Comments Thread For: Whyte Livid With WBC - Breazeale-Molina Winner in Line For Wilder

[trouser python]

Nobody said otherwise, so right off the bat your opening argument is strawman. For a guy named Boxing Logic, it's not a good look for your first sentence to be a logical fallacy.




Stiverne was already the officially declared mandatory. He was entitled to a shot at Wilder, not a final eliminator. He has to seek special permission from the WBC to be able to put his title shot up for grabs against Breazeale. But once Breazeale is approved for that final eliminator, you can't just take it away from him because Ortiz failed a test. So Breazeale is entitled to face the highest ranked available contender.


False. First he was given a title shot. He then volunteered for the final eliminator.




False. Once he's promised the final eliminator, you can't take it away from him just because Ortiz failed a test. Breazeale has legal rights.




And that is where you lose everyone. You tried to fake your way through sounding somewhat sane, then you devolve into nonsense conspiracies and plainly reveal that you are a lunatic.

Povetkin and Ortiz have both been caught cheating MULTIPLE TIMES.

If in your head they are clean fighters who have been framed multiple times, please seek professional help.

LOOOL but you can take it away from him because hearn threw a tantrum??? LOL weren't you saying in this same thread that "It doesn't work that way" and also having a go at people saying corruption was involved????

So if "It doesnt work that way" and "You just can't take it off Brezeale" and "There is no corruption involved" well then please explain why Hearn gets his own way??

[trouser python]

Dillian Whyte won an eliminator less than a year ago, but not a final eliminator.

Stiverne was already mandatory and agreed to face Breazeale in a final eliminator. When King Kong's drug test messed up the card, Breazeale's final eliminator can't just be taken away from him. Lawsuit waiting to happen. So the WBC's only choice was to have Breazeale fight the next available leading contender, which ended up being Molina.

Whyte fought on 10/28, so obviously he was unavailable for the 11/4 final eliminator. That's why he was skipped over.

Whyte will get a final eliminator next year and if he wins, he'll be the mandatory for 2019, which means it could take until 2020 to force the fight.

Welcome to boxing.

Should I be expecting a lawsuit now LOOOOL

[N/A]

So if "It doesnt work that way" and "You just can't take it off Brezeale" and "There is no corruption involved" well then please explain why Hearn gets his own way??

Because the WBC's primary job is to mediate disagreements between promoters. Where is the corruption? Haymon & King requested a final eliminator for the reasons that were explained. A prominent promoter strongly objected because his fighter had won an eliminator, so the WBC adjusted their position.

Were you not aware that people change their minds sometimes?

[trouser python]

Because the WBC's primary job is to mediate disagreements between promoters. Where is the corruption? Haymon & King requested a final eliminator for the reasons that were explained. A prominent promoter strongly objected because his fighter had won an eliminator, so the WBC adjusted their position.

Were you not aware that people change their minds sometimes?

So the WBC has simply 'Adjusted their position' in the face of 'A law suit waiting to happen'?

Does that pretty much sum up what you're trying to say?

[trouser python]

Because the WBC's primary job is to mediate disagreements between promoters. Where is the corruption? Haymon & King requested a final eliminator for the reasons that were explained. A prominent promoter strongly objected because his fighter had won an eliminator, so the WBC adjusted their position.

Were you not aware that people change their minds sometimes?

LOL Crickets

[N/A]

So the WBC has simply 'Adjusted their position' in the face of 'A law suit waiting to happen'?

Does that pretty much sum up what you're trying to say?

Hearn was pushing for Whyte to be named mandatory. Haymon was pushing for Breazeale to be named mandatory.

It's the two most powerful power brokers in the WBC and the WBC's job is to act as a mediator between them.

Several fighters were skipped over to approve Breazeale and Molina, but for the reasons that were explained in the thread, the WBC couldn't just take Breazeales eliminator away. Which is why he was allowed to face the highest ranked contender willing to take the fight on short notice.

They changed their mind about it being a final eliminator after the objection of a powerful promoter. These things happen all the times. Sanctioning bodies literally have annual conventions so promoters can show up and argue in favor of why their fighters should be ranked higher and then the WBC has to mediate the gripes of all of the promoters.

[trouser python]

Hearn was pushing for Whyte to be named mandatory. Haymon was pushing for Breazeale to be named mandatory.

It's the two most powerful power brokers in the WBC and the WBC's job is to act as a mediator between them.

Several fighters were skipped over to approve Breazeale and Molina, but for the reasons that were explained in the thread, the WBC couldn't just take Breazeales eliminator away. Which is why he was allowed to face the highest ranked contender willing to take the fight on short notice.

They changed their mind about it being a final eliminator after the objection of a powerful promoter. These things happen all the times. Sanctioning bodies literally have annual conventions so promoters can show up and argue in favor of why their fighters should be ranked higher and then the WBC has to mediate the gripes of all of the promoters.

Why didn't you just copy and paste your last post because you are largely just repeating yourself now? And why do you keep posting this obvious ****? A young child could understand that the WBC has changed their mind, they had a stance on the final eliminator and now it is different. As I said, not too hard to comprehend that one.

What I am trying to confirm is that Breazeale is going to sue the pants off the WBC now right? Based on your earlier comments in this thread, you would feel it would be ****** for him not to right? Considering it was a, quote: "lawsuit waiting to happen", and they have now potentially limited his future earnings?

In addition to this question it has also confused me WHY the WBC would change their mind in the face of a imminent lawsuit, with what seems to be no financial upside on the contrary? Isn't this extremely poor management on behalf of their organisation, if the lawsuit is all but going to happen? Do these guys enjoy flushing money down the toilet?

[trouser python]

Hearn was pushing for Whyte to be named mandatory. Haymon was pushing for Breazeale to be named mandatory.

It's the two most powerful power brokers in the WBC and the WBC's job is to act as a mediator between them.

Several fighters were skipped over to approve Breazeale and Molina, but for the reasons that were explained in the thread, the WBC couldn't just take Breazeales eliminator away. Which is why he was allowed to face the highest ranked contender willing to take the fight on short notice.

They changed their mind about it being a final eliminator after the objection of a powerful promoter. These things happen all the times. Sanctioning bodies literally have annual conventions so promoters can show up and argue in favor of why their fighters should be ranked higher and then the WBC has to mediate the gripes of all of the promoters.

More crickets lol

[KillaCamNZ]

Any road that potentially leads to another Wilder-Molina fight, should be blown to absolute pieces.

The WBC sure knows how to put out some garbage.

[N/A]

Why didn't you just copy and paste your last post because you are largely just repeating yourself now?

You posted the same question over and over, why wouldn't our answer be the same?

What I am trying to confirm is that Breazeale is going to sue the pants off the WBC now right? Based on your earlier comments in this thread, you would feel it would be ****** for him not to right? Considering it was a, quote: "lawsuit waiting to happen", and they have now potentially limited his future earnings?

Taking away his eliminator would have been a lawsuit waiting to happen, but Hearn was fired up enough that keeping it as a FINAL eliminator may have resulted in a different lawsuit. That is why running a sanctioning body is so complicated. Conflicting interests around every corner and you have to navigate it the best you can.

Haymon & King wanted the winner of their fight to be the mandatory, Hearn wanted Whyte named mandatory. All three hold major sway with the WBC. It's up to the WBC to mediate and hope to avoid a lawsuit. Clearly there's been some sort of compromise that Whyte will not be named mandatory and the fight was downgraded to a regular eliminator and not a final one.

In theory, Whyte and Breazeale must fight now as both have won eliminators, but Breazeale will likely get a voluntary shot, so it may not matter.

We're not really sure what your point is though. People complained about Breazeale/Molina being an eliminator, we simply explained why it was an eliminator. It was going to be a final eliminator, but the WBC changed their mind. So what is the problem exactly?