Tyson Fury stripped of IBF Title

World heavyweight champion Tyson Fury has been stripped of his IBF title less than two weeks after winning it.

The Briton, 27, had to agree to fight the IBF's mandatory challenger Vyacheslav Glazkov but will instead face Wladimir Klitschko in a rematch.

Fury beat Ukrainian Klitschko on points on 28 November to claim three versions of the heavyweight crown.

Lindsey Tucker, championships chairman at the IBF, told BBC Sport: "It's true he's been stripped of his IBF belt."

He added: "Our challenger was Vyacheslav Glazkov, but instead Fury's gone and signed a rematch clause with Wladimir Klitschko."

Fury, who is unbeaten in 25 professional contests, retains the WBA and WBO versions of the heavyweight title, while the WBC belt is held by American Deontay Wilder.

The 31-year-old Glazkov, also a Ukrainian, has won 21 of his 22 professional fights.

The contract for last month's title fight in Dusseldorf included a clause for a rematch, for which the date and the venue have to be decided, and Klitschko - who had been world champion for 11 years - announced last week he would take up the option

This has to go up there as one of the dumbest decisions ever made. Fury had to face Klitschko again. Why wouldn't the IBF want their title on the line in one of the biggest Heavyweight fights in years.

Well that belt just got more meaningless

Even worse they have ordered Glazkov to face Charles Martin... Who?

Well I just looked him up. His record is 22-0-1 20KOs. He was due to face Dominic Breazeale this weekend but has already announced he is pulling out of that one. His best win was a 1st round stoppage of Tom Dallas (remember him?) earlier this year.

As for Glazkov, hes outpointed Adamek and Cunningham. Big whoop. Well done IBF, you just went and screwed up there

Bloody hell Tom Dallas. Remember him being undefeated and getting obliterated by a myth...David Price..

Yeh well his career faltered. All 5 defeats have come by stoppage

World Sporting bodies tend to be corrupt now or in the past (e.g. FIFA, IAAF, UCI, IOC ... I will add allegedly for legal purposes) with international crime often used as the business model (allegedly, cartels, closed shops, back room meetings, brown envelops, kickbacks, controlled turf ...).  With boxing there are five separate organisations claiming to represent professional boxing at world level, all offering "world titles" ...

There are various issues with regard boxing as a sport and as an international sport.  It has all become niche and commercial.  Elements of society want it to be banned considering it as organised thuggery and unrepresentative of the ideal of a civilised society.  Boxers have gone down the road of speaking more and more crudely in order to promote their fights and attract mainstream media to report on it.

To be fair to the IBF, they've actually got a clause regarding mandatories in their rulebook thing. So fair play. I'm surprised they took this route though because there's no way there's money in whatsisname fighting whatsisface than there is in a Fury-klitsckho jamboree

Charles Martin is actually a decent prospect. Problem is that's all he is at this stage, a prospect. Silly decision. These organisations just strip who they want and leave other dormant champions with titles. No consistency. But then again no accountability either.

Makes no business sense either. A unification fight with wilder would be financially massive. I can't see this fight or any other in the near future for that matter generating much money.

spencerclarke wrote:Charles Martin is actually a decent prospect. Problem is that's all he is at this stage, a prospect. Silly decision. These organisations just strip who they want and leave other dormant champions with titles. No consistency. But then again no accountability either.

To be fair the IBF are the most consistant body of the four since the USA authorities investigated them in the early 2000's

spencerclarke wrote:Makes no business sense either. A unification fight with wilder would be financially massive. I can't see this fight or any other in the near future for that matter generating much money.

Heavyweight fights always generate money and always will...

As for the IBF...no prizes for guessing where Joshua will be headed now..

The IBF are a putrid disgrace. Vile anti-British organisation that condones drugs cheating.

Half of the British World champions are IBF champions....Brook, Degale, Selby, Haskins, Frampton etc....

Can't get more anti-British than that.....

Degale, Brook, Haskins, Selby and Frampton all current British IBF world champions.

I've never known the guy ever say anything nice about anybody or anything...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Degale, Brook, Haskins, Selby and Frampton all current British IBF world champions.

Might seem like a stupid comment, but a Brit becomes undisputed HW world champ and suddenly gets stripped, LP is proven a drugs cheat in beating Khan but only the IBF let him keep the belts.

How many of those other guys have simply worked their way up to contender status to win the belt? Never know what IBF might do next to strip them. Frampton is a bad example too, he spanked Kiko silly but Kiko ended up getting the IBF shot and strap so he had to beat him a second time to get the belt he deserved.

All the IBF have done is follow their own rules so I don't the problem with it.

What ever happened to wanting your world title to be held by the best fighter? I know there are rules for mandatories but everyone knows you beat Wlad you are legally bound to repeat the feat if you want the belts. It's not really a choice so make an exception.

He doesn't need the iBF ......He's the man at the weight..

Anyway when have they ever wanted the best fighter to hold the title ??...They want the biggest money spinner holding it and when someone has three organisations to feed...The money takes a while to come..

Who gives a toss? Right now, Tyson Fury is number one in the Heavyweight division. I know it. He knows it. You know it.

Who cares about one pathetic strap?

This is why lineal championships make far more sense than anything else these days. Fury is the heavyweight champion. He beat the champion, Klitschko, in a boxing ring (rather than a suit's office). Even if he's stripped of all of his belts, he remains the king until someone beats him.

Wilder and whoever subsequently picks up the IBF belt are not champions.

It's just a romantic notion I have, TRUSS. The champion holding the belt for the champion just seems logical. Glazkov having the belt is like saying 'let's pretend you're a champion'.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All the IBF have done is follow their own rules so I don't the problem with it.

If Fury had had a rematch clause do you think they'd have stripped Wlad??

hazharrison wrote:This is why lineal championships make far more sense than anything else these days. Fury is the heavyweight champion. He beat the champion, Klitschko, in a boxing ring (rather than a suit's office). Even if he's stripped of all of his belts, he remains the king until someone beats him.

Wilder and whoever subsequently picks up the IBF belt are not champions.

Michael spinks fleeing the HBO contest so he doesn't face Tyson...giving up his belt and remaining champion because he's linear..

Holmes giving up the WBC because he only wants soft touches to get to Marciano's record...and won't fight Greg Page....and yet remains champion because he's linear..

Linear is Bollox..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:This is why lineal championships make far more sense than anything else these days. Fury is the heavyweight champion. He beat the champion, Klitschko, in a boxing ring (rather than a suit's office). Even if he's stripped of all of his belts, he remains the king until someone beats him.

Wilder and whoever subsequently picks up the IBF belt are not champions.

Michael spinks fleeing the HBO contest so he doesn't face Tyson...giving up his belt and remaining champion because he's linear..

Holmes giving up the WBC because he only wants soft touches to get to Marciano's record...and won't fight Greg Page....and yet remains champion because he's linear..

Linear is Bollox..

So you believe Glazkov (should he win it) and Wilder are champions? And you're claiming my view is bollo cks?

Spinks beat Holmes who beat Ali. That's how heavyweight championships should work. Yes he ducked out of facing Tyson for a while - just resulted in a poor title reign. Tyson got him eventually.

Stripping champions of belts is how we ended up where we are - with a host of Brits holding ABC titles (which you've complained long and hard about in just another example of your hypocrisy).

Fury is the champion - the rest are contenders. That's the reality of these things.

After Ez Charles beat Walcott to become heavyweight champion, the BBBofC refused to acknowledge him (preferring to crown the winner of Bruce Woodcock and Lee Savold). Guess what? No-one cares about that type of screwy reasoning these days. Charles was the boss until Walcott stopped him.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All the IBF have done is follow their own rules so I don't the problem with it.

If Fury had had a rematch clause do you think they'd have stripped Wlad??

Not a chance. It's an absolute disgrace but hey, more money in Fury's pocket at the end of the day. He needs to come up with something better than dumping it in a trash can. Maybe take a dump on it live on IFLTV? They'll film anything.

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All the IBF have done is follow their own rules so I don't the problem with it.

If Fury had had a rematch clause do you think they'd have stripped Wlad??

Not a chance. It's an absolute disgrace but hey, more money in Fury's pocket at the end of the day. He needs to come up with something better than dumping it in a trash can. Maybe take a dump on it live on IFLTV? They'll film anything.

If they did film Fury taking a dump on the belt, how much of a close up would it be- ten yards or three yards maybe?

Classless decision by the IBF not letting the new heavyweight champion of the world bask in his glory for a few months before making this soulless decision.

And who gets the work Helder or Cassius?


Fury should Poopie right over it. They just need to find a shopping centre and a crowd.

Media campaign and IBF, pathetic.

All sounds a bit juvenile to me.....Being filmed dumping belts in trash cans...

Maybe he can be filmed chucking it at a homosexual instead..

A few on here would love that I expect..

Why would he do that, his uncle has publicly stated he's not homophobic?

You can't seem to let the subject go, Truss.

Could Fury just not give the belt back?

Say "This is my belt, this is THE belt, it is the only IBF belt of the TRUE heavyweight champion, if somebody wants it they'll have to fight me for it. IBF can only make a new 'fake' version."

Herman Jaeger wrote:And who gets the work Helder or Cassius?


Fury should Poopie right over it. They just need to find a shopping centre and a crowd.

Truss would turn up shouting: "Noooooooooooooooo.....Tony Tucker was the heavyweight champion in the 80's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

TopHat24/7 wrote:Could Fury just not give the belt back?

Say "This is my belt, this is THE belt, it is the only IBF belt of the TRUE heavyweight champion, if somebody wants it they'll have to fight me for it. IBF can only make a new 'fake' version."

It's ripe for a big statement. Or a big turd........

Proper boxing fans won't give a monkeys. Lewis didn't fight the WBA'S number 1 (Ruiz) straight after Holyfield so he was stripped. Everybody knew who the champ was then, same as now.

In my opinion the WBA were a joke back then just as the IBF are today.

Next thing to happen will be the WBA taking the "super" belt off him.

The WBA give that to a fighter who holds 2 of the major belts.
Fury only has the WBO now so they'll strip him.

Most of the British world champions hold the IBF.........

They don't seem to have a problem with the "American" organisation...

They were the only organisation to give Douglas the belt after he beat Tyson.....

Stripping a halfwit who has a mouth like a toilet maybe isn't the worse thing in the World...

It might be my imagination but Fury seems even more popular with some on this board since his paed rant...

A very sad turn of events indeedy....

Herman Jaeger wrote:And who gets the work Helder or Cassius?


Fury should Poopie right over it. They just need to find a shopping centre and a crowd.

Cassius I imagine would get this job. He's spent enough time up eddie's harris, to be their designated poop reporter. Finally, a subject he could offer expert opinion on.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Most of the British world champions hold the IBF.........

They don't seem to have a problem with the "American" organisation...

They were the only organisation to give Douglas the belt after he beat Tyson.....

Stripping a halfwit who has a mouth like a toilet maybe isn't the worse thing in the World...

It might be my imagination but Fury seems even more popular with some on this board since his paed rant...

A very sad turn of events indeedy....

So you're in favour of stripping fighters for being controversial now? Dear me, have you got shares in the IBF?

Where did I say I was in favor ???...sweetie pie.

To be honest, looking at the dates, the last IBF mandatory was Pulev last year. If Fury fought voluntary + Klitschko rematch next year, it would mean the IBF mandatory would have to wait nearly two years to get a shot. I can only assume that allowing your mandatories to wait that long, ostensibly without even step aside money is not how you go about being the route of choice for world title contenders

Who gives feck anyway ? Its about time we only recognize the lineal or RING champion.
Lets be honest Britain has 11 world champs and really we only have one legitimate one and thats Tyson Fury - possibly James Degale has a shout and being top dog in the SuperMiddle but its up in the air. The others are just manufactured through the system , I mean Anthony Crolla a world champ - nice kid but come on.

Cheers. Rodders

Haz you do know that Charles wasn't recognised as the 'lineal' champion until he beat the retired Joe Louis right?

Fury shouldn't be too fussed. He can fight Glazkov later. It will be billed as a unification fight (money spinner). It will also be promoted as Fury attempting to win back the title that his rightfully his (another money spinner)

Wonder what Fury would have to do to become IBF mandatory....?

Or would it be the usual commission BS where he magically isn't in the Top 10 somehow but a bunch of bums are.....

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz you do know that Charles wasn't recognised as the 'lineal' champion until he beat the retired Joe Louis right?

Louis retired. The line ended there. Charles and Walcott were the two outstanding successors and Charles became top man after defeating Walcott. The fact only the NBA recognised him is neither here nor there (the EU deciding that Bruce Woodcock vs Lee Savold - a guy Louis pulverised in an exhibition bout - is as ridiculous as this IBF malarkey).

While Louis came back and tied up the lineal thing I'd contend that Charles was the champion anyway (even if Louis hadn't come back). Otherwise I guess we're all still waiting for Lennox Lewis to come back?

Similar situation to Ali and Holmes.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz you do know that Charles wasn't recognised as the 'lineal' champion until he beat the retired Joe Louis right?

It's one of the 'lineal' debates really hammer isn't it. Louis retires, the perceived two best challenger face off... at that point you could argue the winner, charles, is lineal. The old champion, Louis comes back... wasn't defeated in the ring... is he still lineal and the current champion no longer lineal? Or is Charles still Lineal because of louis' earlier retirement? The consensus I believe is that charles was only lineal after beating louis.  

I guess its muddled when a champion retires with the belt. Shortly after marciano went and did it  too... rather than unselfishly hang around until he took a good pasting so he could pass the belt on in the ring.

It's been ezzard charles week on here. Hopefully Haz will read another book soon, and we can get some alternative examples that aren't so confusing!

milkyboy wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz you do know that Charles wasn't recognised as the 'lineal' champion until he beat the retired Joe Louis right?

It's one of the 'lineal' debates really hammer isn't it. Louis retires, the perceived two best challenger face off... at that point you could argue the winner, charles, is lineal. The old champion, Louis comes back... wasn't defeated in the ring... is he still lineal and the current champion no longer lineal? Or is Charles still Lineal because of louis' earlier retirement? The consensus I believe is that charles was only lineal after beating louis.  

I guess its muddled when a champion retires with the belt. Shortly after marciano went and did it  too... rather than unselfishly hang around until he took a good pasting so he could pass the belt on in the ring.

It's been ezzard charles week on here. Hopefully Haz will read another book soon, and we can get some alternative examples that aren't so confusing!

Hey, he's fresh in my mind, what can I say? I still have Greb and Ali in my in-tray - what do you fancy next?