I think Kabayel. I think if the going gets tough he is a little bit more stronger mentally. It’s a good fight. I am starting to become a fan of both and I don’t want to see either of them to lose. So I would hate it and I would love it if this fight got made.
Oh dear...that is not good news. Notice it is an elimination bout not a final elimination bout. In general the WBC have used these eliminator bouts to sideline any top contenders who do not fit in with their plans, and trying to get them to hold a final eliminator is like getting blood out of a stone. The last time the WBC held a final eliminator to create a mandatory for the heavyweight title was In 2014: Wilder v Scott (in what looked like a fixed fight). In 2016: Povetkin v Stiverne was ordered to become mandatory to Wilder. Both failed tests, they kept Stiverne and kicked Povetkin out of their rankings, and made Wilder v Stiverne 2. Also in 2016: Whyte v Chisora was an eliminator bout that Whyte won. The WBC refused to make the final eliminator of Whyte v Breazeale. Instead they made Wilder v Breazeale, and later dropped Whyte from the rankings based on the rumour of a failed test. This saga sidelined Whyte until they finally allowed him to challenge for the title in 2022. That was 6 years after the original eliminator bout. In 2022: Ruiz Jr v Ortiz was an eliminator bout that Ruiz Jr. won. The WBC never made the final eliminator of Ruiz Jr. v Wilder. Instead, they dropped Ruiz Jr. from the rankings, and allowed Fury v Ngannou. There seems to be a pattern here... So, here is how this one goes. The winner of this elimination bout gets sidelined to allow the winner of Fury v Usyk to fight the winner of Joshua v Ngannou. How many years will they be sidelined for? Who knows, but I would not attach myself to a WBC eliminator if I was in their shoes.
Nothing is twisted. That was some bull**** concocted by the WBC to try and prevent the final eliminator of Whyte v Breazeale. Trying to force an extra fight against Ortiz for "second mandatory" was a nonsense given how irregularly they were calling mandatories (though actually, as it happens, Whyte ended up being the secondary mandatory after Breazeale anyway years later )... Now whether we agree on Whyte having to fight Ortiz or not, it was as described above, yet more stalling tactics by the WBC. First was Chisora v Whyte eliminator, then was Breazeale v Molina eliminator, the obvious next fight was the final eliminator of Whyte v Breazeale. It took threats of a legal action by Whyte to get them to finally call Whyte v Breazeale, and they still never went through with it. As I said, the WBC use these "eliminators" to sideline certain fighters and give other favoured fighters free reign.
This is the kind of competitive heavyweight matchup I want to see. It's more enjoyable to watch a fight when you're not sure who is going to win.
Genuinely see an equal case for both.....if you're holding a gun to my head I'd pick Sanchez but I couldn't give you a clear reason why. The fight is as close as the poll suggests it is.
You seem unnecessarily upset. Whyte didn’t do what they were telling him to do. If they’re saying fight Ortiz, you fight Ortiz. If anything, it’s good that the WBC is making contenders fight bc they rarely do it on their own. You also spun the part about Povetkin blowing it twice with failed drug tests. Wilder went on the road and it still wasn’t enough of an edge for the roided Russian.
Povetkin never tested positive for steroids. There was an infinitesimally tiny amount of a non-steroid in Povetkin, something that had been legal a couple of months before. Wilder's handlers knew he'd get beaten by Povetkin, so they paid the American organization VADA to report the irrelevant finding.
I didn’t say he tested positive for steroids. I said he’s The Roided Russian who blew it on two tests.
Without disagreeing with any of this... I don't think either of these guys is proven enough to consider any kind of contender, let alone a "top" one. Even if the winner winds up sidelined by the WBC, it's not as if either is particularly relevant at the sharp end of the division in the first place.