Posts: 12,621
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 1970
Ah, they were thinking about putting him at Joshua's place at #4, but changed their mind, hence the wrong first name. That's ok. AJ said he's not ready to make his run yet, and there's no one in front of Parker except Takam. So I'm just hoping that the IBF wants to force the Martin vs Glazkov to fight for a mandatory instead of dilly-dollying around. Could take years otherwise. That's ok, Parker is ranked WBO #3 and threaten to fight Fury or Klit winner.
I just hopes that this makes up for Parker not fighting Briggs or Arreola. I like to make Kiwi happy. Want all the posters to be happy. Me included.
Posts: 999
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2015
I am happy, Diehard. LOL.
I know the IBF likes to enforce Mandatories. Which makes them a better bet for Joe. I wonder if they will push for AJ to do something to maintain high IBF rankings?
Could JP vs AJ be forced for a Mandatory spot?
Interesting days ahead.
-Kiwi
Posts: 428
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2015
01-05-2016, 06:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2016, 06:30 PM by gothenaki.)
IBF looks good, until Wilder fights the winner of Martin v Glazkov. Then the winner of that fights Haymon fighter Arreola (who has got himself into the top 15 with a couple of dodgy decisions).
The IBF could then indeed force AJ and JP to fight an eliminator, but by then Wilder goes for a unification fight with Fury/Klit.
AJ, JP, Ortiz and Povetkin could be dodged for a while yet.
Sorry for playing the pessimist - not usually my style. Just think Haymon has invested hundreds of millions for a reason..
Don't get me wrong - I'm looking forward to this year and looking forward to some great fights.
I just wouldn't be surprised if the title shot is a little further away, and will be against a much tougher opponent than Glazkov or Martin.
Posts: 12,621
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 1970
I don't see Parker having any trouble with Fury. Klit had problems with him because he forgot to fight. Different story with Wilder. He can match Parker with speed and power. Funnily enough, they've faced about the same quality of opposition.
I don't think Parker fights for a title this year, but I think he puts himself in line for one. As in, he becomes the #1 or #2 in an alphabet or two, an eliminator, or even a mandatory.
Unifications don't happen very often. So I don't see Wilder, Fury, or Martin/Glazkov fighting each other in 2016. Alphabets like to hold onto their champs, and not share. What I worry is that they'll bypass Parker unless forced to fight him. Same as they bypass Povetkin.
But Stu says he has a plan, and a strategy. Gotta put my money on Stu. Diehard's strategy, you may ask? Take advantage of being ranked in 4 alphabets and play them off one another. As in, "ok, you don't want me for an eliminator to fight the Martin/Glazkov winner? I'll (Parker) see if Fury wants to fight me at the 02, or maybe Wilder needs an opponent." That's what Diehard would do.
Posts: 999
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2015
Agreed, Diehard.
But I think in the IBF they can't avoid Mandatory challenges. So if JP can get Mandatory with IBF he may get his shot - even if the champs try avoidance.
-Kiwi
Posts: 12,621
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 1970
I honestly don't know how the IBF functions. But most alphabets don't immediately demand a mandatory to the new champ, certainly not the first year. Look at Wilder, he still doesn't have a mandatory a year after beating Stiverne. Fury had to fight Klit because of a contract clause demanding a rematch if Klit lost. Except with the IBF.
Posts: 999
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2015
My understanding is IBF these days is run by strict rules.
Which is good, really.
Helps our man, anyway.
-Kiwi
Posts: 12,621
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 1970
They may be strict, Kiwi, but my question is: will the IBF order a mandatory defense for the winner in their very next fight? I would guess not, but I'm just using common sense and guessing. Surely they would give the winner some breathing space???
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/75626208/joseph-parker-up-to-no-6-with-ibf-as-nz-heavyweight-boxers-profile-builds
Posts: 428
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2015
01-05-2016, 09:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2016, 09:51 PM by gothenaki.)
Not sure how squeaky-clean the IBF is...
On the subject of Fury being stripped 2 weeks after winning the title, Boxmad magazine made the point;
"Klitschko did not defend the IBF crown against one of their mandatory challengers for a period of three-and-a-half years – from March 2007 to September 2010 – after winning the title from Chris Byrd in 2006, yet he retained the title throughout that time-frame and during his lengthy reign went on to make the IBF millions. With Wladimir’s global popularity and fan-base, the IBF would have wanted to remain affiliated with such a cash cow.
It’s ultimately a case of double-standards. Regardless of whether or not the IBF are technically sticking to their rules in stripping Fury, you can’t uphold a rule for one fighter and not for another. Or perhaps you can if you’re a sanctioning body in modern boxing, as is regularly proven to be the case."
Posts: 12,621
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 1970
Pure and simple. IBF did NOT have a rematch clause for Fury if he defeated Klit. The WBA and WBO did. So when Fury decided to rematch Klit, he broke their rules. I think for a rematch clause, Fury would have had to pay the IBF some money, but didn't. IBF basically dropped the ball.
The IBF wanted Fury to fight their mandatory instead of a rematch with Klit. He refused. They threw Fury out of their ranking.
|
