Wilder vs Breazeale was ALWAYS going to be next

Doesn't matter what Hearn and Whyte do I'd be shocked if their court case goes anywhere to securing them a fight with Wilder next. WBC rules are pretty clear, all their rules basically say this is how it is "unless we decide otherwise" which basically means they can legally do what they like. They could name Whyte mandatory and then change their mind at the last minute if they wanted and it would be perfecting within their own rules.

Even if Whyte does somehow win a court case this is the WBC we're talking about here, they'll just make up a new title, mandate Whyte/Ortiz for the WBC green belt and elevate Wilder to some made up WBC belt to go with all their other belts such as Diamond, Silver, Eternal, Mayan etc. That way Whyte gets his title shot and Wilder can still duck him.

 

Sure, I agree with you.
However, they mandated Breazeale and Whyte to fight for mando status.
That means neither have mandatory status as soon as the WBC order that fight.
Sure, they can say Wilder has an exemption to fight a voluntary, but they'd be reversing their own decision IF they try to claim Wilder is facing his mandatory by fighting Breazeale.
Essentially, Whyte and Hearn want Whyte to keep his mandatory status and have the WBC order Wilder to fight him next, Breazeale having relinquished his mando status by pulling out of the Whyte fight.
Obviously, the WBC have proved they can grant Wilder whatever privileges they wish but so far they haven't blatantly gone against their own rulings to do so.....I think.

 

never saw the first, but everything i read said it was controversial. chisora was well ahead in the second, until his shot ass got stopped.

 

Which win is better?
Bermain 'all you can eat' Stevern or Luiz '1950s' Ortiz?
Breazeale would be his best win, because at least he is in his prime.

 

Why would Fury and Warren bolt it, it's a massive money fight, which Fury should've won the first fight. If any one bottled it would be wilder not trying to get ESB to do the fight

 

his best was 6-7 years ago. you are overrating them because they are Brits. Chisora's signature win was a lucky ko in a fight he was getting dominated in
over a 38 year old who Joshua had recently brutalized.

 

when you pull your fat out of the fire with a ko. chisora-takam, or even better weaver tate. elaborating on their nationality? because odds are you are a brit vastly overrating chisora because he is a brit. like i said, he has never beaten anyone top ten level in their prime.

 

i watched the second fight. that was enough of those two bums for me.

 

you are no service. you are bigging up a guy who has zero notable wins, in order to big up a guy who went life and death with him twice.

 

i said the first one was questionab;e enough that people on here disputed it. whyte was losing the second fight convincingly, until the late ko. thus the tate-weaver comparison. i know you had to run and look that one up. chisora has no top level wins. whytes best are chisora and parker. both life and death matches against guys whose reputations are easy to punch holes in.