No beltholder should be above mandatory fights.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Robney, Jun 19, 2020.


  1. Robney

    Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

    92,823
    27,514
    Jan 18, 2010
    The discussion has come back now with the possibility that we might get the Fury vs Joshua fight.
    Although I understand the sentiment in this case, there's still the danger of sidelining fighters for all the wrong reasons.

    Mandatories are there for a reason, and nobody should be able to avoid them certainly due to their nature.
    With current corruption a big moneymaker with a very good chin would be able to keep his belt indefinitely by cherrypicking opponents in his backyard, when he doesn't have to fight mandatories. Once he has to, all bets are off though. He can lose the pursebid, has fight an opponent whose style is bad for him, fight in his oppoent's backyard instead, fight at a time that collides with his training (or other) regime, has to submit to stricter drugtesting, can't force stipulations like catchweight/gloves/dehydration etc. And every combination of those things.
    Plus, the upcoming boogieman in the division would get avoided by every single fighter in the division, knowing they would probably lose.
     
    ashishwarrior, BCS8, CST80 and 4 others like this.
  2. acie2g

    acie2g Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,738
    1,302
    Jul 21, 2010
    Dude 9/10 the mandatory is a ****ing bum that nobody cares about or wants to see, very rarely are mandatory fights good also while you mention corruption you can pay a organization to move a fighter up and make him a mandatory.

    look at dervancenko got a vacant shot vs Jacobs and loss then somehow was mandatory again and loss to ggg dude is coming off b2b losses hasn’t beaten anybody notable and is still top in line for a title shot that’s weak af.
     
    Reinhardt, covetousjuice and Badbot like this.
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,568
    47,126
    Mar 21, 2007
    EVERY beltholder should ignore his mandatories. They suck the absolute life out of the fight game and leave potentially great fighters with massively diminished legacies.

    Probably, arguably, in the beginning, they result in more money.

    But it does my heart good to see legends like Naoya Inoue and Erik Morales turn away straps like a dirty razorblade.
     
    Keldan and lufcrazy like this.
  4. Robney

    Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

    92,823
    27,514
    Jan 18, 2010
    Of course alphabet curruption is a thing, but how many great potential fights never happened or too late because one (usually the beltholder) avoided one or two fighters like the plague?!

    Also, there's that whole other thing needed that beltholders should be rated by other orgs. That would remove a lot of possible corruption and ducking issues.
    That way unifying would become much easier.
     
  5. Badbot

    Badbot You can just do things. Full Member

    46,165
    34,284
    Apr 17, 2011
    Unifications should stand above mandatory obligations.

    We want to see the best face the best, not somone who bought their way up the ranks via sanctioning fees for some BS local area belts.
     
    acie2g likes this.
  6. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,549
    18,263
    Jun 25, 2014
    In general, I have always liked the mandatory contender rules.

    There have been similar discussions in multiple threads recently. Most organizations have a system in place where boxers who don't have powerful promoters can win regional titles, which give them a spot in the world ratings, and eventually a title fight.

    Boxing is a global sport. Fighters who don't have powerful promoters in key spots around the world shouldn't be shut out because they don't have powerful ties. So I've always liked that a boxer I never heard of before could win, say, an Oriental Pacific Title and pop up in a world rankings and eventually fight for a title. That's how I learned about fighters like In Chul Baek.

    Just because fighters don't appear regularly on TV where we live doesn't mean they aren't good (or even great).

    Some mandatories fail. That's true. But if someone did research, I'm sure you'd find Champ vs. Mandatory bouts were often as good as "Superfights" that promoters over the years have insisted we needed to see ... only for them to end up being garbage fights themselves.

    The big problem I have is when an org threatens to strip a fighter if he doesn't face a mandatory.

    This bothered me years ago when Leon Spinks was stripped for agreeing to a rematch with Ali instead of fighting Norton. It bothered me when Tyson Fury upset Wlad, and then Fury was immediately stripped by the IBF for agreeing to give Wlad a rematch - because Czar Glazkov apparently was more deserving of a title fight than Wlad (rolls eyes).

    My suggestion is, when a boxer signs to fight for an organization's title, in the contracts, the boxer should have to agree that if he wins the title he must face his mandatory obligations.

    AND, if the champion DOESN'T WANT TO FIGHT HIS MANDATORY, and instead wants to fight a bigger name, or he wants to unify, or any of that, then he needs TO GIVE A PORTION OF HIS PURSE FROM THAT OPTIONAL BOUT TO THE MANDATORY CHALLENGER (let's say 20% off the top, meaning everyone getting a cut of the champion's purse - managers, trainers, etc. - will receive a cut of a smaller purse).

    If the champion decides not to fight the mandatory a SECOND time, the percentage that goes to the mandatory GETS LARGER. Say 30% of the champion's purse. If the champ passes on the mandatory a THIRD time, it's 40 percent.

    Of course, these steps won't be taken if the champion has multiple belts and more than one mandatory. Right now, Joshua and other multiple title champs agree to fight mandatories of different orgs in order as they come up. So, if a champ is fighting the mandatory of another org, you can't take a cut of his purse for not fighting the other mandatory.

    This is just in those instances where the champions want to meet an optional contender or unify instead of facing a mandatory.

    At some point, the champion and his team is going to want to put an end to this and just fight the mandatory.

    This way, and org isn't STRIPPING champions for not fighting a mandatory. The org is allowing unifications and big fights to happen, and the mandatory is getting a share. And, each time it happens, the mandatory gets a bigger share.

    It remains the fighter's choice ... if he wants to keep the belt he has to fight his mandatory.

    The champion can't claim someone stripped him of the belt. He'll have to give it up on his own if he doesn't want to follow the rules. And he can't claim he didn't know this would happen before he ever fought for a title. Nobody will have to file lawsuits. It will be standard practice.

    Then the organizations can maintain a more hands-off approach while still exercising some authority.
     
    The Senator, BCS8 and The Real Lance like this.
  7. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,549
    18,263
    Jun 25, 2014
    I disagree. Boxing networks and promoters tend to crap all over mandatories because networks sign fighters they want to push and promoters do the same. And they don't want anyone mucking up their plans. But their plans don't always produce the best fights, either.

    How many fights since you've been watching boxing have promoters said this fight was going to be the FIGHT of the Century!!! The greatest ever. We HAD to watch this. And it was a dud?

    By the same token, how many times have you seen an underdog mandatory win a title or at least produced a great fight when everyone said it would be terrible?

    They are probably about the same.

    It's not like the matchups the promoters want to put on instead of mandatory bouts always turn out so much better than the mandatory fights themselves.
     
  8. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,021
    44,581
    Mar 3, 2019
    No mandatory should be above Unifications.
     
    The Senator, acie2g and KO KIDD like this.
  9. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft He Who Saw The Deep Full Member

    27,021
    44,581
    Mar 3, 2019
    Not something you'd expect from a Wilder Fanboy.
     
    ashishwarrior and Wizbit1013 like this.
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,568
    47,126
    Mar 21, 2007
    They mean that wonderful talents like Orlando Canizales are legitimsed as champs while fighting trash.

    It causes dramatic harm to their legacies. Maybe he would have spent his whole career matching men three classes below him anyway, who knows. Nobody. Which is the point.

    Alphabets favour the fighters who pay them for title shots. If you're ok with that because sometimes some good boxing comes on your tv, that's fine. I'm not.
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  11. Richmondpete

    Richmondpete Real fighters do road work Full Member

    7,140
    5,026
    Oct 22, 2015
    That would be fine if there was any logic in how they determined who the mandatories are and there isn't
     
  12. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,549
    18,263
    Jun 25, 2014
    There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to sanctioning bodies.

    Allowing boxers all over the world to win regional belts in order to earn spots in world ratings, to me, has always been a great idea.

    My problem with mandatories are situations where champions get stripped for not fighting them.

    That's always bothered me. I want titles to be won and lost in the ring.
     
  13. The Real Lance

    The Real Lance Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,958
    10,237
    Oct 29, 2012
    Being a mandatory can often times be the only way an no-name fighters gets a shot.
     
    rusev and Dubblechin like this.
  14. jmb1356

    jmb1356 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,793
    1,864
    Sep 30, 2019
    Guys who earned a shot shouldn’t be ignored. Why not a timeframe of 1-2 years? The champion doesn’t have to face them right away, but the matchup is unavoidable.
     
  15. seansanashee

    seansanashee Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,658
    567
    Nov 27, 2010
    There should be no unifications because there should only be 1 title in each division.
     
    spiderricco and Oddone like this.