Chris Byrd on Klitscko negotiation tactics

Pathetic.

 

There was a rematch clause and then Haye would have to fight the other brother.

 

I know this is their job and if they can get away with it then they probbaly don't see why they shouldn't do it, but all that **** about rematches just goes to show how little of the tough warrior spirit they have in them. If they had any balls they'd be happy to fight whoever, with confidence that they'd win and wouldn't need any of this " if you beat me up my brother will get you back" ****.

Sad state of affairs that our heavy weight champions are so wet.

The division and the sport will be better off once they're gone.


:-(

 

Too much cynical **** going on in boxing. We've had Amir Khan and Timothy Bradley both openly admitting they won't take fights that are not in their best interests. I blame this on Floyd. Look at the way the kids on the GF talk about "being the draw" and contracts etc. It's **** and annoying.

 

Agreed. Whats more, A Force would fight them with only one hand. That one being his sledgehammer left. Even SNV would be wary of getting in the ring with Audley.

 

@Dan B; I know.

Titles/weight jumps mean ltitle nowadays. Now, more than ever, it's quality of opposition that defines a fighters true worth.

 

Which "deal" was that? When Byrd was the late substitute for Razor Ruddock in a VOLUNTARY defense against Vitali in 2000? When the Klits didn't promote themselves through K2 but were managed by Klaus-Peter Kohl/Universum? Byrd never talked to the Klits then, he only dealt with Kohl who also goes by the nickname of "Don Kohl" in Germany.

Or was it in 2006, when Wladimir was the MANDATORY challenger for Byrd's IBF title?

As a matter of fact the only time Byrd dealt with the Klits' and their company K2 directly was in his mandatory defense in 2006. I doubt he had anything to complain about as he was the belt holder and the IBF statutes rule that the belt holder gets the bigger cut & there are no rematch clauses in mandatory defenses.

Sorry to be the party pooper here but you guys need to check your history a little more thoroughly.

 

OK, this sounds unfair, but:

Isn't a title fight THE opportunity to get into a position for the big paydays?

I wonder what Buster Douglas made for fighting Tyson? Was that fair?

Marvin Hagler took unfair deals until he became champion and then he called the shots.

Haye said Wlad would be his easiest fight. He could have accpeted unfair terms if he was so convunced he would beat them,then do just that and then ruel the division on his terms.

 

I was becoming a fan of Tim Bradley, but he's openly admitting to ducking Alexander and seems to think it's okay. Khan's said some questionable **** too recently. It needs to be considered unacceptable to not fight the best. Instead you get ***s like Pimp C, Too Pretty and Nallege talking about contracts and other nonsense.

 

Really cant agree with this. They're decent 'in shape' heavyweights who fill soccer stadiums on a regular basis. Either of them versus Haye will be the biggest heavyweight fight since Vitali/Lewis.

 

The original terms meant, even if he won all three fights, he would only have been left with the IBO and Ring titles.

 

Actually he asked for a two week extension but good point well made!!!

 

this won't cut any mustard with the Haye haters.

 

I can't remember that deal, but I remember Holmes-Cooney split 50/50 I believe for their fight.