Should boxing make rematch clauses illegal?

Not boxing's decision. Boxing is not a single body or legal authority.

Nothing wrong with rematch clauses it's bog standard and both parties agree to it.

 

From a fan perspective, yes absolutely ban immediate rematch clauses. Only time we should have an immediate rematch is because the fight was so good the fans demand to see it again.
Some champ losing his title in a boring lop-sided decision, or getting decisively KTFOed, should never warrant a rematch.

From a freedom perspective, no. If the two fighters agree to it, it's none of my business. I simply won't pay for the rematch if it's an uninteresting fight.

 

Just keep them away from mandatory defences

Otherwise not too bothered

 

They serve a purpose, when someone is a huge name then i can understand it...don't understand Terri Harper and Kid Galahad having them though.

 

I hate to see things outright banned. I'd prefer something more nuanced, but I think we've gotten to the point where it needs to be fixed.

Rematches should be based on fight quality rather than outcome.

 

Whats wrong with a rematch clause?

 

I agree, the only way there should be an automatic rematch with a mandatory defence is if there is something controversial, either way, not just suiting the champion.

And that should be decided by the governing body, not Eddie Hearn.

 

Only if it's about brothers and having one of them fight you if you beat me or I beat you or the brother beats someone or if we're both brothers or if my brother says so because he's not heavy but rather my own brother. Then, and only then, yes, it should be legal, until such time as rule of law of man makes it illegal always.

 

they are becoming far too prevalent

I get it for long reigning champions or maybe in the case of a unification fight where both put their titles on the line.

For non title fights? Hell no

 

This video seems to confirm a rematch clause;

This content is protected

Guys have been crushed by voluntaries and gotten immediate rematches before Eddie Hearn's era and outside of his jurisdiction.

Marco Barrera was ended in five by voluntary Junior Jones and fought him again five months later (the WBO essentially forced that one, it wasn't the result of a clause). Lennox Lewis was splattered by voluntary Rahman in five, rematch was immediate after Lewis went through court to enforce the clause. Sergey Kovalev got flattened by voluntary Alvarez, activated his clause and was in the ring with him again five months later.

I guess what rankles is the seeming ubiquity of immediate rematches for Matchroom guys who lose big when strongly favored.

But I don't see Galahad as particularly less deserving of a rematch than any of those I named above. He had Kiko busting up, was outlanding him considerably, was a few seconds shy of banking his fifth round of five, then he got caught by a smart play from a veteran and the fight did a 180° turn in the space of exactly two punches. It's not crazy or by any means historically unprecedented that he should get a chance to correct the blemish.


As others have said, rematch clauses for mandatory defences are another discussion.

 

Sometimes an immediate rematch is unwarranted and undeserved.

But isnt that just as true about all matches in general?

 

Who is "Boxing"? I'll write him a suggestion letter if you can give me an address.