is punishment ever actually levied for not fighting mandatory?

Yeah pretty much. Belts are nothing but garbage these days.

 

Yup. Unfortunately step aside money is all the rage now in boxing :-(

 

I think a fine and being stripped should be the punishment, especially if titles are being held hostage (Mayweather JMW, Cotto MW).

 

Strangely two South Africans have been stripped by the IBF in recent years for refusing their mandatories (Moruti Mthalane refused Amabt Ruenroeng after a BS purse bid and Zolani Tete refused McJoe Arroyo after financial issues).

Some orgs are just...easier to please I guess...

 

:deal I also want to add that this should happen to fighters who have been inactive for a long time.

 

Guys have been stripped, yeah.

 

IBF tend to strip you.

However to be a mandatory challenger you generally have to accept 75%/25% split in the champs favor so you have to agree to be a significant B side, and why a lot of guys pull out (believing they are worth more than that) and you end up with quite a few poor challengers.

 

Yes.

You must pay an additional under-the-table fee.

 

I don't think they're able to just not fight them, they have to compromise either financially or give up their title, but I think unified titlists do get some leniency regarding this or at least I'd imagine so.

 

Yes, they get 18-24 months instead of 12.

 

It seems like the belt holders only fight there manditorys when the Rising star or k.o artist is constantly calling the belt holder out..they duck the Popular fighter by fighting a mandatory that's not really a challenge.

 

That's the reason I'd love to see the 4 major federations merge together and only have 1 champion per division. That would force the champion to fight their mandatories since that would essentially be the #1 rated contender.