Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
I was sitting on my couch watching some boxing when I started thinking about the Floyd v Oscar match up. I almost forgot there was a title at stake and when I remembered, all hell broke loose in my mind. Whatever happened to mandatory defences? Does the WBC only apply that rule to boxers who don't generate money so they can hurry up and lose the title?
Oscar has been sitting on that belt for a year without a bit of stress from the WBC and certainly no mention of having to face anyone.
Maybe it's just me because I can't stand the organization anymore because of what they're doiing to Peter but still, it does seem a little strange.
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
All boxing organisations suck. As simple as. Corrupt, dishonest bastards the lot of them!
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx730NY
I was sitting on my couch watching some boxing when I started thinking about the Floyd v Oscar match up. I almost forgot there was a title at stake and when I remembered, all hell broke loose in my mind. Whatever happened to mandatory defences? Does the WBC only apply that rule to boxers who don't generate money so they can hurry up and lose the title?
Oscar has been sitting on that belt for a year without a bit of stress from the WBC and certainly no mention of having to face anyone.
Maybe it's just me because I can't stand the organization anymore because of what they're doiing to Peter but still, it does seem a little strange.
In a word, yes. Either that or fighter's who they know will vacate the belt or something anyways so they won't always get the sanctioning fee. Same with every orginization I really don't see how anyone can say oh the IBF or WBC is so corrupt as if the WBA and WBO aren't?? All the same, the only legitimacy any of them hold today solely depends on the fighter that carries their belt, and yet at the same time when they have an elite fighter who is recognized for it that's when they are least likely to enforce proper mandatories. It's all a big BS cycle with sanctioning bodies and promoters.
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
The truth is, DeLa Hoya has one year to defend his title. He does have the option to fight a non-mandatory, and that would have to be agreed upon by the WBC. The fact that Mayweather is already a WBC Champ in another division would give him more of the BS "Emeritus" status (the automatic #1), so this is how the game is played.
No one has explained how Mayorga got to fight for the title in the first place. Didn't he lose to Trinidad (MWT) before fighting Castillejo (SuWlt)?
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArawakWarria
The truth is, DeLa Hoya has one year to defend his title. He does have the option to fight a non-mandatory, and that would have to be agreed upon by the WBC. The fact that Mayweather is already a WBC Champ in another division would give him more of the BS "Emeritus" status (the automatic #1), so this is how the game is played.
No one has explained how Mayorga got to fight for the title in the first place. Didn't he lose to Trinidad (MWT) before fighting Castillejo (SuWlt)?
I love Ricardo Mayorga, but I admit he got the belt under dubious circumstances at best. The WBC tried to force Castillejo to fight Mayorga, who had suddenly become mandatory #1 contender after losing to Trinidad at 160, namely becus Don King pulled strings and made Mayorga the #1 contender for the WBC belt, least the fuker could do after settin Mayorga up as the fall guy for comebacking Trinidad. So Castillejo, knowing he would get more money and less of an ass whipping, chose to vacate his belt and fight Fernando Vargas instead. Can't really blame him, Mayorga should never have been a mandatory anyhow. So then Mayorga and Michelle Picarillo, a former 147 lb titlist squared off for the vacant belt, and Mayorga won. Makes a lot of sense huh? ;D
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx730NY
I was sitting on my couch watching some boxing when I started thinking about the Floyd v Oscar match up. I almost forgot there was a title at stake and when I remembered, all hell broke loose in my mind. Whatever happened to mandatory defences? Does the WBC only apply that rule to boxers who don't generate money so they can hurry up and lose the title?
Oscar has been sitting on that belt for a year without a bit of stress from the WBC and certainly no mention of having to face anyone.
Maybe it's just me because I can't stand the organization anymore because of what they're doiing to Peter but still, it does seem a little strange.
It has become obvious that the WBC does whatever the hell it wants...........
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx730NY
I was sitting on my couch watching some boxing when I started thinking about the Floyd v Oscar match up. I almost forgot there was a title at stake and when I remembered, all hell broke loose in my mind. Whatever happened to mandatory defences? Does the WBC only apply that rule to boxers who don't generate money so they can hurry up and lose the title?
Oscar has been sitting on that belt for a year without a bit of stress from the WBC and certainly no mention of having to face anyone.
Maybe it's just me because I can't stand the organization anymore because of what they're doiing to Peter but still, it does seem a little strange.
It has become obvious that the WBC does whatever the hell it wants...........
Whatever the hell they want indeed.....
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx730NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx730NY
I was sitting on my couch watching some boxing when I started thinking about the Floyd v Oscar match up. I almost forgot there was a title at stake and when I remembered, all hell broke loose in my mind. Whatever happened to mandatory defences? Does the WBC only apply that rule to boxers who don't generate money so they can hurry up and lose the title?
Oscar has been sitting on that belt for a year without a bit of stress from the WBC and certainly no mention of having to face anyone.
Maybe it's just me because I can't stand the organization anymore because of what they're doiing to Peter but still, it does seem a little strange.
It has become obvious that the WBC does whatever the hell it wants...........
Whatever the hell they want indeed.....
Yep thats probably the hugest line in the sand that divides this era from Marcianos, Robinsons, Peps....
Re: Here's something you guys/gals may find interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx730NY
I was sitting on my couch watching some boxing when I started thinking about the Floyd v Oscar match up. I almost forgot there was a title at stake and when I remembered, all hell broke loose in my mind. Whatever happened to mandatory defences? Does the WBC only apply that rule to boxers who don't generate money so they can hurry up and lose the title?
Oscar has been sitting on that belt for a year without a bit of stress from the WBC and certainly no mention of having to face anyone.
Maybe it's just me because I can't stand the organization anymore because of what they're doiing to Peter but still, it does seem a little strange.
In a word, yes. Either that or fighter's who they know will vacate the belt or something anyways so they won't always get the sanctioning fee. Same with every orginization I really don't see how anyone can say oh the IBF or WBC is so corrupt as if the WBA and WBO aren't?? All the same, the only legitimacy any of them hold today solely depends on the fighter that carries their belt, and yet at the same time when they have an elite fighter who is recognized for it that's when they are least likely to enforce proper mandatories. It's all a big BS cycle with sanctioning bodies and promoters.
CCP4P,you nailed that. Complete bS,all thses sanctions.
