I thought I refuted your arguments pretty clearly. Which did I not address? How about the part where Dubois had already lost decisively to Usyk while Kabayel was undefeated.
You didn't refute anything. All you do is change your argument from post to post that's all you ever do. That's not refuting that's called being argumentative.
You seem to be trying to find ways to rationalize Usyks decisions If Usyk fought Fury a third time no doubt that would make a lot of money. Does that excuse the fight in your view? If not, why? All this rematching seems excessive relative to other fighters
Usyk didn't rematch anyone at cruiserweight. So why does he have to rematch everyone at heavyweight. No rematch for Glowacki, or Breidis, or Gassiev. Yet everyone at heavyweight is entitled to a rematch? How did he managed to wriggle out of a single rematch at cruiserweight?
Because nobody gives a crap about those belts Not in the grand scheme of things Money wise there's too much money to lose and also make at HW compared to Cruiser
Rematching those guys would have made Usyk more money though. And Usyk would make massive sums of money at heavyweight regardless of the opponent
He just loves the sound of his own voice and when anyone has a reasonable counter point. What he does he changes the argument to drag out a conversation and deliberately be argumentative. That's him in a nutshell. Let's do a quick recap. 1. I addressed his original point why Usyk had rematches vs Joshua and Fury because he was obligated due to a rematch clause and originally they were the biggest fights for him. 2. Then he asks me why Usyk agreed to it well didn't I already just say ? 3. Brings up that Lewis didn't rematch Mercer ? Which has nothing to do with the convo or Usyk. 4. Despite that I addressed it I said Mercer was inactive and fell off the world rankings. Lewis was also trying to get a big fight vs Tyson at the time which fell through. Then Lewis went on to fight McCall in a rematch for the vacant WBC belt which made more sense since it was a for a belt and Lewis could revenge his only loss. 5. Again he tries to find a way to be argumentative saying Lewis could've fought Mercer instead of Golota and Akinwande. I addressed that by saying Akinwande was a mandatory and Lewis was obligated to fight his mandatory. Golota was a bigger fight and was fresh off fighting beating up Bowe twice, also Mercer never had a fight in 1997 which is why he fell out of the top 10 rankings shortly after. 6. Argumentative again changes his argument to "well Lewis could've fought Mercer in 1998" and at this point I realised I'm wasting my time and this is what he always does. 7. Finally asking me another irrelevant point about Usyk signing a contract like i'm some type of mind reader or have inside knowledge. Or how I would feel about Usyk fighting Fury for 3rd time again just changing the argument to a totally irrelevant point to deliberately be argumentative. So yes this is why trying to have a conversation with him is like talking to brickwall. It's literally a conversation that goes nowhere and then he claims he's refuting a point. No all he does is be argumentative and change the argument in every other post to disagree on purpose and drag a conversation out that goes nowhere.
OK say he rematched those guys How old would he have been moving to HW? Once he has the belts he used the opportunity move up in to a mandatory position already at a fairly advanced age to start a new division The only real pay days he got at cruiser were the tourney fights Take away the funding they had for the rematches and he'd be fighting for average money again
I saw. And seemingly all for nothing. There's no rhyme or reason to who gets a rematch clause. All depends on what the champ, or cash cow, wants. We've seen hundreds of high profile fights happen without a rematch, even if close or controversial. And also rematches for fights that didn't warrant one. Just how it goes.
Usyk could have agreed to fight Fury without a rematch clause. How is that changing the argument? Sort of like all the champs who unified without rematch clauses
How do you even know that? Who was the one who even had the rematch clause inserted in to the contract?
BTW, google is your friend: Usyk and Fury had a rematch primarily due to a contractual two-way rematch clause triggered by the loser (Fury) after their first fight in May 2024, allowing Fury to seek immediate revenge for his first professional loss and a chance to regain the undisputed heavyweight titles, while Usyk, despite relinquishing the IBF belt, aimed to prove his victory wasn't a fluke and solidify his legacy by defeating Fury a second time. Key Reasons for the Rematch: Contractual Obligation: A pre-negotiated rematch clause meant the loser had the right to demand a second fight, which Fury invoked.