is the "beat me and fight my brother" only a clause for wlad klitschko?

They dominated HW so they set the rules they wish, get your belt you can rule then, simply as that.

You ain't getting nothing for free slobs!

 

Nope, Chris Byrd stated in an Interview with "On the Ropes" (dunno what episode) he had to fight Wlad after defeating Vitali in 2000.

 

It's identical to a 2 fight options deal, those sorts of things are the norm. Remember the Klitschkos are the promoters as well as the fighters. They both have the clause I'd imagine as it'd to protect their investment. Haye had a rematch clause in his fight with Barrett (one that Barrett refused to accept as he'd get paid less, though verbally agreed a rematch outside of the contract one)

 

Seen Vitali - Byrd?

 

no it isn't


it would be like arum putting a clause in for a margo fight, that if u win you have to fight cotto, or some **** like that....i don't care the kilts are brothers, b/s clause imo

 

:good

 

One has no command over freak injuries, cuts and so forth. That's why such clauses are implemented in the contracts.

Quite successfully in the case of the Klitschkos btw. How many times did pre-Manny Wlad knock prime Byrd down? 4 times or 5? 10?

 

A rematch clause is fine but the fight my brother clause that they use is complete and utter bollocks from the Klits.

 

Yeah, the Klits handle defeats in a pretty unique way.

 

SOrry, i.m a little slow...

Link, source proving they ask for that clause?

 

You do realize the Klitschkos were not promoters in 2000 don't you. They were owned by Universum.

And Byrd got a win over Vitali, but he hardly defeated him.