What are your thoughts on the current state of boxing in regards to rematch clauses, in particular Matchroom. All my mates who are casuals can’t stand it and I find it really turns them off, me personally I hate them too. Seems to slow the sport down to no end and I think removes and real jeopardy from a matchroom fighters fight.
Yeah, like Wallin has to fight Whyte again if he wins. That is what keeps HW boxing holding from big and great fights
I agree they're a pain but I don't think they're just an issue with Matchroom, we'd have seen an undisputed HW champ by now if it weren't for Wilder's rematch clause.
At least that was the heavyweight title. Although still very draining and unnecessary. I find the fact Whyte had a rematch clause for the first povetkin fight, and the fact that Shannon courtenay had one in her most recent fight to be nothing short to a farce. Also many more matchroom fighters may have had them but won so we would never find out, Eddie is a criminal
He just does what they all do. Leverage every advantage in broadcast deals, existing sporting status, media reach, positive cashflow, legal expertise etc etc etc to turn the screw in every negotiation they take part in. I can't see any difference with Arum, Haymon etc. Warren would do the same if he had the ability. See the upcoming Arthur v Yarde fight, the champion won but he still has to give Yarde another crack?
When we look back on this era, I think most of us will be glad that there were so many rematches. Nobody complains that Frazier-Quarry fought a couple times, or Ali-Norton, and on and on. Boxing historians tend to go on and on about the number of times "this all-timer fought so-and-so." Robinson fought Lamotta six times. Greb fought everyone 35 times. Langford fought Wills 790 times. Fighters box so infrequently these days, I know fans get frustrated when they fight the same person more than once. But, if the favorite loses the first time around, at least we know we as fans will probably get an interesting clash in fight 2. If they were left to their own devices, most modern fighters - after a hard fight - would look for a soft touch. Having a rematch clause sort of forces them to jump back in the fire and try to avenge a loss. That said, the problem I have with Matchroom's policy is if the heavy favorite loses, an immediate rematch is given. But, if the heavyweight favorite wins a close fight, they don't rematch with people they've already scored a win over. If a rematch clause is included in a contract at all, I think it should be standard practice in boxing that EITHER fighter should be able to ask for an immediate rematch. Otherwise, you don't get to include the immediate rematch clause in the contact. Both get the option or neither does. That seems fair. That way, everyone knows going in we're looking at a two-fight deal unless something drastic happens.
By and large anyone that has something to lose. Such as a champion or number 1 spot has a rematch clause. that’s the same with every single promoter in the world. Only difference is Matchroom are too honest for their own good and give too many interviews
It lowers the stakes of big fights. When Joshua loses it's always "ohhhh well hopefully he can adjust for the rematch and get him on the second try!" Fights like Whyte-Wallin having a rematch clause is insane.
Too right, the casuals are all really sick of rematch clauses, should be outlawed for eliminators and title fights. If you want a rematch after a title fight, do so voluntarily following the result.
The WBC should override the rematch clause if Wallin wins and simply order the fight with Fury with immediate effect. I wouldn't mind a rematch of that fight, it was a very good watch the first time around.
My biggest problem with these rematch clauses is the way the first fight is sold and it's happening NOW.. Even after confirming a rematch clause for Wallin Hearn had the nerve to say "Whyte putting it all on the line.." Hearn said exactly the same before Povetkin 1 and before Whyte was standing up Hearn was in front of a camera saying "we have a rematch clause". It's all word play and BS, Hearn also keeps saying that rematches are for voluntary defences, title fights and BIG NAMES/SUPERSTARS.. well explain Warrington Vs Lara then Eddie? Hearn does this with nearly all his fights, for example Benn will 100% have rematch clauses in all his fights just in case it all goes sideways, Benn isn't a "superstar" or a world champion or anything else. Just be honest and say your fighters have second chances and sell the fight for what it is.. a very safe and second chance guaranteed gamble.
I like it, a lot. Fighters should be hoping to avenge possible losses at the first possible instance. Rather than losing, never rematching and claiming years later to be above that level now.
Btw not only casuals. This yeah and one sided clause offers if happens might turn boxing from entertainment and amusement business ( it already is this not sport ) to clownade. Well, an eliminator does not makes any sense if there is rematch clause. Imagine rematch clause in Olympic trials or rds before final? Title fights I think sometimes might be usable but rarerly. Worst cases with rematch clauses I had saw ( this wasn't Eddie or MR ! ) : 1. one side rematch clause for short notice journeyman fighting vs 7-0 prospect ( local level pro ), 2. rematch clause when lads with less than 10 pro fights had boxed, wasn't had been used cos after fight one lad never ever had license to fight anymore after this. 3. too non title fight , guy stopped opponent, his manager and promoter insisted on clause and their boxer had been heavily TKOed after harsh slow beat up in rematch. This is not about Eddie or MR in any way, just as example. If about Ed, yeah, they had used rematch clauses even for lower level fights than Whyte - Pov or Whyte vs Wallin. It is in some kind clauses promotion, yeah.