who likes rematch clauses ?

[funso banjo baby]

i personally hate them

We all know how Whyte has struggled to get a bauble shot of any kind (partly his own fault)but Povetkin has made himself no.1 and should get a shot...this year please !!!!

[DrDuke]

It has more sense in championship bouts and/or after arguable outcomes. Whyte vs Povetkin in fact was an eliminator and had no controversy. The first two rounds were very close, Whyte had two rounds of success afterwards, but then Povetkin knocked him out cold. A quite conclusive outcome.

[Verdi]

95% are pointless and are not the fights that the fans want to see. Fighter's should have more belief in themselves and think 'no need for a rematch clause, as I am going to win'.

[JxhDel.]

Is this even permitted by WBC?

[Frostieballs]

I am sure they were meant to have outlawed a while back!

[Frostieballs]

Any further to rematches, what about the dreaded options!

[margaret thatcher]

In general I piss on immediate rematches, though sometimes they are appropriate

[Twinkle Toes]

Not a fan of rematches unless it was a close first fight or a disputed ending.

Whyte was cleaned out, there is no argument to be had - Same applies to Wilder Fury 3, it's a complete waste of time.

[Verdi]

What happens if Wilder beats Fury?

[DrDuke]

What happens if Wilder beats Fury?

Wilder wakes up and gets KOed by The Gypsy King again.

[Noxy]

I don’t mind them. They still only happen if the fight will sell, so I just see them as peripheral.

[Twinkle Toes]

What happens if Wilder beats Fury?

Then you'll probably get a 4th fight, and so on

[Delta Jay]

In an ideal world there would be a just and sensible governing body with the power to order immediate rematches if the result could be argued to have been unfair. A freak injury, poor refereeing or something.

We do not live in an ideal world

[skanksta]

Me.
Think how many great re-matches and trilogies we’ve seen. Great for betting too.
Plus fighters gotta earn and they normally sell well.

[a93]

Should be for draws and controversial decisions. Not 5th round knockouts.

[Frostieballs]

Me.
Think how many great re-matches and trilogies we’ve seen. Great for betting too.
Plus fighters gotta earn and they normally sell well.

They can still happen without a mandatory clause if the money is there.

[margaret thatcher]

Ya, the lack of a rematch clause doesnt mean there cant be a rematch. The lack of a rematch clause just gives more flexibility in terms of what can be made.

[coneye]

Its just promoters trying to protect there investment... Or in the Whyte case Whyte really believing he's a bigger deal than what he is ,, There will not be a rematch if Eddie refuses to do it ,,, It only takes the promoter to sort this crap out ,, Ok in the case of Fury -Wilder ,,, AJ - Ruiz , you can understand it , theres belts won and lost , but for Whyte , no belt , only the eliminator to go for a belt , when he's already turned down a shot at one , .

Promoters can sort it out , they just don't , especielly Hearn , because lets face it , he has AJ , and he needs Whyte has a buffer zone

[spudder56]

People have to realise boxing is not a sport it’s a business always has been and always will be

[Kit]

Vladimir Klitchsko when on top used to insist on a rematch clause, then 2 further fights, 1 against Vitali.

[Cholo_cws]

Whyte-Povetkin doesn't warrant a rematch and of course there wouldn't be one if Whyte had won but I welcome it as another competitive match being made between two bona fide top 10 contenders - and there aren't nearly enough of them these days in boxing. It won't make me budge from not buying PPVs though.

[JimJim2009]

Vladimir Klitchsko when on top used to insist on a rematch clause, then 2 further fights, 1 against Vitali.

True, and that is probably the worst example of this, as an ongoing practice, in recent boxing history. I wondered if it helped contribute to the general malaise of Klitschko challengers turning up, and not really giving it everything. What is the point when you're already contracted to a rematch, plus facing Vitali too, should you actually win the first fight ? To me, that was everything that was wrong about boxing. I preferred it when Buster Douglas upset the applecart and could then defend against whoever he wanted. If you beat the champ fair and square you shouldn't be legally contracted to face him again, and also his brother.

[Frostieballs]

Vladimir Klitchsko when on top used to insist on a rematch clause, then 2 further fights, 1 against Vitali.

True, and that is probably the worst example of this, as an ongoing practice, in recent boxing history. I wondered if it helped contribute to the general malaise of Klitschko challengers turning up, and not really giving it everything. What is the point when you're already contracted to a rematch, plus facing Vitali too, should you actually win the first fight ? To me, that was everything that was wrong about boxing. I preferred it when Buster Douglas upset the applecart and could then defend against whoever he wanted. If you beat the champ fair and square you shouldn't be legally contracted to face him again, and also his brother.

There are plenty of parallel British examples, particularly 10-15 years ago during the long reigns of a few world champions.

[Cholo_cws]

Anyone who beat a Klitschko would probably have welcomed a rematch as it would likely have been the biggest cash earner option at the time.

[Scoops]

Whyte-Povetkin doesn't warrant a rematch and of course there wouldn't be one if Whyte had won but I welcome it as another competitive match being made between two bona fide top 10 contenders - and there aren't nearly enough of them these days in boxing. It won't make me budge from not buying PPVs though.

Well said.