WBC - Take Vitali's title off him now!!!

This has to be a joke.

Vitali having just pulled out of his latest match against Stiverne again.

http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/8870089/vitali-klitschko-pulls-out-of-mandatory-wbc-title-defence-against-bermane-stiverne

Say what you want about Stiverne, but he has fought 2 eliminators to get the match and like it or lump it he deserves his shot.

Vitali hasnt fought in a year and a half and this set back looks like it will be about 2 years without Vitali facing his mandatory. Ward must be loving this. Being stripped himself for not defending his WBC title within the timeframe.

Whats your thoughts lads?

Cheers

Dee!

Wonder If Haye-Fury will get the nod...........

Good news ....one less Klit is better for the game.

Think I kind of agree with you reborn, if only because other fighters have been stripped through inactivity or injury so if only for consistency the same rules should really apply this time round.

You do have to wonder if this is the end of Vitali. At his age he cannot have much time left in the game and with injuries like this it must make him look at retirement as a viable option. There are also rumours he is planning to run for president of the Ukraine in a couple of years so surely boxing is a distraction he can ill afford should these rumours be true.

Don’t see why they cannot chuck Stiverne in with someone for the vacant title with the caveat that should he return Vitali has to be the first defence. Keeps the belt active and does not screw Vitali over too much should he recover. Am sure this has been done in the past.

They let him have 4 years off last time though. Then let him return with that shameful hologram ring entrance in Germany, making him out to be the returning champion, even though the reigning champion was Samuel Peter, who they virtually ignored and left waiting in the ring.

Aye, but that suggestion is dangerously close to common sense, Jeff, so safe to say that the WBC won't be standing for any of that rubbish.

I wonder if Vitali will just call it a day now.

It's a long time out, nothing less to prove and can head back into politics full time. Maybe little brother will get a shot at holding the WBC belt at some point.

Oops, sorry Jeff, just read your post.

As you were.

If the WBC does go vacant, wouldnt Wlad be first in line to fight for it?

I sense Haye v Fury becoming a WBC title eliminator.....winner fights Wlad, as he tries to unify all the belts.

But then again politics may rear its ugly head and Vitali will be exempt from punishment....see him line up next April for a fight with some Kazakh crusierweght....

Haye-Fury title eliminator, good stuff

I'd like to see Haye-Fury get the nod with Stiverne next....

Have Stiverne v Charr instead and make it a semi along with Haye and fury. Winners face off for the belt.

seanmichaels wrote:Have Stiverne v Charr instead and make it a semi along with Haye and fury. Winners face off for the belt.

WBC belt isn't good enough for a competition like that..

Lewis-Ruddock.............can become Fury-Haye.........with stiverne to follow....

People have to realise Boxing needs a good heavy division to re-energise.....It won't happen till the faceless two disappear..

Though Stiverne has already done the eliminator route so he should still be fighting for the belt first. He is the mandatory, not Haye or Fury.

Doesnt matter though as the K's have stamped their authority over the heavyweight division to a such they probably have the WBC by the nuts in terms of bribes.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Have Stiverne v Charr instead and make it a semi along with Haye and fury. Winners face off for the belt.

WBC belt isn't good enough for a competition like that..

Lewis-Ruddock.............can become Fury-Haye.........with stiverne to follow....

People have to realise Boxing needs a good heavy division to re-energise.....It won't happen till the faceless two disappear..

Think it is unfair because it should have been Haye v Charr.

Does things like mandatories apply though these days....

These alphabet guys are as bent as Rock Hudson........

Haye-Fury must have caught the attention of the WBC..........All the millions they are making...

and the yummy perspective sanction fee..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Have Stiverne v Charr instead and make it a semi along with Haye and fury. Winners face off for the belt.

WBC belt isn't good enough for a competition like that..

Its the people who make the belt not the belt that makes the people.

Just because a fed has a reputation of having poor champions doesnt mean that it cant become the belt in the division (or at least respected within) by having a good fight.

Building a rep has to start somewhere.

I didn't know that fighters still faced mandatory challengers any more.

Canelo hasn't made a mandatory since June, 2011. I never heard anyone calling for him to be stripped.

Don't get me wrong I like mandatory challengers and think they should all get their shots, but it's pointless calling for consistancy from the WBC when the fans are just as bad.

Breaking Rumour: Fury va Haye - Vacant WBC title at stake......

Vacant WBC Interim Silver International Title?

STC wrote:Vacant WBC Interim Silver International Title?

Cherry, Pineapple or Cola flavoured?

Does make me laugh slightly. As fans we constantly decry the governing bodies for their nonsense and making it up as they go along but when a fighter gets himself into mandatory position for a title (the right way of doing things I should add) we are more than happy for two other fighters to contest the title and leave the mandatory sat twiddling his thumbs, seemingly for no other reason than he is not a particularly fashionable name. Sorry but if the belt is to be made vacant Stiverne simply has to be involved in any fight for said title.

Rowley wrote:Does make me laugh slightly. As fans we constantly decry the governing bodies for their nonsense and making it up as they go along but when a fighter gets himself into mandatory position for a title (the right way of doing things I should add) we are more than happy for two other fighters to contest the title and leave the mandatory sat twiddling his thumbs, seemingly for no other reason than he is not a particularly fashionable name. Sorry but if the belt is to be made vacant Stiverne simply has to be involved in any fight for said title.

Like I alluded to earlier, this is part of the problem with boxing these days. Fans are too happy to see "name fighters" get all the shots these days or fighters that they like.

Floyd's next mandatory should be against a fighter called Luis Carlos Abregu next year. What do you want to bet that he doesn't get his shot, and that no-one will be calling for Floyd to be stripped if he doesn't fight him?

Atila wrote:

Rowley wrote:Does make me laugh slightly. As fans we constantly decry the governing bodies for their nonsense and making it up as they go along but when a fighter gets himself into mandatory position for a title (the right way of doing things I should add) we are more than happy for two other fighters to contest the title and leave the mandatory sat twiddling his thumbs, seemingly for no other reason than he is not a particularly fashionable name. Sorry but if the belt is to be made vacant Stiverne simply has to be involved in any fight for said title.

Like I alluded to earlier, this is part of the problem with boxing these days. Fans are too happy to see "name fighters" get all the shots these days or fighters that they like.

Floyd's next mandatory should be against a fighter called Luis Carlos Abregu next year. What do you want to bet that he doesn't get his shot, and that no-one will be calling for Floyd to be stripped if he doesn't fight him?

Time to get that campaign up and running.

Atila wrote:Floyd's next mandatory should be against a fighter called Luis Carlos Abregu next year.

Don't be so sure, believe D4 has already accused Floyd of ducking him.

Didn't abregu get beaten by Bradley a while back?

I do tend to agree with you Atila and for as long as the ranking system is as imperfect as it is we are always going to get guys in inexplicably high positions who nobody really cares if they do not get their chance, your Floyd example is a case in point and was he to ignore this guy and face Alexander or Bradley for instance not too many of us would shed a tear.

However do think if a guy is willing to face eliminators and wait his turn it stinks to high heaven if he gets shoved aside solely because there is someone out there more well known (read lucrative)

It's strange that they don't do what they did before & install Vitali as "Champion Emeritus" and let him disappear for a bit whilst allowing Stiverne to face off against Charr or whoever for the vacant or interim title. Certainly no worse than having a WBA regular & Super Champion a la Wlad & Povetkin.

Rowley wrote:Does make me laugh slightly. As fans we constantly decry the governing bodies for their nonsense and making it up as they go along but when a fighter gets himself into mandatory position for a title (the right way of doing things I should add) we are more than happy for two other fighters to contest the title and leave the mandatory sat twiddling his thumbs, seemingly for no other reason than he is not a particularly fashionable name. Sorry but if the belt is to be made vacant Stiverne simply has to be involved in any fight for said title.

we are If the mandatory is garbage..

"Hearns didn't deserve a rematch with Hagler."...Is all I saw on here and yet the same people reckon Stiverne deserves a shot.

Agree with TRUSSMAN

I think Vitali is going to have one more fight and he wants to fight the winner of haye v fury.

The WBC probably know this and also know how much of a cash cow a fght with vitali against either haye or fury would be.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
"Hearns didn't deserve a rematch with Hagler."...Is all I saw on here and yet the same people reckon Stiverne deserves a shot.

Well personally I can't ever recall saying that so obviously not directed at me, but lets not kid ourselves Stiverne is being put on the sidelines for a Hearns or Leonard here, one of the guys he runs the risk of being sidelined for is Tyson Fury who has hardly cut a swathe through the best the division has to offer. I also have not said Stiverne deserves a shot, am merely observing that it is a little hypocritical of folk to bemoan governing body shenanigans but suggest they tear their own rules up when it suits them

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
"Hearns didn't deserve a rematch with Hagler."...Is all I saw on here and yet the same people reckon Stiverne deserves a shot.

Well personally I can't ever recall saying that so obviously not directed at me, but lets not kid ourselves Stiverne is being put on the sidelines for a Hearns or Leonard here, one of the guys he runs the risk of being sidelined for is Tyson Fury who has hardly cut a swathe through the best the division has to offer. I also have not said Stiverne deserves a shot, am merely observing that it is a little hypocritical of folk to bemoan governing body shenanigans but suggest they tear their own rules up when it suits them

It's not directed at you..........I'm just suggesting there are those that suggest Hearns banging out number 1 Shuler and competing in the fight of the decade rules Hearns out...

Yet because they don't want Haye and Fury getting status suggest it should be number 1 Stivvy involved.....

I'm past caring about mandatories now..........It's all BS........I just used your quote...and I should have mentioned that when I used it.

Just feel a bit sorry for the guy if it happens Truss, you try to play by the rules, climb the rankings, go through eliminators when instructed (including paying the WBC sanctioning fees lets not forget) to ensure you get a mandatory shot and thus a decent payday without a ridiculously one sided contract only do be potentially told it is all for nothing as the WBC have a better offer.

Rowley wrote:Just feel a bit sorry for the guy if it happens Truss, you try to play by the rules, climb the rankings, go through eliminators when instructed (including paying the WBC sanctioning fees lets not forget) to ensure you get a mandatory shot and thus a decent payday without a ridiculously one sided contract only do be potentially told it is all for nothing as the WBC have a better offer.

I agree he doesn't deserve to be screwed...on the plus side he'd earn more for Fury/Haye than Vitali.......

and he'd probably have a better chance............Plenty of fighters ie Carl williams were paid money to move out the way for a Tyson-Spinks .....

Maybe someone could chuck a few bucks at this guy..

There'd be nothing better for the heavyweight division if Haye won the WBC.

decent article http://www.sportspagemagazine.com/content/fg/all-fg/ln-all-fg/team-stiverne-calls-for-action-vitali-klitschko-ho.shtml?57278

I have to agree with Rowley on this on all the way. I would be happy if the winner of Haye vs Fury was the mandatory or even fought Stiverne, but Stiverne has to be in the mix if for no other reason than playing it straight.

seanmichaels wrote:There'd be nothing better for the heavyweight division if Haye won the WBC.

Cant agree Seanmichaels, think if Haye won it he would retire.

So whats the point?

Would rather have some decent young heavyweight that wants and covets the belt for the right reasons, with a number of decent rivals and big nights of heavyweight boxing brought back to the world fighting globally like Manilla, and Kinsasha....

Oh how we long fo the return of the Golden Era.

Can't see how Haye winning the title would alter anything.

My problem with Haye winning the title is his inactivity. Even if we allow for the fact that the oft repeated claim that he is a guy who brings excitement to the division does not really stand up to analysis is a heavyweight champion who fights once every 12 or 15 months really the answer to the divisions prayers?

I was thinking more about the potential for a rematch with Wlad

seanmichaels wrote:I was thinking more about the potential for a rematch with Wlad

Because the first installment was a thriller.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I was thinking more about the potential for a rematch with Wlad

Because the first installment was a thriller.

Cynic. Actually that's a good question. Are theer examples where a first fight with a barnstorming sequel?

seanmichaels wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I was thinking more about the potential for a rematch with Wlad

Because the first installment was a thriller.

Cynic. Actually that's a good question. Are theer examples where a first fight with a barnstorming sequel?

Lang vs Balboa

Calzaghe vs Viet?

Tricky one, Sean, as it's usually the other way round - great fight first time out, then a stinker of a rematch!

Off the top of my head, maybe the two Sumbu Kalambay-Mike McCallum fights, although neither really fit the bill perfectly. The first one was a superb performance by Kalambay, but not much of a fight because McCallum was so thoroughly outclassed on the night. Still fairly enjoyable because of Kalambay's showing, though.

The second one was a much better fight as McCallum was in much better form for that one and was able to get in close to Kalambay, rather than being stuck on the outside all night and being forced to react rather than initiate. It was also very, very close as opposed to the first one, which Kalambay bossed and hence made a very unexciting spectacle.

As I said, the first one wasn't completely dreadful and the second wasn't quite a barnstormer, but off the top of my head it's the best I can come up with right now!

Irrespective of whether or not the first fight was a stinker and the second is likely to follow a similar pattern, IF Haye gets the shot at Wlad he should be allowed to fight him again. Tony Thompson did having been thoroughly outclassed first time round sp why not Haye?

I fully agree that Stiverne should be in the mix having earned the chance to fight Vitali and he has every right to be aggrieved if Haye/Fury became fight for the vacant belt.

Haye doesn't seem to want to fight Wlad.........Which shows what a classless punk he is....

After all guys like Leonard, Ali, Hearns etc true warriors....Always wanted to avenge a loss or in Haye's case a humiliation..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haye doesn't seem to want to fight Wlad.........Which shows what a classless punk he is....

After all guys like Leonard, Ali, Hearns etc true warriors....Always wanted to avenge a loss or in Haye's case a humiliation..

I thought it was the other way round. The WBC belt makes Haye ( non homo) a lot more attractive for Wlad. Fight could end up being over here as well which would make a difference.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haye doesn't seem to want to fight Wlad

He almost certainly does, simply for the cash it brings to his pocket.

I don't believe he genuinely thinks he can beat him, but I bet he wants to get in the ring with him again.

TRUSSY, you're way way waaaaaay off the mark if you think haye doesn't want to fight Wlad again. After being humiliated last time round (much of it self inflicted in fairness) he wants nothing more than to try and make amends. Maybe, as others have alluded to, he doesn't think he can beat him but I think he knows he can give a much better account of himself.