[ POLL ] The Rematch: FURY vs USYK 21st December 2024

[hilariousetc]

Usyk has vacated the IBF title belt so it will be on the line for the upcoming AJ/Dubois fight. (...)

It might be an unpopular opinion but I think the IBF did the right thing (assuming they forced Usyk to vacate it rather that being his decision).
The rules are there for a reason, and if the champ is not willing to fight the mandatory challenger despite being healthy, he should be stripped.
And from the the IBF perspective, it's probably more prestigious to have their own champion rather than being just a part of a bundle. Especially when it creates a potential for another unifying match later down the line.

Yeah, but they kinda pick and choose when to enforce rules. I've lost count of how many times governing bodies have ordered mandatories fights only to abandon them. The WBC ordered Wilder vs. Ruiz to determine the opponent for Fury but it never materialised. I think they should have said they can keep the belt just as long as they get the fight made with a quick turn around. I'm also sure that they probably would have let Usyk keep it if he paid them a bigger fee which he probably didn't want to do just for the sake of a belt that he can collect again at a later point.

[JollyGood]

How do you feel about the fact that they had a unification fight when they met but will not have the same belts on the line when they meet for the rematch in December? The way the IBF have handled this seems absurd to me, it was an unnecessary step regardless of whoever their number one contender was because Fury and Usyk deserved that. At the very least, Fury deserved a chance to win his WBC belt back along with all the others that Usyk held at that time.

When it comes to the IBF, was it all about money or was it related to a political manoeuvre for publicity?

I'm also sure that they probably would have let Usyk keep it if he paid them a bigger fee which he probably didn't want to do just for the sake of a belt that he can collect again at a later point.

[pawel7777]

We knew it was coming but it is still surprising in a way, because even if I can understand the rules were just being rightfully enforced, at the same time the intent behind the rules should matter too, since even if Usyk was not fighting the mandatory challenger, it is not as if he was doing this to try to keep his belt by avoiding the best possible boxer he could fight, when in fact it is the opposite, so I would have liked for the IBF to give him some leeway, but, alas, it did not happen.

I do understand where you're coming from, but each organisation should only be considering its own ranks, so no one from another organisation can be considered "the best possible boxer" as that spot is always reserved for the mandatory contender.
Also, Usyk has already won against Fury, and they're fighting again mostly because of the contract clause (and big money), which, from the IBF's perspective, cannot be an excuse for not fighting the mandatory fight.
But it's best this way. I'm sure Usyk (or Fury) will get a shot for another unification bout, likely against AJ.

(...)
I honestly cannot see much wrong with the alleged low-punch by Dubois. Anyway Usyk was not complaining subsequently when Dubois kept aiming for the same type of body shot even though he was clearly being hurt. It would make a fascinating fight between Usyk and Dubois for another unification fight if they win against their next opponents first.
(...)

I think the most criticism comes from the fact that the punch might indeed have landed on (or below) the belt, but it was above the groin, which is meant to be the protected area and the reason for the no punches below the belt rule.
But yeah, I think I'd rather see Usyk fighting Dubois than Joshua for the 3rd time.

(...) I'm also sure that they probably would have let Usyk keep it if he paid them a bigger fee which he probably didn't want to do just for the sake of a belt that he can collect again at a later point.

If they indeed asked him for money, that's a sh**y move and I'm glad he said no.