What constitutes a rematch clause??? I mean, taylor/Pavlik has one, and even at higher weights. It can't be because they were both undefeated, because Calzaghe/Lacy would have had one...so why does Taylor/Pavlik have a rematch clause, but Joe and Jeff LAcy didn't?? :huh :conf
What's not to understand? Usually the guy with the upper hand in the negotiations has it written where he gets a rematch in the event that he loses. Both fighters won't have a rematch clause. Had Taylor won, Pavlik would not of had a rematch clause to invoke
spot on. it's only for the champs. they work damn hard to get the belts, so they deserve a rematch in the event they should lose them. especially if it's a close fight, robbery, lucky shot etc.
yea very simple. If you want what i've got then you have to agree to take it from me twice to get the first opurtunity to take it. On the other hand if you loose then your **** out of luck with a couple of years before you get another shot. It's sometimes not needed because the challenger destroys the champion but its a good way to make sure that the heir apparent just did not get lucky. You only see this in championship fights were something is at stake.
Yea but why when the loser ask for his rematch in the case where he loses, he has to go thru hell and high water to get it even though its in the contract ie Malignaggi and Ndou.
You mean if the challenger to the belt holder loses? Well that's because the challenger doesn't have the option to negotiate for a rematch. If he loses then somebody else takes a shot at the belt. It's the champs option if he'll go for it or he'll pass it on.
