Eddie Hearn & Rematch Clauses

Eddie Hearn is the type of person that won't even play paper scissors rock without a rematch clause.

Rematch clauses have been a thing in boxing for a long time. Floyd Patterson had a rematch clause against Sonny Liston even tho he got KTFO in their first encounter.

Now, rematch clauses for non world championship fights, I don't know if I can get down with that.

 

It differs from fight to fight, rematch to rematch.

If you have fights like AJ/Joshua, Fury/Wilder, Chocolatito/El Gallo it's okay. If the first fight was close or had a big swing in it + a lot of titles on the line i'm fine with a rematch even if you have Ruiz absolutely destroying Joshua for a couple of rounds. It was okay.

But i can't understand why Warrington vs. Lara will have a rematch...it was just a one-sided beatdown from the beginning with Warrington looking lost in there until it was stopped. There wasn't a title on the line too. Useless rematch. You cherrypicked the wrong guy, please continue.

 

I think champions should be allowed rematch clauses, but no one else.

 

Me too

Warrington don't deserve a rematch after that performance.

 

It's not a Eddie Hearn thing, a lot of world champions have rematch clauses, especially if those champions have some form of commercial value.

Lennox Lewis and Wlad Klitschko both used rematch clauses on a regular basis.

I do think they can be tedious though but I don't really lose sleep over it.

 

I can understand them in voluntary defences for a world title but Hearn has gone absolutely rogue with them.

Josh Warrington had a rematch clause for a keep busy fight, A KEEP BUSY FIGHT, it's just gone too far.

 

Yeah but the problem is these are not just world title fights, they are Josh Warrington in a keep busy fight, Whyte vs Povetkin with no title on the line and a long list of others.

 

Aka Mayweather style? You think Floyd Mayweather would not have a rematch clause if he had gotten destroyed?

 

I'm not one to blow my own trumpet, I've tried once or twice, ended up with a terrible spinal issue and the second time severe cramp.


Anyway, I said the moment Fury Vs AJ collapsed there could/would be a problem with Usyk and a rematch clause because he is mandatory and I wouldn't be surprised if AJ vacated and a few people told me I was talking absolute nonsense.

I'd go back and get my posts but firstly it's a little much quoting myself and secondly I really can't be bothered.


And anyway they will probably make this Usyk but the issue is real and has been real and this will all be irrelevant in the minds of most but it's a real insight in to how Hearn and Matchroom work and how they think.

They want everything their own way, because Hearn is now basically "threatening" governing bodies now with his attitude of "we want to do what we want, we don't need a belt"

Hearn is telling them if you keep forcing mandatory challengers then we will walk away and do our own thing, I personally hope they call his bluff and the WBA who haven't had a mandatory since 2018 AJ Vs Povetkin (nearly 3 years) call theirs now.. it's about time and I'm sick of Hearn thinking and acting like he is bigger than boxing and it running the sport.

 

REMATCHROOM PROMOTIONS! I can tolerate a rematch clause in a big title match, but that crap he pulled with Povetkin / Whyte was pure bs. He sucked me into watching a completely meaningless fight. ( I didn't pay for it, but he still wasted my time ) Now I have yet another detail to look into before I watch a Hearn promotion.

 

Povetkin's rematch clause for Whyte was bad for the sport. But a lot of promoters are as bad if not worse than Hearn for rematch clauses.

Al Haymon and Shelly Finkel are to blame for the current Fury-Wilder-Joshua problem. There was no need of a third fight.

 

It shouldn't be allowed.
Not even in a voluntary defence, nevermind when they somehow get it attached to a mandatory.

 

That's true but the rematch clause on the second fight was a two-way clause, a "two fight deal".
So, if Fury had lost it would probably be the same situation.
(of course, that wouldn't be quite as bad because most of us thought he won the first fight anyway).

 

Rematches are fine but separate them by a few years so we aren't just watching round 13, unless the first fight was so good everyone wants to see round 13.

 

I don't think champions should even be allowed them.
Champions who lose should be given immediate entry into a final eliminator perhaps. But an immediate contracted shot at the new champion is unfair on all the other contenders waiting in line.