BoxRec

"Danny Garcia-Keith Thurman - No Rematch Clause in Contracts"

If Danny Garcia-Keith Thurman is a highly competitive fight that leaves doubt about who deserved to win, there’s no guarantee that they’ll fight again.

Garcia confirmed Thursday that there isn’t a rematch clause in the contracts for their 12-round welterweight championship unification fight Saturday night at Barclays Center in Brooklyn.

“There’s no rematch clause,” Garcia said before a press conference Thursday in Manhattan. “It’s a big fight. It is what it is. We’ve gotta go in there and get the victory.”

They're both Al Haymon managed fighters and I suspect the opponents that they're allowed to face has to be sanctioned by the PBC head honchos. So maybe rematch clauses aren't required.

i hate remacht clauses, leave it all out in the ring and do everything you can to get the victory and people will know who realy won the fight. pac won against timmy, no need for rematches. kovalev won against ward, no need for rematch. whoever truly wins wins, that simple

Rematches are for later, right now this is a super hot fight.
Saw the weigh in and both boxers looks sharp and in shape, bit of needle between them too by the looks of it which is good I like that.
Tomorrow night can't come soon enough I'm hyped right up for this kick off

Jip wrote:i hate remacht clauses, leave it all out in the ring and do everything you can to get the victory and people will know who realy won the fight. pac won against timmy, no need for rematches. kovalev won against ward, no need for rematch. whoever truly wins wins, that simple

Without rematch clauses you'd have even less of the best fighting the best. Just mandatories and squash fights. When I was growing up champs almost always got rematches, I liked that.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:i hate remacht clauses, leave it all out in the ring and do everything you can to get the victory and people will know who realy won the fight. pac won against timmy, no need for rematches. kovalev won against ward, no need for rematch. whoever truly wins wins, that simple

Without rematch clauses you'd have even less of the best fighting the best. Just mandatories and squash fights. When I was growing up champs almost always got rematches, I liked that.

cant compare the old times with today. back than fight or rematch, they always gave 100 %, produced action and were about winning. today i have the feeling rematch clause means you can give 50 % cause no matter if you win or lose you ll get a second chance, i dont like that.

also i believe "the show must go on", if keith wins, he won, i dont want thurman/garcia II. i want thurman vs the winner of brook/spence to determin who truly is the undisputed numero uno. thousand rematches and nonsense prevents this from happening. good example is the kovalev ward situation. kovalev won and everybody saw it, the right descision for the future to determin who the #1 lh is would now be kovalev against bertebiev or gvozdyk, these guys are prime, mega strong punchers and natural lh. tired of waiting for arrogant ward to make a descision, when i saw what i saw.

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:i hate remacht clauses, leave it all out in the ring and do everything you can to get the victory and people will know who realy won the fight. pac won against timmy, no need for rematches. kovalev won against ward, no need for rematch. whoever truly wins wins, that simple

Without rematch clauses you'd have even less of the best fighting the best. Just mandatories and squash fights. When I was growing up champs almost always got rematches, I liked that.

cant compare the old times with today. back than fight or rematch, they always gave 100 %, produced action and were about winning. today i have the feeling rematch clause means you can give 50 % cause no matter if you win or lose you ll get a second chance, i dont like that.

also i believe "the show must go on", if keith wins, he won, i dont want thurman/garcia II. i want thurman vs the winner of brook/spence to determin who truly is the undisputed numero uno. thousand rematches and nonsense prevents this from happening. good example is the kovalev ward situation. kovalev won and everybody saw it, the right descision for the future to determin who the #1 lh is would now be kovalev against bertebiev or gvozdyk, these guys are prime, mega strong punchers and natural lh. tired of waiting for arrogant ward to make a descision, when i saw what i saw.

No idea what you're talking about, just letting you know the consequences of what you want. A worse product.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Without rematch clauses you'd have even less of the best fighting the best. Just mandatories and squash fights. When I was growing up champs almost always got rematches, I liked that.

cant compare the old times with today. back than fight or rematch, they always gave 100 %, produced action and were about winning. today i have the feeling rematch clause means you can give 50 % cause no matter if you win or lose you ll get a second chance, i dont like that.

also i believe "the show must go on", if keith wins, he won, i dont want thurman/garcia II. i want thurman vs the winner of brook/spence to determin who truly is the undisputed numero uno. thousand rematches and nonsense prevents this from happening. good example is the kovalev ward situation. kovalev won and everybody saw it, the right descision for the future to determin who the #1 lh is would now be kovalev against bertebiev or gvozdyk, these guys are prime, mega strong punchers and natural lh. tired of waiting for arrogant ward to make a descision, when i saw what i saw.

No idea what you're talking about, just letting you know the consequences of what you want. A worse product.

so kovalev-bertebiev would be a worse product to you than kovalev-ward 2?

and thurman/garcia winner vs brook/spence winner would be a worse product to you than thurman/garcia 2?

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:

cant compare the old times with today. back than fight or rematch, they always gave 100 %, produced action and were about winning. today i have the feeling rematch clause means you can give 50 % cause no matter if you win or lose you ll get a second chance, i dont like that.

also i believe "the show must go on", if keith wins, he won, i dont want thurman/garcia II. i want thurman vs the winner of brook/spence to determin who truly is the undisputed numero uno. thousand rematches and nonsense prevents this from happening. good example is the kovalev ward situation. kovalev won and everybody saw it, the right descision for the future to determin who the #1 lh is would now be kovalev against bertebiev or gvozdyk, these guys are prime, mega strong punchers and natural lh. tired of waiting for arrogant ward to make a descision, when i saw what i saw.

No idea what you're talking about, just letting you know the consequences of what you want. A worse product.

so kovalev-bertebiev would be a worse product to you than kovalev-ward 2?

and thurman/garcia winner vs brook/spence winner would be a worse product to you than thurman/garcia 2?

Lol, you obviously don't understand how it works.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: No idea what you're talking about, just letting you know the consequences of what you want. A worse product.

so kovalev-bertebiev would be a worse product to you than kovalev-ward 2?

and thurman/garcia winner vs brook/spence winner would be a worse product to you than thurman/garcia 2?

Lol, you obviously don't understand how it works.

are u and eo the same person? you are both masters of short sentences.

What more do you need to understand? Rematch clauses are a big reason why you get some high level voluntary defenses. It's not rocket science.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What more do you need to understand? Rematch clauses are a big reason why you get some high level voluntary defenses. It's not rocket science.

but most rematches dont need to be made, cause the boxers already fought against each other and the puplic saw who the better boxer was. what do you dont understand about that?

Jip wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What more do you need to understand? Rematch clauses are a big reason why you get some high level voluntary defenses. It's not rocket science.

but mostly rematche dont need to be paid, cause the boxers already fought against each other and the puplic saw who the better boxer was. what do you dont understand about that?

That has nothing to do with my point. Whatever kid. I'm not wasting anymore words on you.

This is so when they rob Keith of a win, Danny can run away.