A-side Rematches - ye or nay?

Makes sense. And I am with you. It just doesn't bother me as much. Likely because it wasn´t an actual eliminator.
Had Whyte won, Hearn would have pushed for the mandatory shot or for Fury to vacate.
If Whyte wins, Hearn will do the same.

 

Im a big fan of rematches but don't feel like they need to be immediate most of the time. If it's a super close fight then obv yes but just bc it's a big upset doesn't mean the a side should get an immediate shot.

 

Because I've been talking about Povetkin and Whyte the whole thread. It was mentioned in the OP as well.

I'm only biased for Povetkin when he's the underdog because I like a good upset.

If he was fighting as a favourite I would then want him to lose.

If you'd rather discuss someone else feel free, you still haven't explained to me who you feel is being ****ed over though.

 

I agree with you in this situation

I do understand rematch clauses though, they're a way for promoters to protect their investment. Look how everyone was saying Loma was stupid for not having a rematch clause, now he's getting frozen out of the division.

At this point belts are almost meaningless it's about getting paid as much as possible while taking as little risk as possible for the boxers and promoters.

 

It’s (yet another) unfortunate symptom of the business of boxing that infects the sport. Boxing will never have the structure or integrity we as fans want until the feudalistic promoters are no longer THE driving force of the sport.

Until then, when the fighters are contractually obligated, then bring the rematch. Although nobody forced them to sign the contract, they often don’t have a choice if they want the fight.

 

To me, you can’t have the feudalistic promoters AND the feudalistic alphabet orgs, and their belts of many weights and sizes, each eroding the integrity of the sport and still expect that it will thrive and expand.

By playing matchmaker, kingmaker, and profiteer, they have successfully(unfortunately) driven the sport into relative obscurity, compared to years past. Lack of structure, PPV’s, diluted titles, fighters fighting in obscurity, shady results, shady business dealings that impede the best fighting the best consistently are all symptoms of the same.

 

THIS.

 

This is not a modern phenomena, it is something that has been part of our sport since before any of us were born (of course PPV, multitude of alphabet titles a modern issue)

 

Im against it.

 

For sure it isn’t strictly a modern phenomenon, but it is largely a result of relatively
modern developments in the sport. Added weights, added alphabet orgs, added belts by the alphabet orgs at the added weights, multiple “champions” at the same weights, PPVs, are all largely modenrn issues that deter interest or availability. I think, now, we’re seeing the cumulative effects and how they continue to damage the sport.

 

They stop the natural progression of boxing

 

What about after two defenses you get a rematch