is punishment ever actually levied for not fighting mandatory?

Leon Spinks was stripped, remember? They were too afraid to strip Ali, so when young, naive Leon took over, they did to him what they should have done to his predecessor, demanding that he fight Ken Norton, which he didn't.

For the most part though, champs seem to get away with it.

 

Andre Ward?

 

He should be stripped for not cherry picking his mandatory or be bashed for cherry picking his mandatory...smh

Everything leads back to Floyd...

 

Who wants to see that though? The only reason people bring him up now is because Floyd's fighting Berto.. What if your mandatory don't want it or doesn't speak up? What if there's issues figuring out the details of the contract? When you're at a certain level, you just can't say that guy fights him.. Too much money on the line.. Plus most of the top guys don't need belts and would have no problem with dropping them all and chasing the money...

 

But to answer your question, I don't know.. I would like to see it as well...

 

You can't blame the fighter though.. That's like committing a crime and the police know about it.. You won't voluntarily go to jail.. It's the polices job to take you to jail.. Unless someone force a fighter to fight their mandatory or be stripped, they will hold on to it without repercussions...

 

Ok.. You'd be crazy to pay for speeding tickets everyday.. When it comes to something minor like fighting someone you don't want like a mandatory, a guy that's already on top of the sport will have no problem dropping the belt.. A guy being honorable or Nobel don't mean anything.. Would it be cool to see LeBron on every play say "oops.. I traveled.. It's their ball.. I'm honorable..", or Bradley to go "excuse me ref.. I headbutted my opponent which is against the rules.. Please deduct a point for this round..."?

 

Penalties have been levied for not fighting the mandatory, like anything it depends on the situation. In premise it's a good idea and a way to give guys a shot but it's about the best fight's.

Andre Berto is Keith Thurmans mandatory for his interim title would anybody be mad at Thurman fighting Brook/Porter instead of Berto??? No so who cares.

I think someone mentioned Cotto/Mayweather, how are they holding titles for hostage?
There is no real matchup at 154 that has to happen. The #1 guy behind Mayweather has wins over the #2&3 fighters, Mayweather has a win over #1.

Cotto in all of 3* MW bouts he's fought a top rated opponent. Took the title from the real Champ, cw or not beat down a then top 5 MW in a tuneup, now is participating in the biggest fight in boxing. Just because he hasn't yet fought one guy who himself hasn't fought anybody.

 

From a fans perspective if it's a good match-up, then sure.. It would be great to see fighters fight their mandatory...

From a top fighters perspective and organizations perspective, this won't always work.. Why would a fighter want to pay to hold one of your belts just to fight who we say? And why would a fighter want to win a belt when you're on top of the sport and get told who to fight when you can just go for money fights...

Wouldn't it suck if Floyd wanted to fight GGG or a Pac rematch but can't because Khan was a mandatory for one belt and Thurman the other.. Not to mention the 154 belts.. He's be booked with mandatories for the next 2 years...