No beltholder should be above mandatory fights.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

No mandatory should be above Unifications.

 

Not something you'd expect from a Wilder Fanboy.

 

That would be fine if there was any logic in how they determined who the mandatories are and there isn't

 

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.

 

Being a mandatory can often times be the only way an no-name fighters gets a shot.

 

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.

 

There should be no unifications because there should only be 1 title in each division.