Anthony Joshua ordered to fight two mandatories at the same time!

As we all know the IBF stipulated if AJ didn't fight Wlad he would have to fight Kubrat Pulev(the IBF Mandatory). As has been reported the deal is almost already in place for the fight.

However the WBA Ordered AJ to fight their mandatory challenger Luis Ortiz. They have 30 days to come to a deal or go to purse bids, this was ordered yesterday.

What do you make of the situation? Do you think the WBA will strip AJ?

I think he should fight them both on the same night.

Doesn't surprise me, the usual sanctioning body BS. If you hold more than one belt you're into a world of political ballcocks. I think they only do this to take cash in exchange for special dispensation for not fighting their mandatory.

Wladimir Klitschko must have had a good team of lawyers to prevent the various sanctioning bodies from stripping him of one of his titles. He held the WBA, IBF and WBO titles. His brother focussed on the WBC title.

No name Bertie wrote:Wladimir Klitschko must have had a good team of lawyers to prevent the various sanctioning bodies from stripping him of one of his titles.  He held the WBA, IBF and WBO titles.  His brother focussed on the WBC title.

You just have to pay the fees. The mandatory rules are only there so they can 'sanction' a world title fight and collect their cheque.

This is, as stated above, standard governing body rubbish. I think that provided AJ is happy to accommodate fat boy Ortiz after his defence against overrated Pulev, the WBA will accept it. They have about 43 different titles anyway...

They will realise that AJ is the current King of the Hill and will want to be on board that gravy train. Wlad used to just take care of his mandatories one by one. No reason why AJ can't either.

Pulev tbc for Oct 28 for AJ. Then it's Ortiz in the spring, followed by Wilder in the summer 18'

I don't think anyone could complain with that if it happens but not a lot left out there afterwards.

Scottrf wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:Wladimir Klitschko must have had a good team of lawyers to prevent the various sanctioning bodies from stripping him of one of his titles.  He held the WBA, IBF and WBO titles.  His brother focussed on the WBC title.

You just have to pay the fees. The mandatory rules are only there so they can 'sanction' a world title fight and collect their cheque.

As much as I don't care for the sanctioning bodies, I'm going to defend them a little. They are totally correct in collecting their cheques. There's no reason why they should provide belts, rankings etc....for free. Fighters fight for these belts knowing the rules, knowing full well that they're going to have to make mandatories against fighters that may not guarantee them a big pay day. If they don't want to pay sanctioning fees or defend against fighters who aren't big ticket sellers, then don't fight for the belt.

Another thing is that if fighters fought more often, they would have plenty of time to make their mandatories.

If a small money fighter holds multiple belts they tend to strip them. It makes sense seeing they will only get a split of the sanctioning fees.

Stripping AJ of a belt would seem like cutting your nose off to spitebyour face, considering he is the future of heavyweight boxing, with the potential to popular on more than one continent.

Can't argue with those three fights.

The sanctioning bodies are essentially a scam but as lightly regarded and obvious as it is, enough tv networks, promoters, fighters and fans buy into it that it keeps the sytem propped up.

Im curious as to the cost benefit ratio of these titles in the sport. All of these sanctioning bodies are taking money out of the sport through their titles and ranking systems (not just the "world titles" alone but also via numerous other lesser titles, sanctioned fight and ranking points). So the sport of boxing is propping up all of these various sanctioning bodies which are draining money out of the sport in return for a plethora of titles and hodge podge ranking system that almost nobody takes at face value.

The counter argument is that holding these various titles and playing the rankings game increases an individual boxers earning potential. More world champions, more title fights and more avenues for fighters to use to get to land a title or even just title shot and the associated financial benefits of that.

Overall it hs led to a strange symbiotic kind of system but you wonder is the money being gobbled up by the santioning bodies is really being evened out in generating more earnings for fighters. Overall I would suspect no, but it survives on the kind of short term narrow focus thinking that dominates boxing.

Under the current system an awful lot of ordinary boxers can challenge for or even win world titles. Under a one belt title and ranking system the door would be slammed shut on a lot of boxers ability to make any kind of real money from the sport. Most boxers will be looking at more titles meaning more opportunites to challenge for or win world titles which means more chances for them to make real money. Even if the overall cost to the sport is these sanctioning bodies draining money out of it.

If you take the Crawford / Indongo fight as an example. 250k paid in sanctioning fees for that fight. For Crawford to ditch one belt straight away and more than likely ditch them all to move up. Worth it?

catchweight wrote:The sanctioning bodies are essentially a scam but as lightly regarded and obvious as it is, enough tv networks, promoters, fighters and fans buy into it that it keeps the sytem propped up.

Im curious as to the cost benefit ratio of these titles in the sport. All of these sanctioning bodies are taking money out of the sport through their titles and ranking systems (not just the "world titles" alone but also via numerous other lesser titles, sanctioned fight and ranking points). So the sport of boxing is propping up all of these various sanctioning bodies which are draining money out of the sport in return for a plethora of titles and hodge podge ranking system that almost nobody takes at face value.

The counter argument is that holding these various titles and playing the rankings game increases an individual boxers earning potential. More world champions, more title fights and more avenues for fighters to use to get to land a title or even just title shot and the associated financial benefits of that.

Overall it hs led to a strange symbiotic kind of system but you wonder is the money being gobbled up by the santioning bodies is really being evened out in generating more earnings for fighters. Overall I would suspect no, but it survives on the kind of short term narrow focus thinking that dominates boxing.

Under the current system an awful lot of ordinary boxers can challenge for or even win world titles. Under a one belt title and ranking system the door would be slammed shut on a lot of boxers ability to make any kind of real money from the sport. Most boxers will be looking at more titles meaning more opportunites to challenge for or win world titles which means more chances for them to make real money. Even if the overall cost to the sport is these sanctioning bodies draining money out of it.

If you take the Crawford / Indongo fight as an example. 250k paid in sanctioning fees for that fight. For Crawford to ditch one belt straight away and more than likely ditch them all to move up. Worth it?

Tricky one. I long for a one belt system but unless that belt is being defended 3-4 times per year at least the system is flawed.

A ranking system would need to be completely fair so that if someone is in the top 20 they have to fight someone 1-2 places higher or 1-2 places lower only and a win against someone higher gains you 1 place. A loss against someone higher doesn't have an effect on the rank but one against someone lower does. Each fighter needs to fight a minimum 4 times per year with 2 fighters being ranked higher and 2 ranked lower. Other fights on top of that could be against anyone.

If a fighter fought the minimum times per year it would take 11 years to be a champion. If the division was poor and they fought 6 times per year with the additional two being against higher ranked fighters we would be looking at 6 years.

With this type of system we would never have a chance to have a Tyson again as his short prime would have only got him around the top 10 which would be the main problem with this as far as I can see. I guess the solution there is that if someone fights someone further than the 1-2 places in the rankings and the lower ranked fighter wins they swap places. So if someone ranked 5th fights someone ranked 10th and loses they just swap position.

The champion should be the one that generates the most cash but there will always be fighters who excite the crowd that would get more based upon their support (PPV, crowd share etc.)

Difficulty here is that boxers would be forced to be more active for less prestige. It sounds better to be a world champion than the 6th best fighter at the weight in the world...

sky hype in overdrive for the pulev fight, ive just heard nelson say that it was a career best performance from wlad to beat pulev! while it was a while ago since i watched it i remember it being the usual bore jab grab performance where he didnt break sweat

compelling and rich wrote:sky hype in overdrive for the pulev fight, ive just heard nelson say that it was a career best performance from wlad to beat pulev! while it was a while ago since i watched it i remember it being the usual bore jab grab performance where he didnt break sweat

Not sure that's a fair reflection, Wlad was more aggressive than usual in that fight, throwing his left like he hadn't for years.

LionsV2 wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:sky hype in overdrive for the pulev fight, ive just heard nelson say that it was a career best performance from wlad to beat pulev! while it was a while ago since i watched it i remember it being the usual bore jab grab performance where he didnt break sweat

Not sure that's a fair reflection, Wlad was more aggressive than usual in that fight, throwing his left like he hadn't for years.

more aggressive than usual doesn't mean he was aggressive, would you rate it as one of his best performances?

It was a middling performance, he got wobbled early on and then opened up more than usual so from an offensive point of view it was one of his better performances.

compelling and rich wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:sky hype in overdrive for the pulev fight, ive just heard nelson say that it was a career best performance from wlad to beat pulev! while it was a while ago since i watched it i remember it being the usual bore jab grab performance where he didnt break sweat

Not sure that's a fair reflection, Wlad was more aggressive than usual in that fight, throwing his left like he hadn't for years.

more aggressive than usual doesn't mean he was aggressive, would you rate it as one of his best performances?

I thought it was one of his better performances due to his aggression and how Wlad finished Pulev, I expect AJ to do the same

It was certainly one of his more entertaining fights while it lasted... whether he chose to go aggressive or it was a reaction to getting tagged... I can't remember, but he let his hands go

The WBA have confirmed that Povetkin is now the mandatory for Anthony Joshua, after his comeback victory over Christian Hammer.