.

Just have it in Eddie’s backyard and just put it behind AJ in his career.

It wasn’t such a great fight when it was supposed to happen three years ago and it’s even worse now.

We all know it’s preposterous someone with Pulevs resume “has” to fight for the title.

ryandmosley wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 19:55...you have to at least somewhat see the ridiculousness of the WBC saying someone is a “mandatory” while also saying that if they lose this immediate rematch they are no longer “mandatory” but that the winner of the rematch will be. That literally undermines the definition of the word mandatory.

If a world champion loses a fight, he loses his title.

If a contender loses a fight, he gets relegated in the rankings.

If a mandatory challenger loses a fight, to a champion or a fellow contender, they are automatically stripped of their mandatory challenger status.

Basically, all fighters are penalised for losing.

Povetkin captured the WBC interim title when he upset Dillian Whyte.

If he loses the rematch, then Whyte would reclaim his interim title, coupled with the mandatory challenger status associated to it.

I can't make my explanation any simpler than that.

ryandmosley wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 19:55 Dillian Whyte would be getting the title shot based purely on recency at that point...

No. Dillian Whyte would become the WBC's interim world champion and he would have earned his shot at Tyson Fury.

ryandmosley wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 19:55And even though there’s virtually no public interest in a rematch of this fight in the first place.

Dillian Whyte has already headlined PPV events against the likes of Anthony Joshua, Joseph Parker, Dereck Chisora, Oscar Rivas and Alexander Povetkin.

And the Whyte-Povetkin rematch will almost certainly be another PPV, because there's sufficient interest from UK fans to justify it.

ryandmosley wrote: ↑27 Aug 2020, 19:55The blame doesn’t lay completely at the fault of the WBC, I concede, but they are responsible for setting their mandatory.

The WBC are an utterly rancid organisation and their treatment of Dillian Whyte has been disgraceful.

However, I do support their longstanding rules regarding Povetkin returning the interim title and mandatory status to Whyte if he loses the rematch.

And similarly, I also support the WBC's rules allowing Povetkin to retain ownership of both the interim title and mandatory status if he beats Whyte for a second time.

I don't know what else to say. A mandatory challenger isn't guaranteed a shot at the world title, regardless of the outcome of his interim bouts. If they lose, they are automatically stripped of their status, which I believe to be perfectly fair.

The only thing the WBC has is a fancy belt and mainstream boxers counted to them. Without the boxers they are sh*t like the rest of the f*cking orgs.

Whyte got hustled by Haymon and Wilder's team to protect him. I didn't see Whyte having a shot at Wilder thou. Saw him as a late K.O since Wilder is sneaky and loves to f*ck up and steal pointleads in seconds cause the f*ck can. Pissed that the fight didn't happend. Or was it Hearns protecting Whyte? Still f*ck the WBC.