BoxRec

The International Boxing Federation has made it clear that IBF/IBO/WBA junior welterweight champion Julius Indongo of Namibia is under order to make a mandatory defense against Russian contender Sergey Lipinets.

The biggest monetary fight for Indongo would be a unification with WBO, WBC champion Terence Crawford - should he defeat Olympic gold medal winner Felix Diaz on May 20th in New York City.

Indongo holds a record of 22 victories, no defeats and 11 knockouts, and Lipinets is also undefeated with 12 wins, and 10 by knockout.

Burns' promoter, Eddie Hearn of Matchroom, has an option on Indongo's next fight and wanted to match him against a Matchroom promoted fighter like Ohara Davies or even Anthony Crolla.

But the IBF does not allow step aside deals and a unification with Crawford or a voluntary defense will not be sanctioned - until Indongo satisfies the mandatory defense order.

Indongo will have to face Lipinets or vacate his IBF world title. If he does vacate, then Lipinets will fight for the vacant IBF title against the highest ranked available contender who accepts the opportunity.

"Indongo is obliged to hold his next fight against Lipinets. Both parties were notified to start negotiations, and then everything will depend on the promotional process, which make take 3 to 4.5 months. Also, we do not exclude the possibility of a purse bid. Indongo will not be able to hold a unification bout, he has a mandatory and was ordered to carry out a mandatory defense. As for Crawford, he has a fight coming up very soon fight," according to a statement from the IBF to Basil Konov.

http://www.BS.com/ibf-indongo- ... QL9Dr.dpuf

If Crawford offers enough money, Indongo will probably drop the IBF belt. The question is if Crawford is capable of offering enough money and if he will want to do that for only one belt.

boxing_rocks wrote:If Crawford offers enough money, Indongo will probably drop the IBF belt. The question is if Crawford is capable of offering enough money and if he will want to do that for only one belt.

I doubt that happens.. if Indongo meets his mando in Summer, then he and Crawford can fight in the fall.

The IBF has the worst mandatory challengers.

Thats stupid

Horse wrote:The IBF has the worst mandatory challengers.

At least they are enforcing them unlike more corrupt ABCs.

boxing_rocks wrote:At least they are enforcing them unlike more corrupt ABCs.

I'd prefer it if they didn't.

They are the worst of the big 4 ABC organisations.

It's probably good for Indongo as it gives him another fight and training camp to develop his craft a little bit before taking on the big dog of the division. He's gonna need all the seasoning he can get to have any kinda shot against Crawford.

Horse wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:At least they are enforcing them unlike more corrupt ABCs.

I'd prefer it if they didn't.

They are the worst of the big 4 ABC organisations.

I disagree. If I had to pick one to remain, it would be IBF.

boxing_rocks wrote:I disagree. If I had to pick one to remain, it would be IBF.

They have the weakest champions and the weakest fights for their title.

They are awful.

Indongo should screw them and make history by fighting the best in his division like legendary champions did.

Horse wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:I disagree. If I had to pick one to remain, it would be IBF.

They have the weakest champions and the weakest fights for their title.

They are awful.

I don't know the WBA gives 'em a run for their money.

If you look at cards these days it very much seems like several title orgs are in Promoters pockets. For instance look at that Top Rank card. All the WBO Champions are Top Rank guys. I know some of 'em aren't, but a great deal of 'em are.

The title organizations really don't matter. All 4 of 'em. The fighters and the promoters have made them irrelevant by keeping guys away from each other and avoiding the best fights.

Fight fans just have to use their best judgment when deciding who the best guy in the division is because there is belt anymore that is THE belt to have. Unfortunately.

I don't know if any other sport has ever been bastardized to the point that Boxing has.

I may be wrong but IBF doesn't have Interim, Silver and other secondary belts. That plus enforcing mandatories makes them as close to real sports federation as it is possible in current boxing. Their unwillingness to bend rules and give special treatment does repel some boxers who like having special treatment which is likely the reason why some of their champions are weak.

Horse wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:I disagree. If I had to pick one to remain, it would be IBF.

They have the weakest champions and the weakest fights for their title.

They are awful.

Statistically the IBF have the 2nd best champions and 2nd strongest fights. WBC are miles ahead. WBA are actually behind the IBO for weakest fights.

Lennox wrote:Statistically the IBF have the 2nd best champions and 2nd strongest fights. WBC are miles ahead. WBA are actually behind the IBO for weakest fights.

It doesn't seem that way.

That's a good fight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That's a good fight.

I agree...would probably be much more competitive than Indongo-Craw.

crusader wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That's a good fight.

I agree...would probably be much more competitive than Indongo-Craw.

Definitely

Never seen Lipinets fight, but I'm looking at his resume. He's TKO'ing guys that went the distance with some solid fighters. Anyone saw who they want to match Indongo with? Lipinets is the best out of the bunch that Matchroom had in line. Who the hell wants to see Indongo fight some domestic-level British guys like Crolla?

I actually like this mandatory.

I like it too, Lipinets is no mug.

Lipinets is very good, but he's definitely in the bottom half of the top 10, he should be fighting other guys in a similar position, like Provodnikov, Burns, Orozco, Troyanovsky, and so on.

The problem with the IBF is that aggressively enforcing mandatories is only a good thing if your rankings are good. If your rankings are garbage, your mandatories are garbage, and suddenly enforcing them can be a bad thing for the division. There's no reason Indongo should be forced to face a B-level contender instead of fighting the other elite guys like Crawford and Postol and maybe Barthelemy if he wins his first fight at 140.

jujigatame wrote:Lipinets is very good, but he's definitely in the bottom half of the top 10, he should be fighting other guys in a similar position, like Provodnikov, Burns, Orozco, Troyanovsky, and so on.

The problem with the IBF is that aggressively enforcing mandatories is only a good thing if your rankings are good. If your rankings are garbage, your mandatories are garbage, and suddenly enforcing them can be a bad thing for the division. There's no reason Indongo should be forced to face a B-level contender instead of fighting the other elite guys like Crawford and Postol and maybe Barthelemy if he wins his first fight at 140.

2 fights ago Indongo was a B level contender who got a shot at a champion. Now he needs to defend against a similar prospect. Yes, divas like Cotto or Canelo would hate to fight mandatories instead of cherry picking, but that is how it is supposed to work in real sport.

The "mandatory" concept was created to prevent a champion from avoiding the most qualified challenger, keeping his belt indefinitely by defending against an endless string of fringe contenders. But today it doesn't work that way. Today, the fringe contenders more often than not ARE the mandatories. Lipinets is very good, but there is absolutely nobody who believes that he is the #1 contender in the world at 140.

Mandatories will never serve their purpose until ABC rankings make sense and they agree to rank each others champions. So basically, they'll never serve their purpose in the modern sport and we may as well get rid of them.

I hear what you are saying with regard to pointless mandatory defences but the answer is a strong governing body that mandates EVERY fight for its champions or at the very least every second fight.

I agree that other governing body champions should be ranked though.

If Wilder was ranked no.1 and didn't want to fight Joshua for his belt (or vice versa) then it would expose the guys who don't want to take the harder challenges. They would lose credibility pretty quickly.

jujigatame wrote:The "mandatory" concept was created to prevent a champion from avoiding the most qualified challenger, keeping his belt indefinitely by defending against an endless string of fringe contenders. But today it doesn't work that way. Today, the fringe contenders more often than not ARE the mandatories. Lipinets is very good, but there is absolutely nobody who believes that he is the #1 contender in the world at 140.

Mandatories will never serve their purpose until ABC rankings make sense and they agree to rank each others champions. So basically, they'll never serve their purpose in the modern sport and we may as well get rid of them.

IBF allowed Indongo to fight one opponent of his choice. Only after that they enforce a mandatory. Seems to be a very fair approach to me allowing champions to fight other champions or take tuneups, but on the other hand disallowing them to sit on their belts and cherry pick like some "champions" of other orgs.