Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
Quote Originally Posted by TIC View Post
dillian shouldn't have had a rematch clause with alexander. aj shouldn't have had a rematch clause with oleksandr. there wasn't a need for a third deontay tyson fight. i'd like to see unnecessary rematches stop
I agree, like options became illegal so should rematch clauses which are normally inserted in by the A side fighter and only applies if they lose.


TBH, I don't mind rematch clauses... but like everything else they can be misused and abused. What you just mentioned about clauses that only apply if the A-side fighter loses... that one that should be thrown out the window. A B-side fighter that accepts something like that is out to lunch.

Personally, I'm glad we had Fury-Wilder III.



Quote Originally Posted by Primo Carnera View Post
Quote Originally Posted by TIC View Post
dillian shouldn't have had a rematch clause with alexander. aj shouldn't have had a rematch clause with oleksandr. there wasn't a need for a third deontay tyson fight. i'd like to see unnecessary rematches stop
100% . There should only be a rematch if there was any doubt or controversy in the first fight. Everybody putting Fury at #1, and probably rightly so. But all he’s done is beat the same guy 3 times .
If that guy is crap, it doesn’t prove a lot. What if Wilder were to start losing to everyone? Does that diminish Fury’s ranking?


Yes it would. But I would bet that won't happen. A focused, more experienced Wilder... even having experienced two bad losses... would most likely not "start losing to everyone." Especially surveying what is the HW landscape today. Wilder would still take 90% of them out.

I see your point though, about Fury only having beaten the same guy 3 times. I've complained about this regarding Fury's resume. It's definitely not enough to warrant ATG talk.