Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

[JamesPhilips]

Every big name fighter seems to have a rematch clause in case they lose. Even if the fight isn’t close they get another payday and it ties up the title for another 6 months at least. It’s ridiculous Joshua who just got dominated gets to choose who Usyk fights next (ie himself or someone else)……

It’s bad for boxing, ties up and monopolises the titles and stops other fighters from getting deserved opportunities. If a fight is good or controversial then they can negotiate a rematch or the governing bodies can demand one. It’s shouldn’t be part of the contract.

Couldn’t the BBBOFC and world Governing bodies make automatic rematch clauses illegal for boxing purposes? Also Usyk was a mandatory at least for the WBO so Joshua had to fight him, so shouldn’t be able to insist on a mandatory rematch.

[Oiky]

Yeah i think you make great points here

Not even close to warranting a rematch aswell is it,

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fighters would just find another commission.

[banjo]

I'm not fussed about banning clauses but I do think if there is a mandatory waiting in the wings then that should be fulfilled ahead of any rematch.

[JimJim2009]

I agree. A more realistic way forward is for it to be tested in court. Lets say a mandatory contender sues, like Lennox did with the WBC. Lennox defended against Rahman in South Africa, they had a rematch clause, Rahman upset the applecart and was tempted to say bollxxks to the rematch clause and go in a different direction. Lewis took it to court and the judge backed him, so Rahman had to give him a rematch.

Now, that is the exact opposite of the point of this thread obviously, but on a wider note, I think the sport of boxing, and the BBBC, are incapable of stopping rematch clauses, it would have to be tested in court. Lets say Joe Joyce now can't get a WBO title shot until 2023. He is getting older, and, in the simplest terms, "its just not fair". So he takes the WBO to court and gets a decision which effectively invalidates the privately arranged contracts of promoters to have rematches. That would put the sport above the private interests of promoters wishing to control the belts.

I think Dillian has legal action against the WBC ongoing.

Rocchigiani successfully sued the WBC twenty odd years ago and won, and was awarded $31m dollars.

So it can be done, and really I am surprised that in this day and age, more cases don't end up in court.

[JamesPhilips]

I agree. A more realistic way forward is for it to be tested in court. Lets say a mandatory contender sues, like Lennox did with the WBC. Lennox defended against Rahman in South Africa, they had a rematch clause, Rahman upset the applecart and was tempted to say bollxxks to the rematch clause and go in a different direction. Lewis took it to court and the judge backed him, so Rahman had to give him a rematch.

Now, that is the exact opposite of the point of this thread obviously, but on a wider note, I think the sport of boxing, and the BBBC, are incapable of stopping rematch clauses, it would have to be tested in court. Lets say Joe Joyce now can't get a WBO title shot until 2023. He is getting older, and, in the simplest terms, "its just not fair". So he takes the WBO to court and gets a decision which effectively invalidates the privately arranged contracts of promoters to have rematches. That would put the sport above the private interests of promoters wishing to control the belts.

I think Dillian has legal action against the WBC ongoing.

Rocchigiani successfully sued the WBC twenty odd years ago and won, and was awarded $31m dollars.

So it can be done, and really I am surprised that in this day and age, more cases don't end up in court.

Yeah but you need money, a good but expensive legal team and GUTS. I mean imagine a fighter paying loads of his hard earned for a legal challenge then loses he would be sick as a parrot. I had forgotten about Rochigiannis win what were the uns and outs? Also I imagine this is a rare case.

[orbtastic]

He beat Nunn for the vacant title then for no real reason (other than money) they stripped him and basically said that it was a clerical error and he was never the holder.

Then they made a fight between Jones and a 40 year old mccallum for the vacant interim title. Then signed a fight for Jones Rocci which never came off and he basically sued them and won. He was awarded some absurdly high sum in the double figures of millions but they couldn’t pay so he had to accept a far smaller sum.

Pretty underhand stuff. He was treated atrociously.

[handsofstone]

Yep Im not a fan of rematches unless controversy, don't like draws either, would love 1 more round after a draws announced, balls to the wall

[rhino222]

Should only be a rematch for a draw or a technical draw. The fight was a mandatory FFS. Lets see if the IBF strip usyk.

[JamesPhilips]

He beat Nunn for the vacant title then for no real reason (other than money) they stripped him and basically said that it was a clerical error and he was never the holder.

Then they made a fight between Jones and a 40 year old mccallum for the vacant interim title. Then signed a fight for Jones Rocci which never came off and he basically sued them and won. He was awarded some absurdly high sum in the double figures of millions but they couldn’t pay so he had to accept a far smaller sum.

Pretty underhand stuff. He was treated atrociously.

Right. Well done Graciano

[JamesPhilips]

Yep Im not a fan of rematches unless controversy, don't like draws either, would love 1 more round after a draws announced, balls to the wall

They tried that briefly in the US. I would rather see a judge be forced to pick a winner in the event of a draw

[bigjack]

get rid of them,ties up the belt for years in some cases,Joshua got dominated in both losses but comes back for the lions share of the pay,stinks.

[Crease]

The difficult thing about immediate rematch clauses is that they have been a part of the sport for a VERY long time.

I'm sure that I've read that Ezzard Charles had a rematch clause when he lost the title and got KO'd by Walcott in their third fight... The stipulation was that he had one year to activate it...

Walcott had an immediate rematch clause when he fought Marciano the second time. It was the same with Patterson vs Johansson...

[Crease]

Should only be a rematch for a draw or a technical draw. The fight was a mandatory FFS. Lets see if the IBF strip usyk.

I'm confident that they won't... Pulev was the IBF Mando, so that commitment has been fulfilled for a while...

If any of the three bodies are going to cause trouble, it will be the WBA... Povetkin was WBA Mando and that was a good while back. And they have Trevor Bryant as "regular champ" but they also have Daniel DuBois as their current number one ranked challenger...

[margaret thatcher]

im sick of them tbh

fury pounds wilder, usyk handily beats aj. and instead of being able to face each other next, they gotta do immediate rematches

[DrDuke]

Well, not banned, cause sometimes they're needed after close bouts, but somehow they should be investigated and declined after one-sided ones.

[DrDuke]

im sick of them tbh

fury pounds wilder, usyk handily beats aj. and instead of being able to face each other next, they gotta do immediate rematches

Yeah, in this particular case rematches absolutely suck.

[Terminator666]

Is there a fairly quick time limit for last nights fights rematch? Or could AJ decide he is not ready and keep everyone waiting?

[JamesPhilips]

The difficult thing about immediate rematch clauses is that they have been a part of the sport for a VERY long time.

I'm sure that I've read that Ezzard Charles had a rematch clause when he lost the title and got KO'd by Walcott in their third fight... The stipulation was that he had one year to activate it...

Walcott had an immediate rematch clause when he fought Marciano the second time. It was the same with Patterson vs Johansson...

Wow. I had no idea. Always assumed it was a re ent thing.

[JamesPhilips]

Well, not banned, cause sometimes they're needed after close bouts, but somehow they should be investigated and declined after one-sided ones.

I don’t mean ban rematches, just rematch clauses

[DrDuke]

Well, not banned, cause sometimes they're needed after close bouts, but somehow they should be investigated and declined after one-sided ones.

I don’t mean ban rematches, just rematch clauses

And maybe then it's a good idea. Opportunities of rematches should be judged strictly on outcomes of fights.

[tonyevs]

Its an interesting dilemma when considering Rahman v Lennox ... what if Rahman didnt rematch? Lennox lost very decisively - would Lennox have been frozen out for years after?

I can understand the rematch clauses; but I think it should have some other clause in that the former champion splits his purse 50/50 with the mandatory for the title. That way it would make the former champion question if they want to go through with the rematch for a much smaller purse, and compensates the mandatory for having to wait another 12 mnths and losing a big payday.

[handsofstone]

Yep Im not a fan of rematches unless controversy, don't like draws either, would love 1 more round after a draws announced, balls to the wall

They tried that briefly in the US. I would rather see a judge be forced to pick a winner in the event of a draw

Or even go to concensous(?) scoring

[DrDuke]

Its an interesting dilemma when considering Rahman v Lennox ... what if Rahman didnt rematch? Lennox lost very decisively - would Lennox have been frozen out for years after?

I can understand the rematch clauses; but I think it should have some other clause in that the former champion splits his purse 50/50 with the mandatory for the title. That way it would make the former champion question if they want to go through with the rematch for a much smaller purse, and compensates the mandatory for having to wait another 12 mnths and losing a big payday.

Well, the Lewis-Rahman fight looked way closer than the Fury-Wilder beatdown and the Usyk-Joshua schooling.

[JimJim2009]

On the whole, it runs against the grain of what sport is meant to be about.

You beat the champion, and you're already contractually tied to a rematch, and (in AJs case and I suspect others) you'll earn considerably less than the guy you beat, in the rematch, despite holding the belts.

Football is also a business, but that Euro super league idea that went up in smoke earlier this year was going to keep the top clubs earning well, and free from relegation. Finish bottom of the league, and just go again next season. That particular thing provoked an outcry.

I preferred it back in the day when Douglas knocked out Tyson, and just defended for the highest purse. It was his choice, these days it would have been a contracted rematch. Which actually in that case the world did want to see.

I like AJ and always have, but because of stuff like this, I want to see a rematch, and for Uysk to repeat the win. Which will freeze AJ and Eddie out of the title picture. See how they like it. Would like to see AJ then jockey for position, only to be kept waiting 12-18 months due to other heavyweights and their rematch clauses.