Hearn says showtime rejects Froch - Bute...

[Tam Seddon]

The reason Froch-Bute wont happen is the rematch deal. If Bute beats Froch he's not leaving Canada in a million years to rematch him in England. That's just nonsense.

Eff Bute.

Froch has no title. Why the fuck does he need a rematch clause? I understand Bute needing one. He is the champion. For the fight to not happen cuz of Froch needing a rematch clause is a straight bitch move on Froch's part. The challenger needs a rematch clause. Come the fuck on with that bullshit. That's gotta be one of the most moronic demands by a challenger ever. So if Bute were to stop Froch early or embarrasses him over 12 he should still be obligated to fight him again? Fuck all that.

How the fuck can anyone think Froch is making a "bitch move" for asking for a rematch option? That is pathetic.

Froch's last four fights have been against the current supermiddleweight champion, no.2, no. 8 and no.9. He was the AWAY fighter in all four bouts.

Not only is Bute's opposition WAY below Froch's he's never been the AWAY fighter in his life.

What serious boxing fan cares about Bute's shitty alphabet title? Froch has TWICE held the WBC title in the time Bute has held the IBF. Froch could have simply done what Bute did - stay at home defending against c-level opposition (and Froch leftovers). To cite Bute's "title" as some sort of superiority over Froch is ridiculous.

Bute should be BEGGING to fight Froch to prove he can mix it at the top.

(p.s - they stated the rematch would be scrapped if there's a KO or lopsided decision )

So what your saying is you support the ridiculous idea of challengers demanding a rematch clause, right? Or is it only when it benefits a UK fighter?

So if Bute-Froch were to look like Ward-Froch there would be a rematch? Everybody know the fight was lopsided but the moronic scores say otherwise. A rematch would be meaningless.

well the contracted agreement said if it was a KO within 6 rounds or a one sided decision either way then there wouldn't be a rematch so to answer your question...no there wouldn't be a rematch.

[Violent Demise]

The moronic scores for Ward-Froch suggest it was a close fight when in reality it wasn't. There shouldn't be a rematch but I can easily see Froch pushing for one using the scores to support his case.

[Tam Seddon]

The moronic scores for Ward-Froch suggest it was a close fight when in reality it wasn't. There shouldn't be a rematch but I can easily see Froch pushing for one using the scores to support his case.

Froch doesn't deserve a rematch against Ward at this momment in time and he should be trying to keep well away from one. I was talking about Froch - Bute saying if the fight wasnt at all close there wouldn't be a rematch that was part of the agreement.

[Violent Demise]

The moronic scores for Ward-Froch suggest it was a close fight when in reality it wasn't. There shouldn't be a rematch but I can easily see Froch pushing for one using the scores to support his case.

Froch doesn't deserve a rematch against Ward at this momment in time and he should be trying to keep well away from one. I was talking about Froch - Bute saying if the fight wasnt at all close there wouldn't be a rematch that was part of the agreement.

I'm talking about the same thing. Using Ward-Froch as an example. Which was a lopsided fight deemed close by moronic scorecards. Do they rematch than?

[Tam Seddon]

The moronic scores for Ward-Froch suggest it was a close fight when in reality it wasn't. There shouldn't be a rematch but I can easily see Froch pushing for one using the scores to support his case.

Froch doesn't deserve a rematch against Ward at this momment in time and he should be trying to keep well away from one. I was talking about Froch - Bute saying if the fight wasnt at all close there wouldn't be a rematch that was part of the agreement.

I'm talking about the same thing. Using Ward-Froch as an example. Which was a lopsided fight deemed close by moronic scorecards. Do they rematch than?

No because a rematch clause to my knowledge wasn't part of the inital contracted deal.