If Manuel Charr causes an upset..

You would think he has it in his contract that he has to fight Wlad next or be sued. He wasn't a mandatory and wasn't thought of highly so would of had no choice but to sign that contract.

 

atsch

They are NOT a tag team

 

your right..how dare they demand a unification fight if one brother losses..how dare they indeed..

haters a crazy as ****...

 

Amazingly the bloke that actually agrees to the deal and signs the contract is never at fault here.

Hickey aren't you one of the types that constantly argues for Haye to get a shot at Vitali? Looks a bit stupid now on Haye'a part that he didn't sign a deal for the Wlad fight that guarantees him a shot at Vitali after that win or lose. Quite silly of him indeed.

 

not really, he lost to Wlad fair and square.

Vitali is not Wlad

Lets get it on!

 

I agree 100%. If you lose to one klitschko, you're not good enough to fight the other.

Likewise, if you one klitschko, clearly you can beat the other. So if Charr can beat vitali, wladimir should just give his belts to charr.

Oh sorry, i was just using k2 fanboy logic for a second there and just got confused.

 

no offence dee.but that is complete and utter shite.of the highest order lol:rofl:rofl..made me laugh my ass off mind you..if you beat a klitchko you should be going after the other one regardless ffs..its the same in any division.when you beat one champion you should be targerting to unify.to be undisputed..

i find yous guys who complain about this part of a conract weird as ****

 

Only way Charr wins... is if he brings a .44 magnum to the ring.

 

His hands will be shaking too hard to actually hit anything.

 

I like the Klitschkos.

but putting on a contract "if you beat me you have to fight my brother"

is not cool imo.

 

I like the logic used here that if you're against contacts stipulating that if you win a fight you have to fight someone's brother then you don't want to see unification fights.

No, not true at all.

I'm all up for a unification, but it shouldn't be forced to through a contract that it's clear a fighter must sign in order to get the initial fight.

If Vitali loses then he should either take a rematch or **** off. Then Charr, as a champion should be, is free to choose his own opponents on his own terms, he shouldn't have to be forced into a fight with a completely different fighter on terms that have already been determined before he won his title. That's bull****.

People saying 'well he didn't have to sign the contract' are idiots too - it's clear these are the terms you must agree to in order to get a Klitschko fight. The people saying this are the same people who would complain that everyone is ducking and that the Klit can't get opponents if someone was to turn down a fight because of these terms. These people are also the same people who call it ducking when Haye went and won the WBA title in order to get more favourable terms in a contract with K2. We call these people Klittards, and they're hilarious with their inconsistent bollocks.

 

Charr could be Vitali's Leon Spinks, highly doubt it but guys do get old overnight sometimes.