BoxRec

jameswilson wrote: If he retires before that fight happens then it will be made for the Vacant title. But if he retires afterwards I don't think they will be given the title. I can't think of a time the WBC has done that. The WBO may do it (they did it with Cleverly most recently) but I can't think of the WBC ever just handing a fighter a title without them fighting for it.

Edit - How the frig did I forget Lewis won his WBC belt first time via that method. Has there been a WBC champ since who gained the belt in this fashion?

They also gave it to Ken Norton mate

That's only if it's a final eliminator. If not then Fury fights Arreola for the vacant title when they win their fights.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

jameswilson wrote: If he retires before that fight happens then it will be made for the Vacant title. But if he retires afterwards I don't think they will be given the title. I can't think of a time the WBC has done that. The WBO may do it (they did it with Cleverly most recently) but I can't think of the WBC ever just handing a fighter a title without them fighting for it.

Edit - How the frig did I forget Lewis won his WBC belt first time via that method. Has there been a WBC champ since who gained the belt in this fashion?

They also gave it to Ken Norton mate

That's only if it's a final eliminator. If not then Fury fights Arreola for the vacant title when they win their fights.

I had no idea that was a caveat of a fight being a final eliminator. Either way if Fury were to win this fight the WBC would surely force Arreola to fight Fury as a first defence. I remember they said to Froch when he won the Vacant belt that he had to fight 2 consecutive mandatory defences because he had won a Vacant belt. I actually quite liked that policy because WBC mandatories do tend to be fairly reputable. However at heavyweight I can imagine it being a slightly different story.

Hasim Rahman was also given the WBC title after winning an eliminator - well he won an interim fight and then awarded the title proper without having to fight for it.

I wonder if the WBC will push Klitchsko into making a decision.

jameswilson wrote: Edit - How the frig did I forget Lewis won his WBC belt first time via that method. Has there been a WBC champ since who gained the belt in this fashion?

KEN NORTON.

On top of this fight and Arreola vs Stiverne, Seth Mitchell vs Johnathan Banks is also a 'semi-final' eliminator. So, in theory at least, Fury-Boytsov winner vs Mitchell-Banks winner should take place to determine mandatory challenger, or the challenger to the vacant title if Klitschko retires.....

Knowing the WBC's antics, however, I would be seriously doubtful as to whether this will actually occur.

Fight off. Not surprised Universium don't take risky fights.

brian13 wrote:Fight off. Not surprised Universium don't take risky fights.

Was it ever really on

brian13 wrote:Fight off. Not surprised Universium don't take risky fights.

People may end up pointing fingers at Fury and Hennessy here but I think the fingers should be pointing at Boytsov's team as you say. We moan that some of our champions of old and the present are a bit 'stay at home' well jesus some of Universum's champs wrote the book on this phrase.

jameswilson wrote:

brian13 wrote:Fight off. Not surprised Universium don't take risky fights.

People may end up pointing fingers at Fury and Hennessy here but I think the fingers should be pointing at Boytsov's team as you say. We moan that some of our champions of old and the present are a bit 'stay at home' well jesus some of Universum's champs wrote the book on this phrase.

In fairness Hennessy should know that too well. At least it wasn't another bullshít ordeal that Froch / Inkin was but yeah they like to stay at home, fight terrible fighters. Apart from Oscar / Sturm and Zbik / Chavez Jr, when was the last time their fighters were in a fight that was actually big.

Sturm / Abraham never fought and Sauerland really wanted that fight to happen.

Jack B wrote:On top of this fight and Arreola vs Stiverne, Seth Mitchell vs Johnathan Banks is also a 'semi-final' eliminator. So, in theory at least, Fury-Boytsov winner vs Mitchell-Banks winner should take place to determine mandatory challenger, or the challenger to the vacant title if Klitschko retires.....

Knowing the WBC's antics, however, I would be seriously doubtful as to whether this will actually occur.

The winner of Arreola v Stiverne will be mandatory challenger.

Big Audley!

YES HE CAN!

lillywhite14 wrote:If that happens then we have a real candidate for worst heavyweight champion of all time.

To think there are people out there who think the Klits retiring will be good for the division!

I'm a Klitschko fan, but it's easy for me to see a strong rationale for wanting them to retire.

Many boxers don't fight top opponents because they hope to procure a big money fight with a Klitschko, and those who get that opportunity usually lose facilely. Without the Klitschkos and the purses they offer, it's probable that more bouts will occur between evenly matched boxers, which obviously tend to be more competitive and entertaining than one-sided bouts.

Thus, whether their retirement would be good or bad for the division depends on what you think is good for the division. If it's mainly or solely the ability of the fighters, their retirement is unwelcomed; if it's the number of competitive, entertaining fights, their retirement may reasonably be welcomed.

It's off!!

ILikeBeer wrote:Big Audley!

YES HE CAN!

Medical suspension. Wont get sanctioned that quickly after being KO'ed.

brian13 wrote:

ILikeBeer wrote:Big Audley!

YES HE CAN!

Medical suspension. Wont get sanctioned that quickly after being KO'ed.

YES HE CAN!

someone said Danny Williams in Germany? Is that some sort of sick joke?

orbtastic wrote:someone said Danny Williams in Germany? Is that some sort of sick joke?

I would have thought so yes.

jameswilson wrote:I doubt the WBO will find too many better fights about to make an eliminator.

Actually it's been sanctioned by the WBC as a title eliminator - which you have to say that this has been shrewd maneuvring by Mick Hennessy and his team, considering that the WBC might be declared vacant soon if Vitali retires and dedicates all his time to politics.

Hennessy definitely gets a for that.

Karl Jade wrote:

Jack B wrote:On top of this fight and Arreola vs Stiverne, Seth Mitchell vs Johnathan Banks is also a 'semi-final' eliminator. So, in theory at least, Fury-Boytsov winner vs Mitchell-Banks winner should take place to determine mandatory challenger, or the challenger to the vacant title if Klitschko retires.....

Knowing the WBC's antics, however, I would be seriously doubtful as to whether this will actually occur.

The winner of Arreola v Stiverne will be mandatory challenger.

Yep I thought that - I was just wondering whether Mitchell/Banks vs Fury/Boytsov would get sanctioned for the next mandatory after Arreola/Stiverne.

Doesn't look like it will do - obviously Fury fight off now and, having just looked at the WBC ratings, Mitchell and Banks are no longer ranked! Strange goings on.....

On a side note - I feel a bit for Stiverne. He supposedly beat Ray Austin last June to become mandatory - why is he having to fight another final eliminator? Not saying Austin vs Stiverne should ever have been determining a world title challenger - but I feel for the winning fighter all the same.

history repeats itself:

froch-inkin.

Jack B wrote:On top of this fight and Arreola vs Stiverne, Seth Mitchell vs Johnathan Banks is also a 'semi-final' eliminator. So, in theory at least, Fury-Boytsov winner vs Mitchell-Banks winner should take place to determine mandatory challenger, or the challenger to the vacant title if Klitschko retires.....

Knowing the WBC's antics, however, I would be seriously doubtful as to whether this will actually occur.

Was it James Toney who said "We Be Crooks" :??

Undefeated contender Tyson Fury and dangerous Denis Boytsov are in talks to reschedule their December 1 bout for February 8 or 15 to give the Russian plenty of time to prepare for the bout.

The two were originally pencilled in to fight at the Odyssey Arena next month, although Boytsov pulled out after raising fears over his fitness and Fury’s trainer and uncle Peter confirmed to WBN that the fight will 100% be rearranged.

It is back on again (possibly).

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2012/11/ ... ng+News%29

Autobarn wrote:history repeats itself:

froch-inkin.

and i bought tickets for that and ended up with rybacki

Adamj1987 wrote:

Autobarn wrote:history repeats itself:

froch-inkin.

and i bought tickets for that and ended up with rybacki

and fewkes with his gastric troubles pulling out vs murray - froch-inkin, murray-fewkes and witter-bradley would've been the strongest fight card for a few years.

Autobarn wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:

Autobarn wrote:history repeats itself:

froch-inkin.

and i bought tickets for that and ended up with rybacki

and fewkes with his gastric troubles pulling out vs murray - froch-inkin, murray-fewkes and witter-bradley would've been the strongest fight card for a few years.

i didnt give a crap about the murray fight to be honest mate and i thought he lost against al hamidi