Seems everyone has a different understanding of this, and I can't find anything online, the WBC website has nothing about mandatories. Anyone know FOR SURE whether Stiverne is already a mandatory or whether there is supposed to be a final eliminator? If so, can you refer to an online source? Obviously it would be corrupt and disgusting if Stiverne was handed the mando position without an eliminator. That's what I've been led to believe is the case, but Ive never seen anything official from WBC about it. There seemed to be an online concencus that was the case earlier, but I haven't heard any movement on it and there's plenty of talk about other matches for Wilder now so I'm wondering if Stiverne is a sure thing after all. I wouldn't have a problem I'd he was just forced into a final eliminator with Ortiz. Winner would definitely deserve to be mandatory.
As far as i can tell it is: 'If he barely has a pulse, has clearly definable bingo wings & lacks any real pedigree then give that man his shot'
Yeah, that's part of my confusion. That's supposed to be a voluntary defense. If Stiverne was already mandatory, you wouldn't think he could be setting that fight up.
I don't understand it at all Since when did they start doing eliminators just so the winner could possibly be a voluntary defence???
Yeah, it's weird. Helenius and Chisora are both represented by Sauerland, so it was easy for Wilders team to make a deal with them like that.
Mandatory defences are corrupt nonsense. It's a governing body trick to either: A. Manipulate a lesser fighter into the number one contender slot in order to give their favoured champion an easy fight. (Often while they are waiting for a more lucrative bout to materialise.) Or B. To manipulate a favoured fighter into the number one slot in order to try and get rid of a champion they would rather replace. In the old days mandatories would be put forward by the governing body if promoters had failed to sign their preferred fight within around a hundred days of the previous defence. The idea being that champions cannot hold belts to ransom for years on end while trying to pick and choose easy fights for as much cash as they can get. It's supposed to be like a safety valve to stop belts stagnating and avoid promotional corruption. Worst examples I have seen of corrupt mandatory manipulation in recent memory are the WBC allowing Mayweather to hang on to his junior middleweight belt for around 2 years with no intention of defending it. Also when the IBF manipulated Dan and then Bizier into the mandatory position in order to give Brook easy defences.
