If I'm not mistaken Fury and Wilder were tied up when Ruiz won. Ruiz wouldn't have fought anyone but Joshua for big money. I appreciate your point thought, generally speaking perhaps some fighters would do better but it's the difference between a guaranteed big payday and a potential I guess. I guess the fighter has to take the risk and play their bluff by insisting they will not accept the clause and risk the bigger fighter, the champ, walking away.
Thanks. It would have been clearer if Hearn had said that! Saying two fight deal makes it sound, oddly enough, that a deal has been agreed for two fights to take place!!
This is just a regular ol title fight. Why a rematch clause? If both guys entered w/ belts, OK. But this ain't that.
Hearn doesn't want his cashcow to lose his titles under any circumstances so if Joshua looses that means Aj has an immediate shot at regaining them
That is why the immediate rematch clause is kind of sinister. If you don't accept, the champ can walk away and not fight you. Giving the new champ a year to defend against others before a rematch is fairer, IMO. Because there were opportunities for Ruiz to fight the others. When Ruiz beat Joshua, Wilder had just beaten his mandatory Breazeale a few weeks earlier. And Fury was about to fight Schwarz. People forget now, but Wilder and Joshua's teams were in talks the days before Joshua fought Ruiz. That is one of the things Joshua was supposedly stressed about in NY and why he felt pressure to look good after Wilder wasted Breazeale. Wilder and Fury had agreed to a rematch, but Fury wanted more time. He had a big money deal with ESPN he wanted to milk. So, Fury signed to fight Wallin after Schwarz. Wilder signed to fight Ortiz again while waiting for Fury. Had Ruiz been free to negotiate, we could've seen Wilder-Ruiz for all the belts or Fury-Ruiz for three of the belts instead of the Wallin fight or the Ortiz rematch. But the immediate rematch clause Ruiz had to sign to get the Joshua fight blocked that.
I'm feeling a little confusion kicking in also on this one. Does the rematch clause extend to Usyk if he loses???
You're right. I'm not sure how the mandatories work if the challenger is unwilling to accept the terms, in this instance; the rematch clause. If they risk losing the chance to fight then it's obvious why they are signed.
If I was Usyk I’d want one. If he wins it’s the biggest payday in boxing. He’s likely looking at 50/50 split of £50/60m. Where else does he earn that?
If you was AJ with 3 belts bringing £20/30m to the table and giving the other guy a shot would you not want one? Be honest! wlad had one against AJ and Fury. Fury and wilder have had several. It’s been around years
Basically yes, and if they do then the cashcow champs don't get fights made that fans want to see and instead we wind up complaining all the time that the best don't fight the best often enough... Given that kind of environment, it should be surprising that fighters like Joshua and Canelo manage to get any decent fights at all, and yet their resumes don't bear that out - basically because the paydays they represent, even giving meagre cuts, are pretty damn high and the exposure is significant, to say nothing of the potential catapult to the challengers career if they manage to win.
