BoxRec

So the Main Event decides to go straight to purse bid and IBF rushes it for Dec 11. I think Fury wanted more time to celebrate and think things over. So now what does he do? I would very much like for a titles to stay unified. Glazkov is a good first defense fight, even though in my opinion he doesn't pose serious danger for Fury.

How come Main events are dictating the terms to the IBF?
Anyone would think THEIR man was heavyweight champion of the world.

I want to see the belts stay unified as well. Hopefully Klitschko waits until summer for the rematch and Tyson can face Glazkov beforehand, although he probably wants a month or two off to celebrate and recover from what was a long camp, especially with the fight being postponed the first time.

March/April - Fury vs Glazkov (WBA, IBF, WBO, IBO, The Ring)
June/July - Fury vs Klitschko (WBA, IBF, WBO, IBO, The Ring)
Nov/Dec - Fury vs Wilder (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, IBO, The Ring)

Wouldn't be a bad year for Tyson that.

keirw wrote:How come Main events are dictating the terms to the IBF?
Anyone would think THEIR man was heavyweight champion of the world.

I would not say they Main Event dictates to IBF, any team can refuse the negotiation. But I dont like that IBF put the bid so early, negotiation period supposed to be 30 days. Is there enough time for TV deals to be put in place and so on. I wonder if IBF wants to split the belts.

I smell a very large dead rat here - sounds to be like Main events and IBF are keen to separate the belt and produce another champion.

God, boxing really does suck giant lolling hairy balls sometimes.

They are definitely up to something, there December ratings are not out I don't think yet and at present in November the No.2 spot was vacant, so they could if Tyson chooses not to fight Glazkov and gives the belt back, elevate anyone they like into No.2 or indeed insert Wlad straight in at that point.

The crazy thing is that may work for both Wlad and Fury as both can then have a fight say late Feb/early March before a big late summer rematch. Fury could take a voluntary with one of the other belts and Klitschko bizarrely gets to fight for the IBF belt against Glazkov and then could enter the ring against Fury in August with a belt back in his hands.

All pie in the sky of course, for all we know the IBF could insert Joshua at number 2 (if he beats Whyte) and Glazkov fights for the vacant title against Joshua.

It's a shame they are taking this high handed attitude, I can see Tyson telling them what to do with the belt if they keep this hard line.

IBF Rule 10A states that if parties cannot reach an agreement it goes out to bids. Main Events didn't even try so the IBF decided to send it out to bids. They're due in on the 11th of Dec.

Aren't they paid a % of the purse bid? I'm not sure exactly what determines how much money the governing body gets but surely there's a correlation between the overall money in the fight and their cut? So surely it would make more sense for them to keep the belts unified as the fights are going to be worth more money - when it's put like that it's difficult to understand why more of the governing bodies don't make an effort to unify.

How is Klitschkos relationship with his fellow Ukranian Glazkov?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I smell a very large dead rat here - sounds to be like Main events and IBF are keen to separate the belt and produce another champion.

God, boxing really does suck giant lolling hairy balls sometimes.

I think you're right.

With Klitschko activating the rematch clause and Glazkov pushing for his shot (seemingly aided somewhat by the IBF), I think it's going to be hard to keep the belts together. Whilst we ultimately don't need the belts to define who the best in the division is, it would be nice if boxing (i.e. the sanctioning bodies) wasn't so keen to shoot itself in the foot.

ElJefe wrote:Aren't they paid a % of the purse bid? I'm not sure exactly what determines how much money the governing body gets but surely there's a correlation between the overall money in the fight and their cut? So surely it would make more sense for them to keep the belts unified as the fights are going to be worth more money - when it's put like that it's difficult to understand why more of the governing bodies don't make an effort to unify.

Unified champs don't fight as often usually, as the individual belt holders. Also it means they have more control over the fighter.

Peter Fury already has said it will be Klitschko in April or May... with no voluntaries in between.... so I am guessing the IBF will take the belt, or they will eat humble pie and keep the belt on Fury. Its their decision.

IBF are usually reasonable but will really go down in my estimation if they strip the belt here. Wlad has held the IBF belt for nine years and just lost a fairly close fight on points. How is he not the number one contender? Glazkov hasn't even won a final eliminator.

If the IBF sanctioned the fight knowing their was a rematch clause, would it even be legal to strip Fury for taking part in the rematch, even if it does delay the mandatory?
Genuine question.

keirw wrote:If the IBF sanctioned the fight knowing their was a rematch clause, would it even be legal to strip Fury for taking part in the rematch, even if it does delay the mandatory?
Genuine question.

Not sure, bit of a gray area, I'm not sure that the sanctioning bodies have to abide by rematch clauses. These are agreed between the parties involved in the fight, no the sanctioning bodies. I don't think rematch clauses actually have any legal basis within the rules of the governing bodies at all. I would have thought they are within their rights to ignore them - if Fury and Wlad choose to rematch, that's up to them. it's nothing to do with the rules of boxing, it's a legal agreement between two fighters and/or promotional/management companies.

According to their rules, Fury does not have to fight the IBF mandatory challenger until November 2016. Newly crowned IBF champions have a year before they must defend their title.
I have posted a link - scroll down to Rule 5:

http://www.ibfusbaregistration.com/ibfu ... 7_2014.pdf

Can't stand the IBF, it is way too soon to be doing this. The way they treated Jamie McDonnell for the belt, but were happy to wait for Randy Caballero was utterly ridiculous, and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Batley18 wrote:Can't stand the IBF, it is way too soon to be doing this. The way they treated Jamie McDonnell for the belt, but were happy to wait for Randy Caballero was utterly ridiculous, and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Not to mention Lamont Peterson how he kept that title was disgusting. all as bad as each other except the WBA are the worst by far

Fury is going to dump the IBF title in the bin, as Bowe did the WBC. Fair play I say http://www.BS.com/fury-honor-k ... tle--98858

Fury will not kiss the alphabet groups butt.Do you remember when he was demoted by the WBC for calling them thieves and liars?
He does not care.My prediction is that by the end of next year he will have been stripped of all but one belt.
The alphabet groups are all a joke.

Naandrew wrote:

Batley18 wrote:Can't stand the IBF, it is way too soon to be doing this. The way they treated Jamie McDonnell for the belt, but were happy to wait for Randy Caballero was utterly ridiculous, and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Not to mention Lamont Peterson how he kept that title was disgusting. all as bad as each other except the WBA are the worst by far

Very good point, the bias does tend to be towards the US fighters. Given the roots of the IBF you understand where that came about.

Agreed, the WBA are also terrible.

In some ways the IBF are one of the better of the big four, particularly given that they've avoided the proliferation of interim and super titles. Although, they do seem to recycle the same mandatory challengers over and over again. All the sanctioning bodies seemed to be willing to work with Wlad (and his plans) over the past few years (never seemed to threats to strip him etc), I only hope they show a similar amount of willingness with the new champ. I'll believe it when I see it.

Hearn will chase after this IBF belt for Joshua in the next 12 months if Fury loses it outside the ring.

Am I missing something here??? How can it be a good BUSINESS move for the IBF to strip Fury of the title when he's awaiting a HUGH rematch with Klitschko early nexy year???

Surely there is more money to be made in the sanctioning fee's from Fury vs Klitschko, than what, Glazkov vs Charles Martin???

Genuine question, can someone explain this?

I can see how it benefits Duva or even Al Haymon (although he doesnt appear to care much about the belts either), but can in no way see how this can benefit the IBF... short term or long term!

Glazkov was a mandatory already in August. Its understandable IBF doesn't want him to wait one year for a chance to fight for the title. I think Klitschko should wait few more months, let Fury fight Glazkov early spring and then fight the winner in the summer.