Deontay Wilder vs Primo Carnera

As I said, there is quite a lot to unpack. So I had to split this across two posts.

Part 2 of 2: (part 1 is above)

6. I don't think that is how mandatories work. Pulev being scared of Joshua doesn't change the fact that the IBF mandatory was due in January 2019. i.e. before the Klitchko fight in April 2019.

I agree IBF showed bias in sanctioning two fights with Klitschko (see Fury). But they weren't going to wait while the WBA gave Ortiz a turn before them.

Ortiz best case scenario there, was to have Joshua stripped because by fighting his IBF mandatory, he couldn't fight his WBA mandatory. But the WBA were highly unlikely to stripped their newly crowned cash-cow of a champion. And I doubt Ortiz wanted to miss out on the payday anyway. Hence step aside money.

Beside's not sure why you have such a problem with Takam. Again he was ranked above Ortiz in the IBF rankings, and was ranked 2nd after Pulev.

• Didn't you defend the WBC parachuting Washington into the top 15 before he fought Wilder to meet their belt defence rules? Parachuting is a bit strong, but I recall Jerrell Miller was not impressed with how Washington was being quietly nudged up the rankings. So, again you have some double standards when it comes to Wilder and Joshua.

Okay, let me just quote back to you what you wrote for the next part to save some time:
" Joshua did not "have" to go after Parker right away. He could have fought Ortiz next and CHOSE not to.

This content is protected

...

This content is protected

and of course joshua breathed a sigh of relief."

This content is protected

This content is protected

i.e. Klitschko would have been jumping ahead of Ortiz for a second shot at the WBA. I support Ortiz standing up for his rights here. But was not to stop Joshua's IBF mandatory, and has no connection to the Parker fight:

1. Jan 2017: IBF mandatory is due (Joshua is the IBF champion, his first belt, loyalty in theory should lie there)
2. Apr 2017: Klitschko v Joshua (IBF-WBA unification)
3. Now, the IBF were prepared to let the Klitschko rematch go ahead.
   • Personally, I think that is corruption/bias shown by the IBF (see Fury situation), and as I said I agree that Ortiz was well within his rights to take Joshua/WBA to court to stop the WBA giving an exemption. Ortiz was next in line for the WBA not Klitschko. But note: IBF is still due first. Remember Klitschko equaled $$$, the IBF would not have given a rats ass about what the WBA promised Ortiz. Nothing to do with the IBF.
4. Aug 2017: Klitchko retires. IBF orders Pulev (mandatory) v Joshua.
   • I guess it's here that I'm not sure exactly sure what your argument. Do you think Joshua should give up his IBF title and fight Ortiz? He was clearly going to choose the IBF over the WBA, and I'm pretty sure Ortiz wanted the pay day. All Ortiz had to do was wait in line.
5. Oct 2017: Joshua fights Takam (IBF mandatory) - Ortiz is literally next up for Joshua (WBA mandatory)
6. Sep 2017: Wilder signs to fight Ortiz.
7. Nov 2017:
   This content is protected
   . Wilder fights Stiverne 2, WBA gives Ortiz a suspension.
8. Jan 2018: Joshua agrees to fight Parker in WBO unification.
   • I agree "[Joshua] could have fought [the suspended] Ortiz next [as a voluntary] but CHOSE [to unify instead]".
9. Mar 2018: Joshua v Parker (IBF-WBA-WBO unification)
10. Mar 2018: Wilder v Ortiz 1
11. Jun 2018: WBA order Joshua to defend against Povetkin (WBA mandatory)
12. Sep 2018: Joshua v Povetkin (WBA mandatory)

In summary the best argument for Ortiz would be that the WBA should not have allowed Klitschko to fight Joshua for the WBA belt (see the current Usyk situation), but beyond that

This content is protected

.


7. Regarding Joshua weasling his way around the division. You seem to be saying Joshua should not have fought Martin for the belt. I agree he paid a lot of money to be Martin's first voluntary defence. Maybe, Wilder through Al Haymon (and US networks) should have outbid Hearn...

• Regarding Joshua fighting Klitschko for the WBA belt. Though I acknowledge it obviously benefitted Joshua, that was primarily a stipulation made by Klitschko...

Wladimir Klitschko determined to fight for the WBA heavyweight title | Boxing News | Sky Sports

• • And as mentioned Klitschko whilst 41 years old was still #1 Heavyweight. As I recall Wilder was at that fight, and seemed very impressed with what he saw.
• Regarding Fury making his comeback against Joshua instead of Wilder. I have supported Fury since I heard him mentioned in the gyms around greater Manchester. I would love to have seen Fury v Joshua, but forgive me, you seem to think the British public would have accepted Fury taking 2 warms up then fighting Joshua. That is just not true. Fury knew this. Joshua knew this. Everyone in Britain knew this.
  • Joshua would have been mocked senselessly if he had fought Fury after 2 warm-ups. Instead (this is hearsay) but Fury proposed the idea of having a string of warm-ups paid for by Hearn, to then finally fight Joshua. That was obviously unrealistic demand given the state Fury was in. So Fury took a different route.
  • To be honest, people were a bit annoyed in Britain at Fury being fast tracked to fight Wilder, and gave him no chance of winning. And thought he was about to do a lot of damage to the standing of British horizontal heavy-weights in America. But the American public lapped it up.
  • So this idea that Joshua ducked Fury is half-true/half-false. The reality is it would have been an embarrassment in front of the British public. Basically a no-win situation for Joshua to have fought Fury at that time.
  • However, once Fury got the draw against Wilder, Fury had proved himself again. Both Fury and Wilder were hot commodities. Joshua improved his offer to fight Wilder (as he should), and also made an offer to Fury. But Wilder and Fury chose instead to freeze Joshua out - that was their choice.
  • Regarding splits and percentages. They can resolve that in a board room, not by making offers over social media. That is just for the fans. Both Wilder and Joshua are guilty of that. But, there are only two men who are true A-sides in the sense Mayweather was: Joshua and Canelo. But ultimately what split Wilder deserved would have been negotiated in private.
    • But as I understand it, according to Wilder, Joshua did offer him more money than he got to fight Fury in the rematch. But Wilder thought he could get more, and correctly assumed that the winner of Fury v Wilder would have their 50-50 demands met. So, Wilder chose to bet on himself... and lost.
    • But at the end of the day, it's the same situation with Crawford-Spence. Spence says I'm the A-side I want the bigger share. Crawford says I'm P4P, I want the bigger share. And both sets of fans make ridiculous demands. Instead they should just negotiate it in private. But one thing that we need to recognize is that Joshua brought money back into heavyweight boxing.
• Yeah, I agree it was a dull fight with Parker, but I don't think if you are trying to elevate Wilder and diminish Joshua you should bring up ref involvement. Stones and Glass Houses (see Ortiz 1 and 2).

This content is protected

I appreciate your response, but after spending 2 hours looking at all your counter claims, I can accept some of it is difference in opinion regarding Joshua v Wilder, but a lot of what you wrote is ignoring (specifically the Whyte/Breazeale situation) what is a matter of record.

In conclusion: Wilder was not hard done by; Joshua wasn't ducking Ortiz and Fury; and Whyte was indeed screwed over by blatant WBC corruption.

 

1-So then between 2015-2018 Fury could not be regarded as #1. To be #1 you have to BEAT whoever #1 is. A draw is not a win even if it's a controversial draw.

2-Klitschko lost to Fury, therefore he cannot be be bumped back up to #1 by default--especially if there are other champions. That's now how that works in any sport, including boxing. You cannot be coming off of a loss and then be regarded as the best fighter in the division. Note: I am not referring to Klitschko's skill, but rather his standing as the overall most high ranking HW. He had no belts.

Povetkin had no belts, so how is he ranked higher than Stiverne who was the legitimate WBC champion?

I agree Joshua pulled ahead of Wilder due to having 2 belts and beating Klitschko even if Klitschko was old and coming off of a loss, it was still a huge win. You asked when Wilder was #1 and I simply answered the question by providing a timeline. It was when Fury retired and Joshua had yet to really beat any truly top notch fighters (pre Klitschko).

3-Because Ortiz drug test bust was AFTER he was paid step aside money and was blatantly ignored by team Joshua. It happened after he got frustrated and signed to fight Wilder. Literally hundreds of people on the internet blamed Wilder for Povetkin's screw ups but gave Joshua a pass.

4-Fury had not beaten Wilder. You do not get to be considered #1 after a draw, especially after a fight where you got put on your ass twice. He fought a couple of C level scrubs literally no one had heard of and Wilder had at least 8 title defenses.

5-I just read the whyte vs chisora article. It said the fight was "an" eliminator, not the "final" eliminator so how was it more elevated than Brezeale vs Molina? Neither of those bouts were "final" eliinators, hence the confusion.

The WBC ordered the two of them to fight for the interim title because of the unexpected draw between Fury and Wilder.

https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_...illian-whyte-interim-world-title-bout-ordered

Whyte, despite sounding enthusiastic at first, eventually refused to face Brezeale. So HOW IS WHYTE A VICTIM?

Fury chose to take on 2 more European level bums to milk out his top rank money.

Whyte was offered a fight with Ortiz because he didn't face Brezeale for the interim eliminator. He called Ortiz an old man and then wouldn't fight him. Nothing Whyte says ever makes sense. He thought he could just ignore the WBC's orders and still get his shot somehow.

Let me ask you this: Why did Whyte not take the WBC or Wilder to court if he was right? It should have been an open and shut case. The reality is Fury's return threw a ****** wrench into everything, and the draw between him and Wilder was a flat tire in a long bump in the road. The whole division was on hold because of this, and it's still going on to this day because Fury ducked the 3rd fight throwing a hissy fit expecting the promoters to put on a huge event during a pandemic and yet pay both of them millions of dollars. What it boils down to is Fury wanted to just get it over with at his pace and then get the big money unfication with Joshua.

Meanwhile, guys like Whyte and Pulev who were rightful contenders got frustrated and screwed waiting forever. In Whyte's case he got impatient and Wilder was pretty much in the clear for beating Brezeale whom Whyte should have fought. If the champion beats his #1 contender he doesn't need to defend against a ranked contender for at least a year. Especially if the champion is tied up re match clauses or is attempting to unify. You are also forgetting prior to Fury, from 2016-2017 Wilder was in serious back and forth negotiations with Joshua which eventually led to nothing. That was one of the major reasons for the hold up with Whyte.

I am not about to open up another gigantic debate over Joshua vs Wilder, but I will say that both can be blamed to an extent, but Hearn especially ticked off Wilder with his constant contradictions and made things unnecessarily difficult.

 

1. Well I don't know what to tell you. I can perhaps understand where you are coming from, but personally from my point of view, Fury was Lineal and the manner of the draw put him above Wilder. But you don't have to take my word for it, and I am admittedly biased toward Fury:

• The Ring Magazine: Fury was ahead of Wilder
• TBRB: Joshua was #1. Fury was #2 and Wilder was #3. Then Ruiz Jr. became #1. But when Ruiz Jr. lost in December, it went a bit strange for the first 3 months of 2020:

• • In January and February rankings they moved Wilder to #1.
  • In March they installed Fury as their Champion
  • In April they moved Joshua ahead of Wilder...
• PBO computational rankings: I believe Ruiz Jr. was #1, and Fury was #2.
• Boxrec: Wilder MIGHT have been #1. To be honest I can't remember and unfortunately they changed their ranking algorithm following Wilder v Fury 2.
• ESPN: just joking

2. Regarding Klitschko's ranking:

• The Ring Magazine: Fury (Champion), Klitschko #1
• TBRB: Again they like to move the pieces around a fair bit following Fury v Klitschko:
  • Until October 2016: Fury (Champion), Klitschko #1, Povetkin #2
  • November 2016: Open (Champion), Klitschko #1, Povetkin #2
  • December 2016: Open (Champion), Povetkin #1, Joshua #2
  • From April 2017: Joshua #1, Ortiz and Klitschko were switching back and forth at #2 spot.
  • Joshua (#1) v Klitschko (#2)
• PBO computational rankings: Klitschko was #1 when Joshua beat him. Then Joshua became # 1.
• Boxrec: same problem as above. No way of checking now.

I think to answer your question about specifically about Povetkin, as you pointed out rightfully earlier in the thread. There are so many belts these days. It's not like when Carnera was fighting. I guess the argument is ongoing: Does the belt bring value to the fighter, or does the fighter bring value to the belt? You said yourself Charles Martin was a weak champion who got lucky fighting for a vacant belt. But many didn't consider Stiverne much better, he literally beat Areola once defending his Silver title. Then in the very next fight he beat Areola again, but this time for the vacant WBC championship.

3. Okay, so if Ortiz was paid step aside money. That doesn't really mean all that much, given the sequence of events. Do you know what exactly he was paid for and when? There are only 2 scenarios:

1. Was it say to let Joshua and Klitschko 1 happen for the WBA belt? Klitschko and the WBA would share equal parts of the blame.
2. Or was it when Joshua had to fight his IBF mandatory? Well Joshua probably didn't want to be stripped of the WBA belt he had just won, but his loyalties and priorities lay with the IBF mandatory.

As I detailed, Ortiz was next in line for the title shot, but he had to wait his turn. He saw an opportunity to fight Wilder and took it. He still actually expected to be inline for the WBA shot btw. But then he popped dirty. That's on him.
Let's put it this way. I doubt the WBA would have sanctioned the WBO unification before Ortiz got his shot, they wouldn't have wanted another Fres Oquendo situation. Ultimately this was down to choices Ortiz made: who he fought, and what he put in his body.
Regarding the Povetkin v Wilder situation, Povetkin winning a court case against Wilder probably swayed public opinion.

4. Fury was the Lineal Champion (the man who beat the man). Wilder couldn't beat him. He was therefore above Wilder. The rankings above seem to agree with this being the case.

5. I never said Whyte v Chisora was more elevated than Breazeale versus Molina. That was the whole point: they were both eliminators. Neither was a final eliminator. 'Breazeale versus Whyte' should have been called as a final eliminator. Remember Whyte beat Chisora BFEORE Breazeale beat Molina. But then WBC tried to change the Breazeale-Molina to a final eliminator after the fact.
The WBC even confirmed it was not a final eliminator BEFORE the fight when the media spotted the press release said "final eliminator" and so contacted the WBC and challenged them on it. The WBC responded by saying it had been a clerical error on the press release, but Breazeale v Molina was in fact a regular eliminator. Then later AFTER the fight, the WBC said it had been a final eliminator all along and made Breazeale mandatory.
THAT'S BLATANT CORRUPTION

They eventually (more than a year later) ordered Whyte to fight Breazeale because Whyte was not only threatening to take them to court of the mandatory status situation and them trying to make him fight Ortiz to be 2nd mandatory (wtf haha). Whyte was also winning in the court of public opinion. You even had Teddy Atlas calling them out publicly over it. Things were getting very embarrassing for the WBC.

At the end of the day Whyte's goal was to be first in line to fight Wilder for the full title. It's clear Whyte's end goal was to try to win the WBC title and get a rematch against Joshua for a truck load of money. Which btw was clearly Fury's goal too.

And it's pretty obvious what I am saying holds water, because when the Fury v Wilder rematch fell through, it wasn't Whyte WBC #1 for 600+ days and Silver Champion who was chosen to be Wilder's mandatory, but inactive Breazeale who was below Whyte in the rankings.
THAT'S BLATANT CORRUPTION

Let me just quote your last part: "Whyte, despite sounding enthusiastic at first,

This content is protected

. So HOW IS WHYTE A VICTIM?"
Well unfortunately

This content is protected

is the second time you have said that, and your evidence makes it very hard to believe.

1. The article you linked to is dated February 13th 2019. - you mention he sounded enthusiastic, yes.
2. Then February 26th 2019 Fury pulled out of the Wilder rematch.
3. March 3rd 2019 - WBC nominates Breazeale #2 as Wilder's mandatory over Whyte #1

So you tell me, when was it that Whyte refused to fight Breazeale?
Wilder-Breazeale Mandatory Fight Formally Ordered By WBC - Boxing News (*******.com)
So yeah, "So HOW IS WHYTE A VICTIM?" - I think the above details it quite clearly.

Now if you want to dig deeper and talk about how Don King was also involved in the inactive Stiverne becoming Wilder's 1st mandatory, and how that involves Breazeale and Whyte I'd be happy to.

To quote you again: "

This content is protected

He called Ortiz an old man and then wouldn't fight him. Nothing Whyte says ever makes sense. He thought he could just ignore the WBC's orders and still get his shot somehow."
So when did all

This content is protected

happen? Again:

1. The article you linked to is dated February 13th 2019. - Whyte v Breazeale is ordered for interim title.
2. Then February 26th 2019 Fury pulled out of the Wilder rematch.
3. March 3rd 2019 - WBC nominates Breazeale #2 as Wilder's mandatory over Whyte #1

So

This content is protected

didn't happen, or at least not in the time line you are suggesting.

This content is protected

To answer your question: "Why did Whyte not take the WBC or Wilder to court if he was right? It should have been an open and shut case."
Well it's probably because the WBC rule book states that they can change any rules and ruling they like at their own discretion...
Boxing is still the wild west in many cases. I imagine Whyte still had hopes for a title shot, and that Sulaiman would eventually do right by him, and justice would be served. But I think it is important to remember as well that Whyte was self-managed, even his business relationship with Eddie Hearn was somewhat one of convenience; his problem was he wasn't actually backed by the big American promoters like Don King (Stiverne), Al Hammon (Breazeale), or Bob Arum (Fury). So it was probably down to naivety on his part, and being in over his head. It seems he did eventually wise up to all the games though:
Dillian Whyte Takes Legal Action Against The WBC - Boxing News (*******.com)

You seemed to have got side tracked talking about Fury v Joshua. But, I completely agree that Fury should have took a pay cut if he wanted a December fight. But I am not privy to how much exactly they were willing to pay him. I'm sure there are limits to what most people would think is reasonable.

I agree the back and forth between Joshua and Wilder messed around people's time tables. But it only effected Whyte IF the WBC were willing to make the fight between Breazeale and Whyte for the mandatory position. They didn't, and I'm not willing to speculate on some idea of a fantasy version of the WBC doing right by Dillian Whyte. The way they dealt with Whyte's "B-sample" post Rivas fight and the rescheduling his mandatory to February 2021, which he took them to court over, should make it clear Whyte's face didn't fit.

I'm sure Sullaiman thought it was hilarious when Povetkin beat Whyte, and you'll notice that Sullaiman was hinting a while back that Whyte will no longer be a mandatory after the rematch this month...

Yeah, let's table Joshua v Wilder, and accept the blame is shared.

 

We have to agree to disagree, but one more point:

So you picked the highest weight Wilder ever reached and compared it to some of the lightest from Carnera? Carnera weighed as high as 284 lbs, which is over 50 lbs of advantage.

But let's be fair and make it simple:

Wilder's last 10 fights average: 222,75
Carnera's weight average from Levinsky to 2nd Campolo: 261,75

That's almost exaclty 40 lbs of advantage. Who is intelectually dishonest now?

 

What am I getting at?

The only way that he would have been 215-217lbs in the old eras, would be if he was fat.

Ergo he would not have been a giant at all!

A 215 lb fighter back then, generally meant somebody who had never been anything other than a heavyweight.

It was not a typical end point for somebody who had started out as a middleweight.

 

It is not really an issue that we can avoid, if you insist on making these cross era comparisons.

By all means argue that it is unknowable what Jack Sharkey would have weighed today, or what Usky would have weighed in 1930, but I don't think we can pretend that they would have weighed what they did in their own eras.

 

You're right, Usyk would likely not have been 215 lbs, if he had been part of the 1930s heavyweight scene... and possibly not even 6'3".

He would have been born in the first decade of the last century, would likely have been taught to box in an orthodox stance, and would not have been groomed during a long, distinguished amateur career.

In other words, you can create any fantasy fighter you like to fit your agenda, that has little to do with the Usyk we know today. But if we can't compare fighters as they actually are/were... is there any point at all in discussing these fantasy match-ups?

 

It's called moving the goalposts to fit their narrative / agenda.
When we discuss these fantasy fights, each opponent should be as they are / were. Anything less is pure fabrication and hypothesis.
It really is rather lame.

 

I am not suggesting that we should work with some hypothetical version of Sharkey or Usky.

I am saying that we need to be honest about what the numbers mean.

Contenders like Sharkey have not disappeared because a 200lb heavyweight doesn't have a chance. They have disappeared because a 200lb heavyweight can became a 220lb heavyweight, and even a 175lb heavyweight can become a 210lb heavyweight.

I am not trying to shift any goalposts, I am just trying to explain where Carnera's opponents fit into todays picture.

 

Wilder obviously doesn't want a third fight with Fury, because he allowed his mandatory status to expire.

In fairness I would have advised him to do the same, because Fury would just have crushed him again.

I would also not that the Fury fight was more than a year ago, and he still doesn't seem to have a new fight in the works.

 

You are.

Because you are pretending like Wilder, who was literally taller than Carnera and has broad shoulders, long arms, and the athletic build of an NBA player, would be "dwarfed" by Carnera.

At no point was I saying they had similar weights.

Again, does Tony beer belly Galento "dwarf" Wilder due to sheer weight? Because that is the inevitable conclusion you will reach if you insist on dying on this hill that weight is the end all be all for determining "size".

 

So what exactly are you suggesting then? Are you now saying, that for these cross era comparisons we should look at the boxers as they actually are/were in their own time?

A couple of posts back you said, that in a Usyk/Sharkey discussion we can't avoid the fact, that they would both be different if they fought in the other guy's era. So is this something that should be considered when comparing the two - or is it not?

 

I cut your post because the length was getting too much to post.

1-boxing is about "what have you done lately", which it shares with any other sport in that regard. Fury did NOTHING until he fought Wilder to a draw for 3 years. It doesn't matter what he did "previously" when it comes to CURRENT rankings. Do you understand now? Ratings are not based on what you did ages ago or h2h skill and ability. Until he fought Wilder we honestly had no clue how much he had left in the tank. Therefore, between 2015-2018, he was NOT the #1 HW even during his 2 brief tune ups.

2-Klitschko came off of a loss and was inactive. Even being ranked as high as #1 does not make you higher than a champion with multiple defenses. That doesn't even make logical sense. Again, we are making a distinciton between h2h/ability and what a fighter has done recently.

To give an example, Lomachenko was considered a p4p phenom but then he lost shockingly to Lopez similar to Klitschko vs Fury. If Lomachenko does nothing for the remainer of the year he cannot be regarded as the "best" in the division even if Lopez were to suddenly retire or move up in weight. Do you understand now?

3-I can't remember exactly when Ortiz was asked to step aside, but multiple boxing videos and articles covered it. Off the top of my head I believe it was so that Joshua could fight Klitschko. I definitely blame both parties and the WBA for that nonsense. Joshua was quite literally handed a belt that someone dusted off in the back and brought out to give to the winner.

4-to be completely honest with you, that is stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm saying it was stupid and incredibly disrespectful to give a guy who threw his belts in the garbage and went on a cocaine binge, got put on his ass twice against the WBC champion and then everyone talks about how he was a "hero" who turned his life around who "got robbed" and in reality was the real #1 at HW. Never in the history of sports has this occurred!

A boxer cannot get a draw and then be regarded as the best afterwards, period. At most you can say he was equal to Wilder due to how close the fight was and him outboxing Wilder in the rounds where he didn't get knocked down.

5-Here's the funny thing about Chisora vs Whyte 1 in 2016: You criticized Brezeale vs Molina as an eliminator match since they were ranked 6 and 12. BUT...At the time of their match, Whyte was ranked 8th and Chisora was ranked 11....!!! That SAME YEAR of 2016, Chisora came off a LOSS to Pulev and then "earned" his eliminator spot by knocking out a bum named Janjanin who had 7 losses and wasn't even in the top 50!

So can you be a little consistent in your criticism???

Look, at the end of the day Whyte is a brat who didn't want things to be dictated to him and thought with Eddie Hearn as his boss he could just shout and get whatever he demands. He refused to fight both Ortiz and Brezeale. He was a tool used by Hearn to distract and annoy Wilder so that they could use him as a measuring stick to see how well Joshua would do against Wilder. That's all that whole saga was for.

 

To play devil's advocate, this is true. Usyk only just recently got to that weight. as a grown man he made the cruiserweight limit easily and still looked like he could cut more weight without become skinny or malnourished. Plus, back then he'd be training for 15 rounds. He definitely wouldn't have been anywhere near 215 lbs in the old era.

 

Someone as intelligent as you should not believe this idiotic narrative that Wilder let the contract expire. He was in the hospital, and then a GLOBAL PANDEMIC happened that prevented them from making the rematch. BOB ARUM HIMSELF said that him, Haymon, and the British promoters were trying to find a way to make the fight happen but Fury was being impatient. It would take you less than 5 minutes to find these quotes and interviews.

If Wilder did not want to fight why the hell would he take Fury to court demanding his rematch...? They are STILL in court, and Fury even said a Wilder rematch may happen...!