Timothy Bradley Given an Ultimatum By The WBC

[MELLY-MEL...]

[dblaze9]

I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS BS! This is straight up BULL**** and Jose should be ashamed of himself for this one. I am usually riding with Sulmain but he is just Flat out WRONG on this one! Why would we not want a Unified Champ with all the belts? Why is this a problem all of a sudden? I can't believe they will make him give up a belt for no reason! As long as he is fighting all of his mandatory challengers, then there shouldn't be any issues with it!

I am really disappointed in Jose right now...He usually makes a lot of sense, but this one needs much more explanation before just giving orders to champions.

[MJ406]

Couldn't be more different. Bradley [B]isn't refusing to fight a mandatory,[/B] it's simply that the WBC say they will not allow any of their title holders to hold onto another organisation's belt any more. Which is disgusting.

that hasn't been proven true yet .. where's the WBC trying to get Kelly Pavlik to get rid of his WBO belt?

and what about Vic Darchinyan, didn't he add a WBA and WBC belt to his IBF title at 115?

to my knowledge a sanctioning organization has never made a public statement requesting that a unified champ of theirs .. chose 1 belt and drop the other.

oh and that bit about "refusing to fight a mandatory" well there's actually SOME truth to it, lol.

taken from wbcboxing.com

"Timothy Bradley, the WBC superlightweight champion was given special permission to fight Kendall Holt, the champion of the WBO, instead of making his mandatory defense."

"Consequently, the WBC will allow 15 days for the winner of the fight to decide which championship belt he will keep with the obligation to fight the WBC’s mandatory contender immediately without any intervening fight."

it's still a BS situation and I agree completely with you, Unifications should be happening, but champs getting stripped shouldn't.

boo you, WBC.

[FatNJerseykid]

That's not the point. Sulaiman isn't saying he can keep the belt provided he makes a mandatory defence. He's saying he can't keep the belt unless he gives up the WBO belt. Which is pathetic.

I more upset at the writer for omitting facts about situation, so there is bias in the article. Earlier at the 46th Annual Convention of the WBC held on November 2008, the WBC board of govenors gave Bradley conditions on fighting Holt instead of making a mandatory defense. The special permission was that if Bradley won the bout, he would have had to choose.

You can't dismiss the fact that Timothy Bradley knew that there was a strong possiblity that he would be forced to choose which title he wanted to keep before fighting Holt. He knew ahead of time what will happen if he fought Holt instead of making his mandatory defense. If Bradley fought his mandatory before fighting Holt, he would have been able to keep both of the titles.

Like all businesses, the man wants to control their employees. The WBC wants to keep boxers down and they are afraid of individual star power in the sport. The more a boxer gets popular, the less they need a sanction body.

As a fan, I don't agree of stripping a belts when it comes to unification bouts because it gives clarity and legitimacy to the sport. I think all sanctioning bodies should make exemptions to any unification bout.

[Pullcounter]

the wbc is probably stripping bradley so that another more popular boxer... say hatton, jmm, or pacquiao can fight for it.

its all business guys...

[Dave Rado]

I also notice that and something really needs to be done to erradicate this kind of thing but boxing is not mainstream over here so its difficult to educate the media when all the care about his football.

I doubt we would ever see a champion with 4 major belts anymore, I remember how both Calzaghe and Naz werent allowed to keep their belts after winning it, They werent even given a chance to make a mandatory defense.

It's just as much of a problem in the rest of the world, none of the mainstream media recognise the Ring or lineal titles. See for example:

Ricky Hatton is the current light welterweight kingpin, has been for years in fact, yet there are others within the 140 division who are currently laying claim to being ‘the champion’. At present Timothy Bradley parades the WBC and WBO baubles, Juan Urango punches under the IBF banner, whilst the aforementioned Kotelnik holds his trousers up with a little black number sponsored by the WBA. During the recent Holt-Bradley telecast, Showtime managed to identify all of these men as champions, with with Ricky Hatton harvesting nary a mention and here lies a major problem. Whilst Ricky has proven himself the best light welterweight in the world, in the ring where it counts, what exactly is it that these men champion?

If even Showtime think paper belt holder = world champion, and Ring/lineal title holder = also ran, what hope is there for boxing as a mainstream sport?

BTW, that article I linked to is well worth a read.

[jetgeomcx]

we all admit that nowadays there are pros and cons fighting for a belt and/or fighting with a belt. These sunctioning ABC's are there to make moneys out of boxers. Until such time when everybody that/who matters in boxing agree that these belts are immaterial, they will continue to fleece the hapless prize fighters. I mean if boxers themselves will look for the better fyts irregardless of rankings in different ABC’s or whether they belong to another ABC. Sponsors and promoters play key roles in match-ups, they should not give much regard to belts. The fans should make a loud voice on who they want to watch, and boycott those that are not worthy of main events. The writers, editors, sports mags, critics, scribes, etc should discredit match-ups by ABC’s that are huhummmmm. Time will still come when we can do away with the ABC belts and the likes of “Don Jose Sulaiman”.

[jetgeomcx]

Dave Rado[/B];5044487]Couldn't be more different. Bradley isn't refusing to fight a mandatory, it's simply that the WBC say they will not allow any of their title holders to hold onto another organisation's belt any more. Which is disgusting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grayfist
Isn't Kelly Pavlik defending both his WBC and WBO belts against Sergio Mora in June? Hasn't Pavlik been beltholder of both WBC and WBO since Sept 2007 (Pavlik-Taylor I)? Didn't Pavlik defend both belts against Taylor (rematch), Locket and Rubio?

I don't recall Sulaiman and company ever raising their hackles over any of these past Pavlik fights and they appear impervious about any possible violation of their unification "rules" on the forthcoming Mora meeting.

true indeed! sulaiman is a dictator in wbc who grooms his son now. What a very profitable business empire they got. then sulaiman is not evenhanded on this account, he lets pavlik hold another belt without any treat of being stripped.

[grayfist]

Good point. It's a shame the interviewer didn't raise that with him.

Hey, Dave...

In subsequent posts put up in this thread by well-informed members, I read that, in an attempt to justify its position, the WBC is raising conditions that were reportedly agreed upon prior to the Bradley-Holt fight, i.e., Bradley would be allowed to fight Holt instead of a mandatory defense provided that Brandley chooses which title to keep if he wins the fight.

It's an amazing precondition. Countless mandatories have been waved before without a precondition that comes close to what we have here. There were champs who dumped the WBC belt prior to or after fights (for various reasons), among them, Morales and Holmes, but they did so on their own volition in fitting response to some WBC inanities; they were not required to dump it as is effectively the case here (To me, WBC's demand has only made it inevitable for Bradley to dump the green belt and keep WBO's).

I remember how the WBC treated Frankie Randall in the JCChavez era but that pales in comparison to the crassness of how it is treating Bradley. I cannot recall any past precondition coming from the WBC similar to what was imposed on Bradley. Maybe I missed them.

I dunno... But the next thing that comes to my mind after reading WBC's explanation is one of the distinctions between homecide and murder: premeditation. All along, they seem to have wanted Bradley out of their scene.

I think the explanation only made WBC's position worse.

[armchaireddie]

ok so im confused.
Does this mean the WBC wont allow a unified champion?
what is the purpose of holding the belts?
Im so confused!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

They have allowed other unified champions. I suspect they don't want this unified champion. Possibly because they know of someone they want the belt to belong to not named Timothy Bradley. I immediately suspected that they wanted something to offer to Antonio Margarito to fight in Tijuana since the WBC is of course run by someone who didn't have a problem with the loaded glove thing. But I dont think AM can get down to the proper weight.